Posted by Jason O on Aug 9, 2012 in eNovels & Writing
, Not quite serious.
Internet retailer Amazon.com has announced today that it intends to launch a new version of its Kindle eBook reader which will be programmed to prevent readers from reading material not deemed to be family values orientated.
The new eReader, to be called the Kindle PietE, is being launched next week by the company following concerns by family values groups that they were afraid that their members were being suspected of reading adult erotica such as the best-selling “Fifty Shades of Grey” instead of their bibles or books by whichever angry blonde Fox News anchorette has a book out attacking other Americans for believing in the Bill of Rights.
The eReader will have a glowing crucifix on its front cover, and will be hardwired to deny the reader access to anything deemed adult material, with French words in it, or anything that uses the words “Obama” not accompanied with “Kenyan”, “Muslim” or “Socialist Death Camps”. The words “dinosaur”, “Darwin” and “newspaper” are also on the Blocked list.
The company is said to be delighted with the number of pre-orders it has received. They have also expressed delight at pre-orders for a different version called the PietE Plus, which comes with the glowing crucifix on the cover but is actually pre-loaded with over 100 gay erotica books. Amazon have admitted that they have had to increase the workforce in the depots located in southern states to keep up with the demand.
Posted by Jason O on Aug 9, 2012 in Irish Politics
I accept that climate change is man-made. Not because I have perused the scientific data, because I’m far too dumb to understand it. No, the reason I believe in it is because the people who oppose it are, for the most part, opposed to nearly everything I believe in and support things I am appalled by. As a result, I give the benefit of the doubt to those I agree with, and most of them believe climate change to be real. Yet, and here’s the funny bit: I don’t really think we should do anything about it.
What’s that, you say? Let me clarify. If the planet can agree a proper plan to reduce our carbon emmissions, then by all means, let’s do it. What I am opposed to is empty symbolism like building the odd wind farm. Now, don’t get me wrong. There are very good reasons for a country having a plan to move to genuinely sustainable sources of power, and in particular reducing our need to import oil and gas from people who are nuts (the Middle East) or evil (The Kremlin). I’m all for that. But the idea that western countries should put themselves at an economic disadvantage with huge polluters like China and India for a moral feel-good factor is just plain crackers. It will do almost nothing to save the planet but will cause us economic hardship whilst turning ordinary people against the concept of environmentalism.
So, what should we do? We should continue to improve energy efficiency, because there is a strategic economic benefit to it. Using taxes on carbon fuels to drive research into more economic transport is also a good means of using the free market to drive progress, and pollution reduction is a immediate benefit to our society anyway. But subsidising green energy because it is not economically viable otherwise? That has to be seriously reconsidered.
And one other thing: Am I the only person who gets irritated when private jet flying celebrities lecture the rest of us on flying?