Fluoride and bullshit fliers.

In my hometown while waiting for the train, I stumbled across the following flier posted practically everywhere.

Click the image to enlarge.

I was intrigued because as we all know, I love taking apart stupid things like this as an excuse to inflict you with a blog post, so I took one down to check out whether what it says is factual at all.

A little bit about fluoride levels in our water.

For later reference, we’ll start by throwing some facts in your face. I noticed the information on the flier is obviously American given the choice of words, measurements and the website (which we’ll talk about in a bit) is majority American articles. So I decided to check American and Australian fluoride levels in the water. It seems our Government  has differing levels of fluoride present in different areas, as represented by this handy diagram I stole from the Internet.

We can assume that the fluoride level doesn’t go above 1.1 mg/L in these controlled conditions, which is just a little over one millionth of a litre. America has a MCL¹ of 4 mg/L, and the average levels works out to be similar to that of ours. I’ll work with the maximums for the sake of the argument, because results for that will be applicable over smaller amounts as well.

As little as 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride can kill a 100 lbs adult.

If we look at this so called fact, given that 1/10 of a fluid ounce is roughly 3 mg/L², we can say that the amounts present in our water are way less than that (given 1.1 is the maximum, and in places like where I live it’s considerable lower), and therefore not a threat in normal doses. While it is possible that that much fluoride could kill someone, we aren’t having nearly enough in a short enough period of time to have that effect.

1/1000 of an ounce can kill a 10 pound infant.

This one is difficult because babies grow rapidly, gaining and losing weight all the time. Looking it up though, apparently it is recommended babies not be given water to drink until they’re 6 months old since the water they need is gotten when they drink breast milk. So we’ll work on that.
I looked, and at 6 months of age the average weight for a baby can be anywhere between 15 and 21 pounds. Now, using the power of basic math, I can see that the child would need to be younger than 6 months to be the size needed for that level of fluoride to be poisonous. Since babies that are at that age aren’t meant to drink water, we can say unless someone was a really irresponsible parent the baby shouldn’t be at risk.

Fluoride is the active ingredient in most insecticides!

A type of fluoride IS used in pesticides, called sulfuryl fluoride, so this is sort of true. What this flier mysteriously forgets to mention is that this is not what is put in our water. What is actually put in our water is called sodium fluoride, a completely different thing. Sulfuryl fluoride is poisonous which is just one reason why pesticides have DANGER printed on them. So this fact is really a complete twist of the facts in an attempt to scare those who believe everything they read³. It frustrates me when people feel that the only way to prove their point is to obscure the truth (Especially when it’s not even for the lulz!).

Fluoride causes bone cancer. In your bones.

This one is true. To a degree. Too much fluoride will cause brittleness of the bones (Just as not enough will make them weak), and there are apparently scientific studies that link fluoride to the cancer⁴. Of course, these studies are years old and there are counter-studies showing no actual link between cancers and fluoridation⁵.
So really, this is another case of selective hearing. These people are taking only the studies that benefit their cause to try and scare people into siding with them. And on the flier they’re stating these studies are absolute fact, which is wrong. It saddens me that people do this rather than embrace all the facts and make an educated decision.

Water fluoridation doesn’t strengthen teeth or fight tooth decay.

This is the big one. Not only does the flier hate on fluoride with the above, but it then states that fluoride doesn’t even do the things it’s meant to do. This is despite scientific proof that it strengthens the bones and teeth, and there is studies proving the statistical link between fluoride being in the water and the reduction of cavities⁶.
This seems to be a case of not just twisting the facts, but outright lying. They blatantly ignore the facts and lie in favour of boosting their case. The fuck is wrong with them?

Hey, they have a website!

