|Slain(e) with intent|
Windows LIVE - stillborn
Well, I've resisted Windows Live since I first installed it and immediately uninstalled it. It's crass, it's cumbersome and it's absolutely brimming over with useless shite that I'll never want to use. M1cr05h4ft, in their infinite wisdom, have now made adoption of MSN Live mandatory if you with to continue using messenger, so with heavy heart I have clicked, "yes".
I should have stuck with my Yahoo! account. In order to view my emails I must first wait whilst the new Windows Live page fails to load. There is a lovely little orbital icon below the immortal phrase, "is this taking to long?" impressing upon me how it is "working" but since the page is fully loaded (ie "Done") and it all works fine at home on an 8meg connection I must assume that there is nothing new in the "happening" stakes. 10 minutes is more than enough, lets proceed to the option to view in "classic" mode ("classic" is an obvious euphemism for "working", well - it loads up the first page and lets me read my emails anyway).
I now have the bonus of clicking such wonderous new links as "So, What do you Think?" (which starts as a link to g.msn.com and then mysteriously goes to an advert for Windows Live found on get.live.com and takes bloody ages for the tiny crappy little php icon images to download to my laptop on a 4 gig connection, every fucking time - limited "cache"). Oh what joys, a whole page with nothing but 5 links to get.live.com/# (that's Live.Com, Live Search, Live Messenger, Live Hotmail and Live Spaces all pointing to EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING PLACE - THE FUCKING LIVE ADVERT PAGE) and one to domains.live.com (that's an offer for unlimited custom Live Accounts so you can pretend to be an emotionally mature and physically advanced inquisitive 12 year old girl on Monday, a well hung 19 year old boy on Tuesday, a banana on Wednesday, pregnant on Thursday morning, sterile on Thursday afternoons, mad for it on Friday night and still return to your sad married life at the weekend). Or, as the Live Advert states quite clearly, "Where your online world comes together... all in one place". Other masterstokes of genius includes g.live.com which comes back as "page cannot be displayed/found" in place of "feedback" and a ten minute delay trying to access the Help Centre for my Windows Live Account which also requires that I sign in, even though I have accessed it from inside my own MSN hotmail.com mail account. When offering comment to the "support" page that did eventually appear the form was subsequently lost in the ether and "Page cannot be Displayed" was returned to me. I was too scared to try the link for "Try New Betas"
Okay - Lets look at the options and see if there is anything useful there. Well, at the top of the page I am informed that I am indeed using the full version of Live Hotmail and if I want it provides a link to "classic version". Below that we have 4 ways to manage my account (view and edit person info - ok, send and recieve from other accounts - eh? that's an inbox activity surely, forward mail to another account - eh? inbox activity, send automated response to emails - eh? inbox activity) so, 1 out of 4 for managing the account. Next we have 2 options in Junk Emails (Filter and Reporting - oh my fucking GOD, filtering emails is an inbox activity, reporting should be automated whenever I click "Junk/Spam" and Safe and Blocked Senders - eh? that's an Address Book surely?). Next we have 8 ways to customise my mail (Select Language - OMG isn't an English OS enough of a clue? Reading Pane Settings - eh? that's an account setting? Personal Email Signature - mmm okay but really it should be an account setting; Save sent messages - OMG WTF Account Settings you fuck; Automatically sort emails into folders - ACCOUNT SETTINGS; reply-to address - FUCKING ACCOUNT SETTINGS; mobile alerts for new messages- WHY? either you can get the email redirected to your phone or you can't, knowing that there is an email for you is only going to cause a fucking accident; Today Page Setting - well since I avoid MSN Today like it's a particularly virrulent form of plague that's about as welcome a link as one offering a night of passion under Partick Moore. What's next? Ah yes, Customise your contacts THAT's CUSTOMISE, not Customize - you Arrogant American CUNTS. WE SPEAK ENGLISH, WE TYPE ENGLISH, YOU ABUSE OUR LANGUAGE... Clean up Duplicate contacts - I tried that - they all automatically asked to be inclued in my address book next time I logged into MSN Messenger; Sort Your Contact list - NOPE, all you can do is duplicate entries in additional groups so you end up with a whole shit load of spurious duplicates and no idea which ones are legitimate; IMPORT Contacts - that happened automatically when I installed MSN Live and I'm still trying to sort out the fucking mess; EXPORT Contacts - to Yahoo! presumably.
No mention of passwords or security. No working links to offer complaint or constructive critisism (note that's not Critisizm), no way to MOVE address book entries, no way to add ISP email addresses that Hotmail/Microsoft don't want to do business with, nothing USEFUL, nothing CONSTRUCTIVE. Absolutely PLENTY at FAULT.
So, how dare Microsoft release a hideously faulty system on the world... mmm... okay, ANOTHER faulty syst... mmm... okay.
Nothing New to Report.
9-11 day 2007.
I'm not keen to make a habit of this but my mental response to an article on todays BBC online cannot go unmentioned. It really isn't the sort of thing that I want to leave in the open... so I'll hide it here.
