The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: Hobot on May 17, 2006, 06:25:53 pm
-
http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=05172006 (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=05172006)
I am nineteen, and I could have come up with something better.
I love Beef's blank expression throughout the strip. Paired with the tux, it is perfection.
Fixed your link - AD
-
He keeps the blank expression here (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=05182004) as well. Interesting, that.
Maybe this is the reason Google changes the logo for even the tiniest holiday/birthday/death/full moon/diurnal anomaly.
(I am sorry google.. it's true. I still love you. Please do not take away my gmail, I would die.)
-
People for the Classing Up of Google's Logo, please report ... to the dance floor
-
Interesting that there was no Medal of Excellence awarded by the Board of Regents this time last year. Must be a biennial event.
All the years I worked at IBM, I knew the logo was reminding me of something. I just didn't know it was "Barney Miller." But it all makes perfect sense now.
-
I really want to know the origin of the term 'Nimrods'. Wasn't Nimrod a king in ancient times? How did it come to mean what it means now?
-
I really want to know the origin of the term 'Nimrods'. Wasn't Nimrod a king in ancient times? How did it come to mean what it means now?
In the bible Nimrod was known as "Mighty Hunter". Bugs Bunny called Elmer Fudd a "Poor Little Nimrod" in one of their various cartoons (I don't remember which one at this point and I can't be arsed to google it in a thread about google because the recursion would kill us all).
The rest is assumption and history really.
-
This is a good strip and I enjoy it. I laughed, a feeling which has been sorely missed, usually, for the last five months.
-
Interesting that there was no Medal of Excellence awarded by the Board of Regents this time last year. Must be a biennial event.
I see it as more like the Baseball Hall of Fame.
In theory, it happens every year but if no one gets enough votes to get in, its not as though they just throw in the guy with the highest number of votes so that they can induct someone. Nobody gets in? They just stick in some umpires, some old-timers, maybe a broadcaster, make fun of Pete Rose signing autographs two blocks away, have an exhibition game and call it a day.
This helps keep the cred up for the Hall, they say, and I'd suppose the theory's the same for the Medal.
-
This helps keep the cred up for the Hall, they say, and I'd suppose the theory's the same for the Medal.
True but at least they didn't let the tux's go to waste last year.. What, say WHAT?! (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=09022005)
-
That's the thing about Google. It's FUN. Maybe the logo's pretty crap. But it's nonthreatening to graphic designers, unobtrusive, and spartan enough to be used by MachoMen. In additon, Google is the only company I can think of that's not 'faceless', despite not knowing what any of the owners look like.
And apparently they drive around on scooters and play ping-pong and stuff, and maybe if I go on Google enough they'll ask me for a job there.
Good strip!
-
I see it as more like the Baseball Hall of Fame.
In theory, it happens every year but if no one gets enough votes to get in, its not as though they just throw in the guy with the highest number of votes so that they can induct someone. Nobody gets in? They just stick in some umpires, some old-timers, maybe a broadcaster, make fun of Pete Rose signing autographs two blocks away, have an exhibition game and call it a day.
This helps keep the cred up for the Hall, they say, and I'd suppose the theory's the same for the Medal.
Or perhaps Onstad just balked (baseball pun!) at the idea of interrupting the Volvo of Despair storyline last year. Can you imagine the hellstorm that would've been unleashed on these very fora had we been made to wait another day for Volvo madness so that we could instead see Chris making fun of the way teens type on AIM?
HELLSTORM, I tell you, and Onstad is afraid of that.
-
This is not the first time Onstad expressed his dislike of those colorful six letters:
http://chrisonstad.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_chrisonstad_archive.html
Personally that logo never offended me. It's just... bland. Although, now that I'm paying attention to it, that emboss effect is just awful...
I didn't google the Nimrod stuff either, following Q's sound advice. But I... wikipedia'd it? Is that a verb yet? And apparently the name started meaning "stupid" because of Bugs Bunny, actually. Can we believe that?
-
This is not the first time Onstad expressed his dislike of those colorful six letters:
http://chrisonstad.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_chrisonstad_archive.html
Personally that logo never offended me. It's just... bland. Although, now that I'm paying attention to it, that emboss effect is just awful...
I didn't google the Nimrod stuff either, following Q's sound advice. But I... wikipedia'd it? Is that a verb yet? And apparently the name started meaning "stupid" because of Bugs Bunny, actually. Can we believe that?
Bugs Bunny called Elmer Fudd a "Poor Little Nimrod" in one of their various cartoons
(http://www.misterqueue.com/talked.gif)
-
(http://www.misterqueue.com/talked.gif)
Relax Q, I know you'rethe one who first brought up the Bugs Bunny ref. I just thought it wasn't clear in your post that maybe Bugs called Elmer Fudd "nimrod" meaning "hunter", and after that (and because of that) the word got the derogatory meaning. I mean, it's funny to think that the cartoon writers were using a relatively sophisticated biblical reference but most people saw it and thought "hey, look at the funny word they invented to call the bald little guy stupid! HAR HAR HAR!"
