Messenger. The. Shoot. Don't.

McDonald's is apparently really very cross that a new edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary includes the definition for the term "McJob" as "low-paying and dead-end work" (and this is reported as "news" despite the fact that this meaning for the term was coined by Douglas Coupland over 10 years ago--frankly I'm surprised it hasn't made it into the dictionary more quickly).

Some people never learn. Just as the ill-thought out legal action of the McLibel case backfired spectacularly resulting in years of negative publicity, so the effect of issuing this press release has been not only to promote someone else's product, but also to paint themselves as the bad guy oppressive multinational trying to censor the English language in the name of trademark dilution. Did they really expect anyone reading this to take McDonald's side? Of course it's those dictionary-compiling jerks that are really at fault, not the poor little multinational conglomerate.

Comments (2)

So. Prince Charles, then.

WARNING: If you're waiting to see this story in the British media, and you don't want to know the score, please look away now... (and if you do want to know the score, you can find it here).

So, as I'm sure everybody knows by now, even if they don't get Popbitch, a "senior Royal" might have been caught in a compromising (homo)sexual situation with a close aide. Allegedly. Or he might not. Well, so what if he was? I'm not sure I can really work out what the fuss is about, to be honest. The last time I checked it was the 21st century, where homosexuality isn't actually illegal, and I'm fairly sure that most people (at least outside the Church of England) think that what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own palace is a matter for them alone. That said, if one of those consenting adults happened to be next-in-line to be head of the Church of England, that might potentially cause a problem for these people (link is to the "Newsday" website story purely for the childish amusement value of the headline: "Split Widens Over Gay Bishop". Sorry.) However, the question remains whether the rest of us could really care less if the allegation turned out to be true.

An allegation of homosexuality, valid or otherwise, shouldn't necessarily "destroy the monarchy" ((c) The Daily Mail) any more than infidelity and divorce have done--fodder for the tabloids, yes, but accepting that the monarchy are human beings, rather than God's representatives bestowed with the divine right of Kings, as I think most of us did several hundred years ago, what, ultimately, is the problem?

Perhaps something that would be a problem, if it were true, would be if the Royal Family could be proven to have perverted the course of justice to prevent their secrets from coming out (if you'll pardon the pun)? If "a(nother) senior royal" were to remember suddenly a conversation about "dark forces" and the safe-keeping of possessions that was enough to end a court case, it might, perhaps, highlight the absurdity of the Royal Family being, to all intents and purposes, above the law (and in a position to manipulate that law to achieve their own objectives).

I tell you what, though, the Queen's speech this year should make for interesting viewing. Although I think I might choke on my turkey if she mentions an annus horribilis.

In other news, I did rather enjoy the LNR's caption competition.

Comments (1)

As is traditional, last night we celebrated the failure of a terrorist plot 400 years ago by blowing up a whole pile of stuff in the back garden. Because there's nothing quite like a really, really, loud rocket for encapsulating 17th century Catholic disenfranchisement.

The standard of our fireworks this year was generally pretty good, but the rubbish ones were given an extra edge by the prospect that something could go horribly wrong at any moment. Perhaps this was connected to the small fire at the back of the garden started by an errant projectile early in the evening. (Which reminds me, I must go and inspect our next door neighbour's vegetable patch at some point at the weekend. Oh, and our other neighbour's greenhouse, the recipient of one firework that had fallen due to the force of its first couple of firings, sending the last one horizontally out to the side of the garden.)

I think it was Chris who pointed out at one point that none of us were actually looking at the explosions--instead we were all watching the wobbling tube from which the firework was actually firing itself, thus gaining those precious few extra seconds we'd need to dive inside the house if it turned out to be heading straight for us.

Same time next year then? Absolutely.

Click here to add a comment

Last night was something of a lesson in asking questions first. It might, for example, be a good idea to find out which part of the venue your friends are going to be in before buying an overpriced last-minute ticket (er, then spending more money to get another one, also for the wrong part of the venue). Luckily it was all sorted out and I eventually managed to change that for a ticket that let me in to sit with everyone else, without spending any more.

And it was a cracking gig. I've only got two Powderfinger albums, but I knew every song they played. I'm not used to sitting down, though. Watching a gig from one of the upper levels of the Shepherd's Bush Empire is an odd experience. It feels like the band are playing to the people down on the floor and your just observing from above--a sort of out-of-body gig experience.

The other thing about sitting down is that you can keep going back to the bar all night without having to worry about finding your way back into the crowd. That seemed like a good thing last night, but this morning I'm not so sure.

I've also never seen a support band I've never heard of go down as well as Jebediah did, but then I suppose their generic aussie guitar rock was slightly more familiar to the rest of the audience than it was to me.

Oh, and Powderfinger will be back in the UK in February, apparently. Maybe this time I'll get tickets when they go on sale, like everybody else.

Today, I will be wasting time browsing the excellent Group Hug online confessional website (links from the Guardian Online section and the lnr journal). It's a bit like the man who fell asleep website (which is full of things supposedly overheard on the tube, sample: "I spoke to God and he told me that he hates you").

Only better.

Click here to add a comment

If RiverSoft made e-voting machines

These leaked emails from Diebold, reported widely on the web, but strangely not in the traditional media, make pretty scary reading. Diebold manufacture electronic voting apparatus (used widely in the US, including the 2000 presidential elections).

Read the excerpts to get a taster:


"Elections are not rocket science. Why is it so hard to get things right! I have never been at any other company that has been so miss [sic] managed."

In response to a question about a presentation in El Paso County, Colorado: "For a demonstration I suggest you fake it. Progam them both so they look the same, and then just do the upload fro [sic] the AV. That is what we did in the last AT/AV demo."

"I have become increasingly concerned about the apparent lack of concern over the practice of writing contracts to provide products and services which do not exist and then attempting to build these items on an unreasonable timetable with no written plan, little to no time for testing, and minimal resources. It also seems to be an accepted practice to exaggerate our progress and functionality to our customers and ourselves then make excuses at delivery time when these products and services do not meet expectations."

"I feel that over the next year, if the current management team stays in place, the Global [Election Management System] working environment will continue to be a chaotic mess. Global management has and will be doing the best to keep their jobs at the expense of employees. Unrealistic goals will be placed on current employees, they will fail to achieve them. If Diebold wants to keep things the same for the time being, this will only compound an already dysfunctional company. Due to the lack of leadership, vision, and self-preserving nature of the current management, the future growth of this company will continue to stagnate until change comes."

"[T]he bugzilla historic data recovery process is complete. Some bugs were irrecoverably lost and they will have to be re-found and re-submitted, but overall the loss was relatively minor."

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."

"I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb"."

"...They need this, to prove to the media, as well as, any candidates & lawyers, that they did not view or print any Election Results before the Polls closed. However, if there is a way that we can disable the reporting functionality, that would be even better."



The tone of a lot of the emails sounds rather familiar, and reminds me very much of the sort of correspondence that used to go round at a certain, now-defunct, software company that I used to work for. As Ben says:

"The tone of the "managers" reminds me of companies I've worked for. They've inherited a ramshackle system of desperate, last-minute hacks, and take pride in their knowledge of how to work around all the problems. Look at how any problem report is answered by a long, rambling explanation of how the system works, followed by another improvised fix."

Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence for the democratic process, really, now does it.

Comments (10)