The flier points to a website to have the truth revealed to us. Now I don’t WANT to link to the site, but I have to for the sake of yes. InfoWars.com seems to be a news website in which the featured stories include conspiracies. At first look, there are no articles on fluoride, so I used the search option. The most recent articles about it completely ignore the studies I pointed out, tries to link fluoride to shorter lives, and is an overall idiot. Watching a video featuring Alex Jones (Creator and runner of InfoWars.com), when you get past the constant plugs for his website,  he claims everything he says about fluoride (some of which is covered above) is “absolute truth”, even though everything he claims can be debunked or at least can be reasonably doubted by several facts and studies.
Pure garbage. Just Google “alex jones is an idiot” and you’ll see plenty of examples of exactly that.

In short, the flier is bullshit. The “facts” it states are either outright lies, or twisted truths in an attempt to make it sound like Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists are completely right. If they thought about it for two seconds they would realize that while yes in large amounts fluoride is poisonous, in small doses it is actually good for your health. You can’t convince these idiots though. This makes me sad.

I would also like to point out that what I’m basing all my information on is that found on the internet at varying sources. I link to a few studies for and against the point, but also read up on articles on water fluoridation on Wikipedia and other sources. The information is correct to the best of my knowledge, but I may of missed something here or there. If I did, I’m sorry.

1. Maximum Contaminant Level
2. Rounded up from 2.95735296
3. Basically, anyone who relies on The Advertiser and Today Tonight for news.
4. Of course, such studies are covered by Fox News.
5. What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found.
6. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports/crdreport18.pdf

Fair dinkum uncertainty

Election time has come around again, and I have come to my realization that I actually know nothing¹ about current politics and affairs. I also know fuck all about our political history, but that’s not the point. My knowledge extends to knowing Labour MP Stephen Conroy is trying to censor our Internet, Julia Gillard is our awfully monotone Prime Minister, and Tony Abbott says “Fair dinkum” too often in a vain attempt to come across as a ‘true Aussie’.

I know barely anything about the policies of either of the main parties or even those of the minor parties. In fact, beyond the names of the leaders and those who occasionally end up being newsworthy, I don’t even know what the party is.

I would read the newspapers, but they only pick what would be newsworthy and don’t actually detail everything Not to mention that papers like The Advertiser are either bias or don’t tell the whole story; either way I just don’t feel such a traditional medium would cut it. Everyone in my family is incredibly bias, and with half the news I get coming from blogs, I can be sure that what I read there won’t be everything either. While there are bound to be sources that state the straight facts, I don’t see myself having the mental drive to read through it all.

It’s difficult to get the whole picture easily without following everything religiously, and I just don’t care enough to. At the same time though, I want to make the ‘right’ decision for myself, and without knowing the facts I can’t. It’s a bit of a downward spiral². It’s probably the wrong mentality to take when I spend multiple paragraphs complaining, but that’s how I work.

I don’t know who I’ll vote for, and I can see myself potentially just flipping a coin when I get to the booth. Despite the fact that I’ll attempt to read up on everything, I know that I’ll get distracted by a game of Alien Swarm which I’m going to be honest, is just way more fun and satisfying.

1. Shocking!
2. And now I want to listen to Nine Inch Nails.

A Nightmare On Elm Street

This is my opinion of the latest movie in this long lived franchise; a remake of the original movie of the same name. If you have seen the original, then you’ll know what happens for the most part, but even so, this post still will no doubt contain spoilers that could possibly ruin the movie for you, or cause permanent rectal pains. If you have a problem with this, please stop reading now, and instead read something else.

Going to see this movie, I had mixed feelings. Was I going to like it for the way it reinvented the series? Or hate it for the way it butchered the original series, fan boy style? When I left the cinema two hours later, I was left still wondering the same thing, and possessing the same mixed feelings.
All those feelings aside though, it turned out to be an okay movie. I didn’t mind, and it’s good that they’re trying to restart such an amazing classic series. However, there were quite a few things that bugged me. So allow me to enlighten you with a brief overview of some of the more annoying aspects for myself personally.

Character names.