But thanks for the gif, can I keep it?
-
Mostly I was just finding any excuse to use that gif.
You are more than welcome to it my friend.
-
This award would have been much more appropriate a year ago. Since then, Google has devolved into an unusable pile of shit and advertisements. Now it's Wikipedia or it's nuthin'. And their logo has an Omega in it.
-
Mostly I was just finding any excuse to use that gif.
You are more than welcome to it my friend.
And I made this one a while ago but never had the chance to use it.
So there it goes, for absolutely no reason:
(http://www.motoca.net/3xp4/beef.gif)
-
And I made this one a while ago but never had the chance to use it.
So there it goes, for absolutely no reason:
It is a perfect...Logo!
-
I'm very glad that Onstad corrected Ray's glasses in the 2006 Regency strip. The 2004 strip has been bugging me since then.
-
When the hell did Google become "unusable"? I never know what any of you jerks are talking about.
-
Don't call all of us jerks, only some of us are jerks.
I don't think Google is unusable but I do hate the ads and the fact that the first few returned links may be there not because they are closest to what I'm searching for but because their owners paid for their high placement.
-
This award would have been much more appropriate a year ago. Since then, Google has devolved into an unusable pile of shit and advertisements. Now it's Wikipedia or it's nuthin'. And their logo has an Omega in it.
What are these ads you speak of?
-
Really, of all the ads in our ad-bombarded lives, the Google ads are the most innocuous. The paid-for links in the search results are obvious and easily ignored, and the rest of the ads I don't even really see. I use Gmail too and I don't usually notice the ads there either. Sometimes one catches my eye and half the time it's amusing to see how stupid the computer-generated idea of appropriateness is - if you're writing about how much you hate tomatoes you'll get ads for tomato seeds, or you'll get ads relevant to the wrong meaning of a word. But mostly they're just invisible to me. If only the ads on TV and in print were as unobstrusive.
-
LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.
-
This award would have been much more appropriate a year ago. Since then, Google has devolved into an unusable pile of shit and advertisements. Now it's Wikipedia or it's nuthin'. And their logo has an Omega in it.
Funny story: I know the dude who did the initial design for what eventually became the Wikipedia logo. I know this because we were eating lunch with him when he got the official royalty-check-and-legal-papers letter about it all.
He might be the closest I come to actually knowing a famous person.
-
You guys don't know what I'm talking about? That is Crazzzzy.
I used to use Google, search for something, and have an endless list of links with five-star information, completely relevant to what I was searching for. It was the perfect search engine.
Nowadays, you use Google, and the first thing on the list is the page to buy whatever you're searching for on Amazon, and the rest of the list is a mess of websites riddled with pop-ups and adware. The relevant information is sparse, I find myself having to search though pages of links to find the information I want.
Perhaps it's just me. I used to use the internet to find information about the Kurds or Shakespeare, and now I'm using it to find stuff on specific liver enzymes or critical levels of iodine in radioactive assays.
But I read somewhere (I think it might have been Time magazine) that Google tried some kind of update, which was causing old information to come to tops of searches. I feel like I have noticed the direct result of this problem.
But no one else has noticed that amount of useful information from Google has become more and more diluted? Maybe I'm the one that's crazy, but maybe it is you.
-
To be fair, I've seen the same thing, although it's mostly because I tend to have very specific science-related searches these days. That said, I can usually still find something. Maybe it is just you?
-
Is Beef's use of punctuation (twice!) distressing anyone else?
-
Is Beef's use of punctuation (twice!) distressing anyone else?
I chalked it up to him being in a formal setting, being nervous, being formal, possibly even reading directly off a cue card. Which... is weird when you think about it... that I'm automatically rationalizing what's probably a typo in an online comic and just integrating that rationalization into the reality of said fictional world.
-
Perhaps it's just me. I used to use the internet to find information about the Kurds or Shakespeare, and now I'm using it to find stuff on specific liver enzymes or critical levels of iodine in radioactive assays.
I find Google Scholar helpful when I have specific scientific queries and I don't want to be diverted by eBay offering to sell me ethidium bromide.
-
But I read somewhere (I think it might have been Time magazine) that Google tried some kind of update, which was causing old information to come to tops of searches. I feel like I have noticed the direct result of this problem.
You are correct about this I believe. There was a rash of "OMG GOOGLE IS FULL" stories a couple weeks ago, which apparently were misinterpretations of the real news, which was that they were becoming clogged with a lot of spam due to a Googlebot update, though I haven't noticed it personally.
-
Yeah I can't find shit on Goggle anymore. I thought it was just me.
