Jobs Australians Wont Do?

Okay so I'm watching the Colbert Report, very funny as always, but something came up, the often repeated phrase "they do the jobs Americans wont" and it reminded me of something that is said in Australia a fair bit as well, the problem is it's total bullshit.

It's not that Australians (and Americans) wont do the jobs commonly done by illegal immigrants, backpackers, and new immigrants, it's that they can't do those jobs, it's just not possible. Now let me explain, speaking from experience from where I live backpackers often come in and pick up seasonal work that use to go to local workers, they work for cheaper as they don't have to worry about paying the rent, putting food on the table, making sure their kids have something to wear, no, they just want some extra spending money on their holiday, so farms employee these workers at less then what it would cost for an Australian worker, great for the farm in the short term, horrible for the local economy.

The same can be said of other types of migrant workers all over the world, they are paid less then what the local people would expect for the same job, because they have lower over-heads, often times working for cash in hand ($100 cash in hand is worth more then $150 paid correctly, after tax, super, etc is taken out), this in turn drives down what farms are willing to pay, why should they pay local workers what they need in order to live if they can get workers for cheaper? This leads to the expression "they do the jobs XYZ wont do", which is patently false.

Now I'm not against migrants picking up work (well I am against backpackers, fuck off you cunts, you're either here working, in which case you should be paying tax, or here on holiday, stop trying to have it both), I just think that in order for it to be fair for local workers, and migrants the governments of the world need to pull their thumbs out and sort out this problem, by enforcing minimum wage, by enforcing fair treatment, by stopping the exploitation of migrant workers; doing that will not only help the migrant workers, but the local workers as well, because pay rates will go back to where they were, allowing them to take jobs they currently can't because the pay isn't enough to live on.

The Burqa is insulting to Men!

Recently there has been some debate, sparked mainly by that idiot in Sydney, about banning the Burqa (the Muslim full head covering worn by women). There have been many comments on both sides, very few worth the air used to voice them, but one thing that stands out is the woman who said that women who wear them are "liberated", it was that that incensed me.

It harkens back to the comments made a few years ago by the moron who said that women who go around uncovered are asking to be raped, both statements are very insulting not just to women, not just to Australians, but to men, the male gender, as well.

It implies that we are slaves to our sexual organs, that we can not control ourselves, that we do not know right from wrong, that we are one step above animals looking for a place, if you'll forgive my vulgarity, to stick our dicks, regardless of the willingness of our partner; and that it is up to woman, the smarter, fairer, gender to hide themselves lest we loose control of ourselves.

To that, I say Bullshit, yes there are men who can not control themselves, yes there are men who murder, yes there are men who rape, but you know what, for every single man who acts like that there are a thousand, or more, who do not, who could not imagine doing such a thing.

For every man that strikes his spouse there are hundreds and thousands who find the very thought of doing so repugnant; for every sexual deviant who can only get aroused by violence there are uncounted men who would rather cut of their own sex organs then even contemplate doing something so hideous, for every criminal there are many more who live their lives in peace.

So, stop using us as an excuse, any man who claims that women should be forced to be covered lest he be overcome with lust is not a man, and needs to seek medical help; stop using your own inadequacy as an excuse for this repressive "tradition", and women on the side of this debate, if you want to wear it, fine, but don't place the blame on the millions of good men around you.

Microsoft can fuck off.

So I'm doing my online study and I'm starting to get really fucking pissed off. I signed up for IT Applications and Software Development, I did not sign up for Microsoft Applications and Microsoft Development.


I use Google Docs for everything, mainly because I do not use pirate software (anymore) and I'm not dropping hundreds of fucking dollars on something I do not fucking need.

Just today I had to muddle through some stupid fucking spreadsheet bullshit that was written for people exclusively using MS Excel, it was a fucking nightmare, rather then explaining how to do the formulas they simply gave them and said use these menus... fucking wonderful. Then they wanted a macro.... GAH. FUCK IT.

Seriously sick of this shit.

Laws We Need (Part 1)

I've been thinking a lot lately about things that are fucked up in our (western) society.

You often hear people bitching about "fine print" with the reply "we'll it's your own fault you didn't read it before signing it"

Have those people tried reading some of the fucking "simple" contracts out there? They are about as easy to read as War and Peace, even signing up for a $2 a month service can have a 20 page long contract.

It's stupid and needs changing, I propose the following law.

All consumer contracts must have a correspondence plain text version written in such a way an average adult can comprehend what they are agreeing with, with a limit on the amount of text that can be used. I suggest the limit be imposed based on the value of the service, for example a mobile telephone service of $30 a month can have a plain text contract of at most 700 words.

The plain text contracts themselves must conform a set template and may not "friendly" up wording, if they can change the terms of the contract at anytime it must say that, not something about "in order to be serve bleh bleh bleh".