Alright, I exaggerate when I say gone. All the original main characters are still there, but the moment the opening credits said “Based on characters by Wes Craven" instead of “Based on the movie by Wes Craven”, I knew something was going to be up. First, there’s this guy:

First to die: “That guy from Twilight”

Apart from being from the Twilight series, this guy is the first character in the movie. His name is Dean, and he is nowhere in the original movie. He is the first to die, and alert everyone to the very immediate danger of the situation. It’s not bad per say, but who he talks to is important. It’s Chris. Actually, it’s Tina from the original movie with a new name and everything. They changed all the names of the characters, possibly due to legal reasons, but it’s enough to really get to me. I wasn’t able to relate them to the original characters because they weren’t the originals. The only two characters who kept their names were Nancy and Freddy (For obvious reasons, of course.). Now this really is just a fan boy bitching, but I liked the original characters, and I might of been able to overlook the name changes, if that was all they changed about some of the characters.

Personality changes.

If you saw the original movies, you’ll remember Rod Lane, the boyfriend of first victim Tina Gray. His character was portrayed as a badass; carried a switch blade on him, wore a leather jacket, and had the lone tough guy act down. When his girlfriend falls into Freddy Krueger’s hands and is tossed around their room, slashed and killed by an invisible foe only present in her dreams, he doesn’t cry. He throws shit around the dark room looking for the guy who did this, only running because he doesn’t want to be taken by the cops for something he didn’t do. In the end, he dies at Krueger’s hand when he is strangled in his sleep. Then the remake happens and we get…Jesse. Here, have a side by side comparison of the two…it’s not the best, but apparently there aren’t many photos of these two on the internets:

Left: Rod Lane, Right: Jesse Braun/Purdy mouth

Jesse is the complete opposite of Rod. How does he react to his EX-girlfriend’s death? He runs away, and curls up against a post until he’s taken by the cops. That’s right; the character has been turned into a pussy.
To top it off, when confronted by Krueger, he does what any guy would apparently do, and curls up in the foetal position and starts screaming. This of course prompts Krueger to ask, “Why are you screaming? I haven’t even cut you yet.” That’s right; this kid, the one who’s meant to be the ‘tough guy’, is screaming his head off when Freddy hasn’t laid a single finger on him. Way to be a hero man.

Freddy revamped.

Anyone mildly aware of A Nightmare On Elm Street would recognize this character, and even know the character Freddy. The man was just sinister, and you can’t help but recognize such an iconic creation; even if it is represented by the embodiment of Scottish humour in The Simpsons.

 
Spot which one is the Simpsons Parody.

But along with a new actor for the role, the creators saw fit to reinvent everything he stood for. And so we are introduced to the first of a few attempts to be realistic in a fantastical horror movie about a man who attacks you in your dreams.

Freddy Krueger, embodiment of evil in the Elm Street universe (And the Friday The 13th universe if Freddy vs. Jason remains canon in the reinvention of the franchises), originally had quite the back story as a child murderer. Though intended to be a child molester¹ by original writer Wes Craven, it was felt to be a bit too strong for audiences of the time (it was the 1980s after all), and he was brought back to being a serial murderer of anyone young.
Much like that friend of yours who bleached their hair and it looked particular terrible at the time but you grew to love it, the idea of Freddy Krueger became one with that of a child murderer to the point that there are people who, if the discussion of “evil pedophiles and child murderers” comes up, will mention they’ve heard of one murderer called Freddy Krueger².

Those in charge of writing the new version decided to go back to the idea of him being a child molester though, and made it so he was targeting those teenagers who were responsible for getting him caught when they were little. I understand that giving him more of a motive than “I love the rush from killing kids” is much scarier as is the idea of a child molester in modern society, but if they move to turn this into a remake franchise, they don’t really have any room to move. Once the motive is gone, it’s going to be a lot harder to make him move to other things. With the original series, once he got one set of children, he’d move on to another. In this movie, these kids were unique. Once he’s eliminated all the kids he touched that turned him in, it’s a lot harder to believe that he just up and decided to start murdering everyone, at least for me anyway.