[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm]BBC News Link[/URL]
[quote]9/11 demolition theory challenged[/quote]
* and refuted by me
[quote]An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.[/quote]
* Challenged, yes, but not proved. And here is my reasoning...
[quote]The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.[/quote]
* I haven't seen the study but I am quite prepared to accept that, once in progress, a total and catastrophic collapse was inevitable... but this is not proof, merely conjecture. And this is only scratching the surface of the theory.
[quote]One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".[/quote]
* WEll, that's because both buildings came down in a manner consistent with a controlled explosion, to wit: straight and at close to free fall. Furthermore, a confessed "controlled demolision" of building 7 nearby gave an excellent example of how exactly similar these events were.
[quote]The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.[/quote]
* Irrelevent. Note carefully how this statement is constructed. "Not Needed" implies what exactly? that the theory of a pre-planned, methodically executed controlled demolision of both towers is perfectly plausible... but that the figures could be used to give an alternative. Fair enough, I'm all into alternatives, but this does not constitute proof, refutement or a rebuttal... again this is circumstantial conjecture and without any data to observe it is also heresay.
[quote]Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.[/quote]
* Shame... tugging on the old emotional heart strings to catch us off guard and why? If this really is a genuine piece of research we don't need to be fobbed or distracted. Oh yes, and the word you should be using there is murdered, not killed. (News reporting has to be a bit sensational though - point taken)
[quote]After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.[/quote]
* Yup... this is old news... interestingly, a "progressive charge" would be an excellent term to describe how a building of this type is demolished whilst causing a minimum of collateral damage.
[quote]This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking").[/quote]
* Indeed it does, but does it hold weight (forgive the analogy)
[quote]Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.[/quote]
* Well I looked and I looked... I did find "Progressive Collapse of Structures: Annotated Bibliography and Comparison of Codes and Standards" by a Osama A. Mohamed (hmmmmm.....) but eventually, having found no reference to Dr Seffen in the entire JEM site I searched for him using google and found a University of Cabridge article (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002) which is even less scientific than the BBC. So, where is this article? I suspect that "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" by Zdenk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure is the article in question.
[quote]Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.[/quote]
* This does concern me... The initial collapse did appear to be genuine. As we all know, looks can be decieving. But I do accept that this aspect is entirely plausible - not proof mind, but plausible.
[quote]In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.[/quote]
* eh? aren't you supposed to be proving it wasn't a conspiracy?
[quote]"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.[/quote]
* Ah ha... sounds like the juicy bit coming up. Still not sure who this Dr Seffen is though... and why he is commenting on a paper that he does not appear to have contributed to. But the BBC like him so he can't be all bad eh?
[quote]Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.[/quote]
* okay - I'm with you so far...
[quote]His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.[/quote]
* Really? So the failure of a single part of this building made it go into freefall? Is that what you are saying? I think I want to see some evidence mate before I accept your word on it.
[quote]This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.[/quote]
* It is. And that is why so many educated people are calling, "FOUL". The implication is that the lower floors put up absolutely no resistance to the falling debris from above. You attribute this to a lack of "residual capacity" but that's another term for "overloaded" surely. And are we to believe that every single floor was at this precarious tipping point, where one more filing cabinet would have brought the building down?
[quote]The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".[/quote]
* "A fair assumption", okay, but by the same premis, with such visual and physical evidence, a conspiracy to deliberately demolish both towers and thus launch America into "The War Against Terror" (TWAT) and symultaneously raise public sympathy for "Uncle SAM" (surface to air missile? interesting since the towers became air to surface missiles) is also "a fair assumption"
[quote]"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.[/quote]
* yup - it just doesn't add down does it.
[quote]He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.[/quote]
* Okay - if that were the case, why is it that we need to spend so much money on professional explosives demolision crews to drop a building safely when what you claim here is that it happens normally anyway? Ah, and how did the real reported professional explosives team manage to organise a "drop" of building 7 in such a short time? Or, was the drop of the towers accidentally insufficient to take out the real target, all those "Enron" papers... perhaps the towers were supposed to create considerably more damage but performed an implode instead of a topple.
[quote]The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.[/quote]
* Yup - it all adds up. The explosions, the freefall, the lack of sideways momentum, the pyroclastic debris cloud, the remnants of demo charge chemicals, the clean cut beams.
[quote]This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.[/quote]
* oh yes, uniformity and similarily - I forgot them.
[quote]Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.[/quote]
* Yes, squibs... I wondered if they were real to begin with but now you've confirmed them too - thanks. And yes... theyy are so well below the descending rubble it is hard to believe that they are anything other than deliberate structure compromising detonation explosions.
[quote]Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.[/quote]
* Really - and exploding outwards with sufficient force to cause a whole series of windows on a single floor to explode outwards whilst ten floors above and below all remain intact?
[quote]Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.[/quote]
* What... is that it?
* Okay, so an English guy who is not named on a paper published in an American Engineering Journal claims to have devised a system of calculating the forces exerted inside a building collapse about which we have only sketchy information at best and he cannot actually explain the bulk of the data that conspiracy theorists have based their own conclusions on - and this is going to help future building designers is it? PHUK OFF.