So what do you think?

Moral Inflexibility in Games

So games with moral choice systems have been getting better, no longer is the choice to either save the orphan or burn him alive, but it's still got a long way to go.

Take for example the Tenpenny Tower's quest in Fallout 3, where the "good" action is basically acting like a retard, or in the same game the Vampire quest line where you are basically acting like an enforcer running a protection racket. Then there are a number of quests in Mass Effect 2, a game that generally gets the moral choice system pretty right, for example one of the first "found" missions you do via scanning has you finding data that could harm your partners if released to the public.

Of course the good action is to send it to the authorities, the neutral to send it back to them, and the "evil" to keep it for yourself, seems pretty straight forward right? send it to the public to be a good guy, wrong, moral choices very rarely exist in a vacuum, you never forget in the game that you're working with them because it's the only choice, so antagonising them is plain stupid, the good choice should be to keep the data, and the evil choice should be to send it back to them. After all there is nothing stopping you releasing it once you're done with them? Now some people might say that fits the definition of Mass Effect 2's morality system, which defines the actions as moral and ruthless, and keeping the data back is pretty ruthless (I'd personally say intelligent).

But the problem is, in most games with a moral choice system, it's one or the other, you can't be an angel and a demon, and there is no reward for being a well rounded character, and you're punished for taking different actions, for every "evil" action you take, even in games that don't take away from your "good" score like Mass Effect 2, you're punished because you've lost access to those "good" points which can drastically effect the plot, forcing you to make decisions you'd never make in the same situation if it was reality.

You often hear players say "this playthrough I'll be evil" or similar, but is that something we want as gamers? or would it be better to let us play the game as we want? making decisions based on the situation as if we were there, rather then forcing us to conform to a pre-established moral system.

Raise the legal drinking age to 21?

So the other night I was watching Q&A on the ABC where they had the PM Kevin Rudd being asked questions by a bunch of 16-25 year olds (I think that was the age group), and one of the questions was "should the legal drinking age be raised to 21" now he waffled a bit, saying there needed to be studies to see if it would have an impact on the road toll, good answer, but when asked his personal opinion if he wants it, he said "of course".

Now this yeah I'll be 30, so it has no impact on me, I don't have kids, don't plan on having kids, so again no impact on me, but one thing I would like to point out, is the double standard.

In Australia 18 is the age when you are considered an adult in all things, you can drink, you can drive (not at the same time you morons), you can enlist, or join the police forces, etc, etc. My issue with the idea of raising the drinking age, which for all I know might actually make an impact, is that it splits that, either you're an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it at 18, or your not.

If you're not careful you'll end up with situations like they have in America where kids are fighting wars before their legally allowed to buy a beer, and frankly, that disgusts me.

Damn American Dates!

Okay this might sound kind of petty, but it's an annoyance and we all know how well I deal with those don't we? So I'm watching the Fallout New Vegas trailer (see below) and at the very end it says "Fall 2010"... and I just want to /facepalm because I have no fucking clue when that is, for starters Australia doesn't have "fall", we have Summer, Spring, Winter, Autumn, so is "fall" Spring or Autumn? And then there is the fact that the seasons are reversed down here, Summer is around the new year... Winter is the middle of the year...

Why can't they realise that the Internet is a global thing and just say "Q3" 2010? Everyone can work out what quarter 3 means, it means July to September... anyway looks pretty nice, even if it confuses the fuck out of me on when it's coming out.

Limitations of English

So last night I was doing a bit of day dreaming while I was suppose to be fixing something, I had made a note to someone online that I was a little bit sad now that I've finished Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, very good games, as it means that there aren't any games coming out anytime soon that I'm really excited about.

At this point he told me "get a life!"... which put my back up as I replied this sadness wasn't "a family member died" or even "my pet died", it was a tiny sadness on par with "oh, my favourite TV show is finished for good". He apologised and empathised, understanding what I meant.

But that got me thinking, English is so wonderfully precise about something, with dozens of different words with slightly different meanings for some things, but so horrible imprecise about emotions.

Take for example the word Love, in English the word can mean so many different things, all depending on context, yet other languages such as Ancient Greek they had 5 different words for love, each depending on context, the two most famous were Agápe (family / friend love) and Éros (romantic love).

It makes me wonder why English with it's complex grammar and wide range of words for the simplest concepts doesn't have different words to convey different levels of the most complex thing humans can experience, emotions, hell we don't even have our own word for "person I'm going to marry" having to borrow it from the French (fiancée).

It's odd, really.

Vatican popes slippers in mouth...

So the Vatican has opened it's big gaping maw yet again and done more to hurt Christian progress then any number of Muslim extremists... by commenting on a fucking movie.