As far as his appearance goes, they’ve decided to change that as well. Gone is the iconic, almost cartoonish burns that characterized him and in it’s place, a walking corpse. Brad Fuller (one of the producers) is quoted as aiming to try and make Freddy look as close to a real burn victim without being disgusting as possible, and he succeeded in that right. However, I did not find the character scary in itself. In fact, the realism took away from what made the character so macabre and evil.

Dude, what happened to your face?

At least they decided to keep the razor fingers. If they replaced them then I’d of had something to truly be pissed about.

Facts

That wasn’t the only thing that was changed in the name of realism. One of the things that startled me most in the originals (before they got silly) was not knowing when the victim had fallen asleep. They’d close their eyes for a second, and you’d think it was them just being tired, but it turns out they’d nodded off, but only been woken up again in the dream. In the remake, they’d decided to use micro sleeps too, but also wanted to fully explain the process. So while in the original we get 5 seconds of dialogue explaining how “we can control our own dreams once we realize it is a dream”, in this one we get minutes of boring dialogue explaining how “parts of the brain shut down, causing micro sleeps”, and essentially ruining the whole mystery surrounding Freddy by explaining how he could attack people when they still seemed awake.
I know this seems like a minor thing, but as a fan this sort of thing really bothers me. Would the magician you just saw have been nearly as amazing if you knew exactly how he did his tricks? Exactly.

Backstory

Speaking of removing the mystery³, I want to touch on the amount of back story present in this movie. Now, first up I believe I’ve been explaining what was in the original. Well, in the original, there was limited back story beyond a brief explanation as to that Krueger was a child killer and the parents burned him alive. Now in the new movie, you have flash backs to the past, and you see everything from Krueger at his “he loves the kids” period to “Oh no we have caught him and seen him for the evil creature he is", and a detailed scene of his death, which was also different from the original story. He was originally arrested by the police but got off on a technicality, and because of that the parents revolted and hunted him down, where as this version has the parents opt straight for hunting him instead of calling the police.

Conclusion

Now, these things by themselves could of been tolerable. However as a self proclaimed fan boy of the Nightmare On Elm Street series, the collective just serves to bug me completely. I am not saying the movie was bad; it made me jump quite a few times (to my brother’s amusement) where no other horror movie has in quite a while. However, much like reading the book before seeing the movie based on it, you notice little things which seem to no matter what, ruin the experience for you.

If you have seen the new movie, the old movie, or preferably both, I’d like to hear what you think of it all via my conveniently placed comments box (Protip: It’s right below this article).

1. Kiddie Fiddler, Kiddie Cruncher, Priest, I could go on but the list is endless and to be honest, kind of tasteless. Michael Jackson”.
2. These people also think he’s real, though I do try to inform them he isn’t…usually.
3. Man, I am seriously loving how each section just seems to naturally segue into the next. I am the king of writing flukes.

Pokéwalker.

Ok, for those who aren’t aware, this is a Pokéwalker:

This little circular device is bundled with the latest Pokémon games HeartGold and SoulSilver, and serves as an interactive pedometer that rewards the player for taking walks. Older players will recognize this device as being extremely similar to the Pocket Pikachu device, which worked in a similar fashion, but without nearly as much as the current incarnation. In the Pocket Pikachu, you earned a currency when you walked, which could be swapped for gifts to make your Pikachu happier. The Pocket Pikachu 2 was able to sync with the original Pokémon Gold and Silver, giving you gifts to use in game.

The Pokéwalker works similarly to this. You select a Pokémon you’ve caught (it’s not confined to just Pikachu) to walk with, and a “route” to go walking along, such as Town Outskirts. From there, your Pokéwalker syncs with the game, and your Pokémon goes into the walker. When you walk you gather watts (one watt per ten steps), and those watts can be used for one of three things.

