I contributed some work (along with 4 other colleagues) some time ago to a technical book that was recently published. Today the 5 of us each received cheques for 21 pounds and 80 pence for our efforts. Awesome… it’s going to cost me 20 odd bucks to cash the thing, leaving me approximately 30AUD for my trouble. I think I will get it laminated for posterity instead. We actually asked for a single cheque so we could maximise the amount of hookers and blow we could acquire but they did not oblige.

Obviously I didn’t work on it for the money, rather because it would look good on the C.V. However this book is so expensive (400 Euro) that I can’t even afford a copy to put on my bookshelf….. so my dear friends, you won’t be getting signed copies of this riveting tome any time soon.

Some movies are so bad, so appalling, that they have become cult classics. Take Showgirls, for example (so I’m told…). However, it is a rare film indeed that manages to achieve this status before release. I give you “Snakes on a Plane” starring Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson.

The plot outline is as follows:

Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) and Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips), FBI agents, escort John Saunders (Mark Houghton), a former mafia member to testify in a highly publicized case. In the course of a flight between Hawaii and California, an assassin releases hundreds of venomous snakes in the hope of killing the witness.

I’m sold already. Apparantly Jackson signed on based on the title of the film alone:

At one point, the film’s working title was altered to Pacific Air Flight 121. In August 2005, a perturbed Samuel L. Jackson told an interviewer, “We’re totally changing that back. That’s the only reason I took the job: I read the title.

Snakes on a Plane - coming to cinemas near you in August 2006 IMDB / Wikipedia

“Yes [those snakes] deserve to die….. and I hope they burn in hell!”

Courtesy of Whirlpool, I was directed to a discussion website called Now We Are Talking. It is essentially a thinly disguised propoganda site created by Telstra aimed at consumers, trying to further push their agenda for removal of the horrible, crippling regulations they currently endure.

This community discussion forum is for lively debate of the current issues surrounding the regulation of Telstra. You are welcome to contribute but of course every submission will be vetted by Telstra PR. Hardly an open debate.

There are even helpful comics for those who need an incisive assessment of the situation, but don’t have time to read though boring government briefs. And they are hilarious too! Oh the hilarity!

There is a poll on the front page asking: Do you think Australia is over regulated? Currently, 65% say no. Somehow, I don’t think this website will sway anyone toward Telstra’s side.

Courtesy of The Age:

Quote:

It's a shame to see the sacred conflict resolution method of a “dance off” ending in violence. It contradicts everything that a “dance off” stands for.

They say:

Dystopian post-apocalyptic blah-di-fucking-blah-blah

Goobermetrics + TAC (The Amy Commission) say:

Turgid, tedious, laborious film. Vanilla Sky was interesting in comparison.

I rate this a steaming pile of shit.

Words cannot do this justice. Good thing these guys are keeping on top of all new developments concerning TomKat's calculated media blitz.

EDIT: Troy is doing his bit by raising awareness for the Free Katie campaign.

The Age reports the following Gattaca-esque story:

“Two of the AFL's most powerful clubs are considering DNA testing young recruits to test their likely height, strength, speed and stamina.”

I don't even need to comment on how disturbing this is. It is only a matter of time Johnny “Top Aussie Sports Loving Bloke” Howard allocates Federal funds for this advancement of the great Victorian game.

Admittedly it is a shame we cannot apply such testing to our Prime Minister candidates to screen any potential weasels from gaining power in the future.

I really wish SBS would bring back its weekly package of Jon Stewart's “The Daily Show”. If you can I highly recommend checking out Jon's appearance on CNN's “debate” show Crossfire (here) where he takes them to pieces - it's fantastic.

Fortunately you can still get some of the good bits of The Daily Show via the awesome power of the interweb here. The Indecision 2004 election coverage was good as was their take (or rather taking the piss out of the republicans protrayal) of the Democrats “liberal agenda”.

Well, according to Mark Latham he does. I am pleased to see Latham has identified an area that is close to every blokes heart - not free healthcare for the elderly nor a progressive forrestry package - but how important it is to have a firm handshake.

Latham gives us a great insight into the Rodent's lack of finesse in the handshake department: “… I don't enjoy a handshake that is more an armshake flapping style. I think it should be a handshake, and with Mr Howard to avoid the flapping you've got to get a bit closer to him and that's what I did.”

Now that Latham has the pivotal handshake issue covered, things can only improve from here.