The Vatican has described the science fiction film 'Avatar', which has taken $1 billion (£600m) at the box office, as bland, cliched and overly-sentimental.
I mean seriously, I didn't really care for the plot that much, or the acting (by humans at least), but the effects were exceptional, and the 3D interesting if not a little annoying after a while (fucking 3d glasses suck)... but honestly, it's not like Dogma which everyone knew was going to hank them off majorly, as far I can remember it doesn't even reference human religions, just the one it made up, and damn near all Fantasy and Sci-Fi fiction (book, games, movies, etc) does that, so what the fuck are they doing?

It's either a ploy to get attention by bagging something "popular" (I'm at least happy it beat that Twilight shit into the ground money wise, if they want to beat up on a movie, try that dribble, unlike Avatar it at least has it coming) or they are honestly stupid enough to think people want them to do movie reviews rather then you know... doing shit that actually matters... sort of like the various governments around the world.

I'm not a huge fan of the catholic church, that's not for any faith based reasons, which I wont get into, but rather their lack of doing anything, they have massive amounts of money and real-estate, constantly open their traps, and totally fail to live up to Christ's legacy.

You know Christ the dude who went around not only preaching and saving souls, but doing a lot of practical earthly good at the same time.

So yea... they need to shut their pie holes and start acting like Christians... you know doing good works rather then sitting around in their palace drinking expensive wine and eating 5 star meals.

3D: Time Is Circular.

So what's with the obsession about 3d all of a sudden? Sure Avatar was an awesome movie effects wise and the 3d was pretty cool (apart from the fact my bladder was about to explode after a 3 hour movie without an intermission... and my nose hurt from two sets of glasses sitting on my face)... but really why all the 3D rage?

Are people really that into it? 3D movies (can sort of see the attraction if it suits the movies, but most movies would be ruined in 3D), but 3D home TVs and 3D video games? pfft it's a novelty I guess...

But really I'm not that interested in it, I doubt I'll ever buy a 3D TV unless it's one of those things that can bog standard with the model I want, and I know I'll never bother with 3d games, it's just something else to give me a damn headache, I already can't read what's on my TV without my glasses, so wearing two sets all the time to get the details and the effect would just ruin it for me.

Also frankly I play games for the game play, not the graphics, the graphics are icing, the game play is the cake.

I guess it's all James Cameron's fault... Avatar was great... but it's like being back in the 80s with everyone (companies) pushing 3D on us... What's next? Shoulder Padding?

"Racist" Australian KFC Ad - An Australian Rant

So here is my rant back at the fucking septic tanks.

KFC Ad: Americans need to pull their heads in.

A KFC advertisement that shows an Australian cricket supporter giving fried chicken to West Indies fans has caused outrage in the US, where it has been interpreted as racist.

So the yanks are being stupid asses again. I could sort of understand the buzz over the Jackson Jive skit, but this... it's just beyond pathetic. It's an ad focused on Australians... who at the time are playing Cricket against the West Indies... it has nothing to fucking do with the fucking yanks. So fucking pull your heads in you cocks.

Dragon Age Expansion!!!

Woot. Seriously fucking awesome, 15+ more hours of Dragon Age!!!

Word Ban List of 2010

Using an app to tweet about sexting? One university wants you to watch your language.

I seriously fucking agree, take your time and use the Queen's English you fucking twits, there are tons of words, you don't need to invent new ones.

Studs and Sluts

I was half asleep last night when a thought came to me, you see I had been reading a forum and one poster made a rather heartfelt rant about the double standard regarding promiscuity in our society, in that while men who sleep around are considered studs, woman who do the same are considered sluts. It's hard a new thing, been around for thousands of years, no matter how unfair people might feel it is, and I doubt it will go away any-time soon, I personally think it's rather unfair myself, but the question came to me, where did the double standard come from?

So I pondered and wondered, no doubt many feminists (and why is that word no long brings to mind Women's Sufferage but instead brings to mind an image of a high healed foot stamping on a male throat?) blame it squarely on "patriarchal" intuitions of the past, and they may have a point, but personally I think it goes back farther then that.

When you think about early, very early, human society you need to understand we were closer to our instincts, and woman held a great deal of power, every man wanted to pass on his genetic legacy, while the women only wanted the best of the best, just look at any group dynamic of animals for an example, the strongest and most powerful males breed with as many females as they can, the weak don't.

So from that prospective it makes sense, early human men had this inbuilt need to spread their genetics around as much as possible, while the females wanted only the best, thus limiting themselves to one partner.

And today this is still with us, man who sleep around are considered virile, while women who do the same are considered aberrant.

Of course this pondering doesn't absolve people from not overcoming their prejudices, far from it, many instincts we have need to be overcome, take for example the desire to strangle someone really fucking annoying, but it makes me wonder, what other societal behaviours we have that come from such roots?

Any thoughts?