• Poké Radar – Through one of two mini games available, you are able to catch wild Pokémon. The game is split into two parts; a simple searching game where you look in tall grass for a Pokémon, and the second part is where your Pokémon battles it and allows you to throw a Pokéball in an attempt to capture it. The Pokémon encountered depends on the route selected and how many steps you’ve done, and you need to walk a lot to find certain Pokémon that you can’t even find in the normal game. You are able to capture three Pokémon, and you need to sync back with your game if you want to capture more.
• Dowsing – Another mini game, in which you find items for use in game. You’re presented with six options, and you’re given two chances to identify which option has the item under it. If your first choice is wrong, you’re given a hint (either “It’s near!” or “It’s far away…”) which gives you an indication of where it is. As with caught Pokémon, you can only find up to three items. However, you can get more through other means (which I’ll discuss shortly.)
• Unlocking further routes – Initially only two routes are available to catch Pokémon in. However, any watts you don’t use before you sync back with your game go towards unlocking further routes. When a certain amount of watts are gained, the new route is revealed. Simple.

   

  Of course, these aren’t the only abilities of the device. It is designed to make you go outside and socialize, with the ability to sync with other people’s Pokéwalkers. These meetings make your Pokémon happier (as they’re able to ‘play’ with others, however briefly), and reward you by gifting you with a bonus item for use in game.

  To me this is a stunning device, as it creates a great incentive to get players of the game more active (I know it’s worked for me), and works as a great piece of DRM¹. Since several Pokémon are only able to be captured through the Pokéwalker, it’s more difficult for players to finish the game (although I guess they could cheat). It’s a decent idea to get people to be more social and active.

  I need to touch on what finally inspired me to type this up after a couple of months of playing with the post in my head. Today, I followed a link to a gaming blog written by a 17 year old with a need to point out that anyone who disagrees with him is obviously a Nintendo Fan Boy². He has only written two posts on it, but both have made me disappointed. The one that fuelled this post though, was the one titled I have to walk to level up? Hell No!!!!!³. In this, he misses the purpose of the Pokéwalker entirely, and displays his displeasure of the idea. He then goes to list various stupid ways he attempted to cheat the system. He was apparently so determined that he taped it to his fingers, with the apparent idea that it will work when he hammers the buttons on his Xbox 360/when he masturbates⁴.
  The idea of cheating such systems isn’t new of course, and searching for “Pokéwalker cheats” on YouTube will reveal several contraptions and ideas to get watts and unlock routes without doing any actual walking. I’m not against finding problems and experimenting with them, but when someone does it simply because they feel that walking is something that they shouldn’t ever have to, I can’t help but wonder what sort of person isn’t willing to go for a 10 minute walk.

  This guy for one.

1. DRM = Digital rights management
2. I assume this is his way of calling someone a “faggot”.
3. Link removed, because the blog post was deleted.
4. As he reports, it doesn’t.

Micropayments and DLC (a comment)

I made a comment on the Nation Of Gamers blog’s latest post concerning the idea of micropayments and downloadable content in games, and decided to share it with you, because it’s a big comment compared to what I normally write on other websites.

I think micropayments should be available where it makes the most sense. I myself won’t buy anything for Farmville, because while it’s an okay game I don’t invest enough time in it to make such a purchase worth it.

As a TF2 player, I myself have said I’d welcome the idea of a store being opened in Steam in which a player can buy special hats or misc items for say, 50c an item. Lots of people say that’d be a bad thing in such a good game, but I like the idea that all the normal hats remain in the game as drops/crafts and that contribution items keep getting introduced as such. But then have some new official ones available for sale, so if you wanted one you COULD buy it, but it wouldn’t in anyway cheapen the experience of obtaining a Fancy Fedora, since it’s still only available in a drop. But I digress..

Players of Oblivion welcomed The Knights Of The Nine DLC because it gave them a new variable to work with in the game, and provided a whole heap of new gameplay. In a game like Grand Theft Auto IV, selling the ability to see and drive a single new cartype wouldn’t be enough to warrant payment, but if say, the game made 100 buildings that were previously just there for show open and can be explored fully, or a whole new aspect of gameplay were added that changed the game world, then I’d be interested.