~Paul
-
Any thoughts from people who use google scholar? I tend to use it as a secondary reference and use more reputable journal databases for my main literature searches but it does throw up some good stuff now and then. Not sure how reliable their citation index is but thats a bit iffy no matter where you look.
-
Hmmm. I still find damn well near anything I want with Google. Go figure.
-
Yeah I can't find shit on Goggle anymore. I thought it was just me.
~Paul
There's all kinds of shit (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-25,GGLG:en&q=shit) on google.
-
This is exactly what happened with every other search engine ever, which is basically that they made an algorithm that found good info, then the people who want you to click on their porn ads figured out the algorithm.
The problem is not really with Google, though they could probably filter out most of these fake results with a little "Don't return results with 'fuck' on the same page" checkbox or something. The problem is that there are apparently very ingenious people who want you to click on their porn ads, and they have more time/energy than Google does.
Maybe I'll just automatically put "-sluts" in every search and see how that works.
-
I don't understand why all commercial sex sites can't just have the suffix .xxx or something like that. Then people who want porn can find it real easily and those who don't can just ban all .xxx sites. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
-
Hmm, I never get porn when I use Google. I wonder what I am doing
wrong right.
-
I don't understand why all commercial sex sites can't just have the suffix .xxx or something like that. Then people who want porn can find it real easily and those who don't can just ban all .xxx sites. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
The porn industry doesn't want their market limited so easily like that, so they're ag'in it.
And... oddly enough... religious right-wing folks don't want it either, because they think giving it its own domain legitimizes it.
So when something about restricting porn is opposed by both pornographers AND moralists?
It don't happen.
-
The porn industry doesn't want their market limited so easily like that, so they're ag'in it.
And... oddly enough... religious right-wing folks don't want it either, because they think giving it its own domain legitimizes it.
So when something about restricting porn is opposed by both pornographers AND moralists?
It don't happen.
There's also the fact that you can't force all the porn sites that already exists to give up their .com or .net sites just by creating .xxx. You could try, but ICANN is powerless (according to their rules there shouldn't be an aol.com or comcast.com at all) and lots of the sites either are hosted in other countries or would move.
.kids is much more likely. I believe that already has the backing of some major players in the porn world.
-
There's also the issue of whether .xxx sites could *advertise* on .coms or whatever, as well as an accurate and unambiguous definition of pornography.
I do kind of hate the fact that it wouldn't work, because I really do want a way to protect the childrens without curtailing my rights. I don't like it when my niece mistypes "americangirl.com" and gets sent to a spyware/adware/porn advertising page.
Come to think of it, though, I don't like it when I mistype something and end up there either.
-
As a person who regularly has to order weird shit off the internet for work, I acutally find their ads (and Froogle) very usefull when I need them. And, as others mentioned, they're easily ignorable otherwise.
-
oh lord, for a second I thought you meant you often had to buy porn/sex toys online for work.
best/worst job ever!
-
Where did I say I didn't *creepy smile*?
-
Where did I say I didn't *creepy smile*?
You know.. if that's the case I just might have to build a shrine to you... made out of sex toys... and ketchup packets.
Don't ask why the ketchup packets.
-
Don't ask why the ketchup packets.
I never do (http://www.paulmcrae.com/FEATURES/PARADE_2005/IMAGES/PARADE/1024/DSCN5151-E-1024.jpg).
~Paul
-
That is going to be one messy car wreck. The paramedics won't know what to think.
-
Wow. Words fail me.
And hey, check out the shirt on the guy standing in the background with his snake-covered back to the car.
-
Dammit Paul, you have far too many interesting car photos to be a real person. I suspect you are some sort of living sentient camera, out to photograph all the interesting cars EVER.
All flicking your shutters instead of blinking.
All three-legged (er.. wait.. nevermind)
Seriously though.. what the hell is up with that photo?
Also, after the fact, I think that the little girl bored out of her mind and trying to get something out of her teeth is the best part. Her dad is all proud of the car and she's all "Man.. I had to go to Taco Bell so many times!"
-
'Now, I'll just pose by leaning here.. SPLAT'
'Ah, time to wash the car. I'll just start by wiping SPLAT'
'I'm allergic to ketchup! I'm fainting onto the car... SPLAT'
'Let's have sex on the car! SPLAT SPLAT SLOSH SPLAT'
Really, it's never going to work.
-
Also, after the fact, I think that the little girl bored out of her mind and trying to get something out of her teeth is the best part. Her dad is all proud of the car and she's all "Man.. I had to go to Taco Bell so many times!"
The little girl is just an observer, but seriously, have you ever heard a kid complain about Taco Bell? They fuck*ng love the place.
~Paul
-
I never do (http://www.paulmcrae.com/FEATURES/PARADE_2005/IMAGES/PARADE/1024/DSCN5151-E-1024.jpg).
~Paul
Lycopene! It all comes full-circle.
-
You know what I like best about that car?
The fact that it's number 57. Classic.