I read that the creators of Mass Effect 2 upon releasing the game, released DLC days later that expanded the world. What this says is that they had this DLC ready before the game was released, but rather than include it in the game, decided to squeeze players for that little extra money. This I find is "blatant profiteering". Imagine if GSC said "Look, I know you want to explore the S.T.A.L.K.E.R wastelands more, but if you want to get out of the first area, but you have to pay to do that." I paid $50 for my game, so I should get the full game, shouldn’t I?
DLC should come secondary to expand upon the original game; it should not be a necessity.

However, then you’ve got that section of people who enjoy supporting the developers. This is a "noble" thing, but again is something that should really only be done if it’s worth it. Like I said, I’d gladly pay 50c or even a dollar for a hat in TF2, or $15 for The Passing DLC that’s coming out for L4D2/L4D1, not only because I play the games but because with all the free stuff Valve gives us, I’d like to give something back. However, I won’t go overboard and buy something I wasn’t going to use just because it benefits someone else; that becomes a waste of money.

It all comes down to what you want. If someone wants to make their farm in Farmville bigger and doesn’t mind spending a little cash, then by all means it’s a good deal. However, companies who are cutting their games in half to force people to buy the DLC, thats just bad, and shows they have no idea how to make the customer happy.

TL;DR DLC is a great way to support the developers after the game is released, but as with all products; some micropayments just aren’t worth it.

So that’s my opinion on it, slightly hindered by my tiredness. What do you think about the idea of DLC in the gaming world?

Not News – toys cause obesity.

I read the Advertiser. While it is something that I only ever buy and read occasionally, I still feel embarrassed admitting to this. It’s like when I was in school and admitting I listened to any Simple Plan song (hey they had some good ones) ever was a hell worthy sin.
It’s not that they don’t write some good stuff in there. I mean, they do keep us up to date on a lot of things going on, but my problem lies in the bias attitude in some of their articles, and the fact that some of their articles are pointless, stuff we already know, or that I feel are just plain wrong.

As a perfect example, there is an article in today’s Advertiser on the debate on whether toys should be included in children’s fast food meals or not claiming that they’re a big reason many kids eat fast food, and thereby is a direct cause of childhood obesity. I completely disagree with this article, and the idea in general.

Firstly, as was stated in the article itself by a McDonald’s spokeswoman, “they only advertised the healthy options of a Happy Meal on television and other media.” I honestly can’t think of an instance where an advertisement for the kids meal has featured anything other than those weird apple slice packs or salad. While Hungry Jacks apparently “declined to comment”, I can’t remember seeing any advertisements for their kids meals anyway, or KFC either, nowadays. They spend too much time advertising the latest burger using the words “flame grilled” as many times in 30 seconds as humanly possible to focus on that.
I can say that as a kid I used to love collecting the toys. However, that was not the sole reason I ate there; the food tasted really good too. However despite the fact that I used to love the toys and they did make going to McDonald’s a bit more of a treat than say, getting fish and chips from the deli, I did not get hooked. I’ll still eat it now and again but not all the time. I understand how unhealthy it can be, and therefore only have it occasionally. Which brings me to my final point. The kids these toys are targeted at are young. I’m going to take the rough guess and say kids 12 and under, but I may be wrong. They are governed by their parent(s)/caregiver(s). They can beg and plead and do what they want, but in the end the parent(s) have the final decision. I’ll repeat that; the parents have the final say in what their kids eat. Just to make sure that got through to you here it is again, in bold, italicized, and a bigger font. We’ll throw it in a quote box for good measure.

The parents have the final say in what their kids eat.

There we go. I see in the news when it comes to censorship, and what is wrong with the kids, people will so often point the finger in the direction of someone else before looking at themselves. The kids will eat healthy if you give them healthy food. How hard is it to make some rice and chicken, instead of wasting fuel and time going to the fast food restaurant, buying expensive fatty foods, and then blaming someone else for your kids being fat?

If you don’t want them to eat fast food, don’t buy it for them.

Casinos are evil

This is something that in the past year of working at the Adelaide Casino, I’ve heard a lot. There’s a stereotype that even though casinos are Government regulated to make sure they fit in laws and are fair, that every game is rigged so people have no chance of winning. Indeed, one guy even went so far as to believe we watched and rigged his hands personally, but we’ve already talked about him before. Let’s move on.
There is also that opinion that every employee of the industry is a soul sucking demon robot who cares not for emotion, and instead wants to take all your money in a game of chance.

It’s no doubt that this sort of thought pattern is fuelled by the movies, where the casino owner is almost always a villain. They’re willing to sell out people, beat them to a pulp in the back room for small infringements, and are all round corrupt. I blame Andy Garcia.

You motherfucker.

Because of the bad reputation given to us by the film industry, and from the unregulated casinos that do apparently still exist in America, we’re labelled as evil a lot of the time. I call bullshit.

Games aren’t rigged, but the odds are in the house’s favour.

This comes as no surprise to anyone with half a brain, but there is still a fairly large number of people out there who believe the games in a casino should be 50/50 in winnings. The problem with this mentality is that it is impossible for a casino to do that. It’s a business and if they don’t have a “house edge”, they risk losing money and thus not existing.
However, with Government regulations and common sense, the house edge is never ridiculous. For example, the true odds of picking the correct number straight up in roulette is 37 to 1. So, the casino pays out at odds of 35 to 1. The game is still random and you could win, but in the end the casino has the edge, however slight it may be. The old saying comes to mind “The house always wins”. While it may not be true individual to individual, overall, the casino is obviously making money or it wouldn’t be in business.

We are soulless robots brainwashed to take your money and cheat you.

Oh man this is totally true. Why would they employ normal people to deal cards to you when they could brainwash us into stealing all your money. I mean, the side effects kind of suck, like if someone accidently uses a trigger word around me I go ballistic and start killing people, but it’s totally worth it.
But realistically; we’re getting paid the same average wage if you win or lose. We* want you to win so then everyone is happy. Unless you’re an asshole to us and everyone around you, in which case we hope you lose it all while your partner is at home banging some other guy. With her mouth.

The casino will kick you out for winning too much money.

No, the casino will kick you out for being an arrogant fuckwit who treats everyone like shit or is otherwise disturbing everyone else.
This is a big one, as so many people kick up a fuss when getting kicked out, blaming it on this. The fact is, we don’t care if you win one thousand dollars. It’s not “a lot of money”. Last night I had someone win forty three thousand on my table in baccarat, and even that isn’t considered enough to kick someone out. Why should we punish people for doing well? It makes no sense.
Casinos kick people out for a variety of reasons though, including pre-existing bans, being underage, drunk, falling asleep at tables, being there for over 24 hours, etc. Most of what the casino does falls under certain practices we have to follow lest the company cops a fine (responsible drinking, etc).
We will never kick you out for winning.

I had a fourth point but now I’ve forgotten it.

You’re copying Rubenerd. You should stop that.

No.

Yes.

I’d like to throw out there that while most of this is an honest attempt at dealing out facts, I may have a point or two incorrect. This really only applies to Adelaide Casino, as some casinos have altered rules, regulations and allowances. Who knows, Crown Casino may actually brainwash their employees. We don’t know for certain.

*I speak for the majority, but there are definitely a few dealers who are pretty indifferent, or actually enjoy when the customers lose. Be that as it may, we still won’t steal your money.

Fuck Max Payne

Holy crap, I just found something on the world wide interwebs; writings by myself from almost two years ago. As in, before I had an actual blog. If I can find any more, I’ll post them on here. For now, here is a “review” of the Max Payne movie. You know the one, the one with Mark Whalberg.

Today, I went and watched the atrocity that is Max Payne, starring Mark Whalberg.
I’m not exactly sure what it is that makes such a good actor as Wahlberg take on such shitty roles, but I wish he’d stop already.
For those unfamiliar with Max Payne, he is the "hero" in the game of the same name. The plots of the movie and game both have similar traits. Max came home to find his family dead at the hands of drug addicts. He spends the next few years constantly seeking retribution; investigating dead-end leads which eventually reveal plot points and twists, and then the end. The directors and writers try to move the plot towards different scenarios than the game, keeping the movie from being too much like its electronic counterpart. This is where the movie falls short though.
The movie seems to go on forever, leaving me more frustrated than wowed at the slow motion action sequences. During these scenes of course, the movie seems to act ALOT like a computer game. Max is amazingly blessed with unlimited ammo, and has dead-on accuracy, where-as his enemies have worse aim than the stormtroopers from Star Wars and lack almost any ammo in their weapons. Payne moves up each level of whatever building he’s moving through, until he reaches the end level "boss". Also, any injuries he MAY sustain the scene before are magically forgotten about, as if he picked up a health pack on the way.
The movie left me confused when BAM! Demons were suddenly attacking everyone. Like what the hell! There were never demons in the game. Makes no sense at all, and doesn’t contribute anything real to the movie, except for a chance to throw a heap of special effects in our faces.
So Max Payne goes all dark-side as he probes people and eventually gets to the root of it all (which I’m not going to ruin, just in case you want to expose yourself to this deplorable excuse of a movie). He almost dies but takes an experimental super-addictive drug which the bad guys coincidently gave him, and this saves him from hypothermia somehow. Also, it makes him see burning ashes instead of snow, and demons start flying overhead as if hell were suddenly taking over the city. The drug gives him the power to shoot his way through EVERYTHING, and forget about his wounds even quicker. "OH I GOT HIT BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER…NOTHING REALLY MATTERS…TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE". No matter how many shots are landed on him, he just keeps on moving, like the drug turned him into some Jason Vorhees/Michael Myers hybrid.
I refuse to talk about this any longer or reveal any more. Go see it for yourself if you want to put yourself through that misery.
Max Payne needs to lay off the motherfucking drugs.

Infallibility

There’s a certain stereotype held by customers in all establishments, for the service they get to be perfect. The person serving/assisting/giving them a blowjob has to perform with absolutely no mistakes otherwise how dare you slip up hare you new do you even know how to do your job YOUR MANAGER IS GOING TO HEAR OF YOUR IGNORANCE.

This shits me off in so many ways.

The idea that a person just like them has to be able to flawlessly do a task everytime is beyond me. Yes as an employee there is an expectation to do the job assigned to you, and to do it well, but it’s understandable that the person working may make a mistake, the same way the customer is just as likely to make some sort of error. It’s human. The person behind the counter/in the uniform/swallowing isn’t a robot, and is going to make mistakes. Live with it.

Blah. How do you feel about this sort of thing?

Cheating the good fight.

Remember the days where cheat codes were a necessity of video games? I do.

I’m not talking about activating god mode in everything, or infinite ammo. I’m talking about good cheat codes; fun cheat codes. The ones that added replay ability to a game, that unlocked things that otherwise would not be unlocked. Ages ago, games didn’t have unlimited ways to play them; sandbox gaming wasn’t big, and in a lot of genres there wasn’t much to keep a player playing once the game was defeated.

I remember playing games and finishing them. That should be it, I move on to the next game, right? No, because I had cheat codes. There was nothing that could revive interest in a game than activating big head mode, or turning all the enemies into furry animals that squeaked when you shot them. That sort of thing changed the game into something else. If the main character’s look got boring, chances are there was a funny code to put him in a bikini, or change the entire look of the character entirely.

Of course, nowadays cheats have almost entirely disappeared in favour of making someone play the game to unlock things. Now if I want that new costume, I have to play hours in a section of a game that I really don’t want to go through. I’ve done that area as this guy already, why do I have to do it again to get the new costume? The reason I want a new costume is so I FEEL like playing it again. I can understand developers doing this, but really, why can’t there still be cheat codes for more humorous things?

This is one reason I love Plants vs. Zombies. If I’ve failed the same level a few times, and want to keep it interesting, there are humorous inputs that don’t affect gameplay whatsoever, but are worth a laugh. For example, typing “FUTURE” gives the zombies funky looking glasses. Hilarious.

Do you miss cheat codes like I do?

Next Page »