All Your Snakes Are Belong To Us!

Alright, here's a little background information before I screen the video. For those of you who think you know what I'm getting at, you can check out the video I found on youtube at the end of this post.

To begin, there was this craze called 'All You Base Are Belong To Us' some years ago. Basically, someone took an old Japanese Nintendo game and used the terrible command of English on the game dialogue and made it into a crappy but hilarious MTV video. Here's the video clip I found...

And recently, with the opening of the B-flick movie 'Snakes on the Plane' (make a guess what the show is about), some wisecrack created a new version of the old cult favourite, and thats how we get 'All Your Snakes Are Belong To Us', yet another, corny and crappy MTV clip.

Oh yes, if you think you recognise the baddie in this clip, you must have seen the Masks cartoons of the 80s. Thats the leader of Venom! All Your Base Are Belong To Us! Make Your Time! Hahahaha!

More Crap From Israel

Those of you who follow European Football as well as the Israel-Lebanon 'conflict' might be familiar with this. For the Champions' League and UEFA Cup qualifiers, for the sake of the players' safety, UEFA have decided that all matches that were suppose to be played in Israel shall now be played at a neutral venue instead of in Tel Aviv or any other Israel city.

And the Israelis are in an uproar about this. To quote the president of the Israel Football Players' Association, Avi Cohen,"The people who are not living in Israel do not understand Tel Aviv is out of the war. You do everything - you lie on the beach and go to discotheques. It is like living in London. It is very disappointing not to get Liverpool in Tel Aviv and (have) very big celebrations."

Jesus H. Christ! I have plenty of bones to pick with what is said. Firstly, apparently, it seems rather safe to play football in Tel Aviv, eh? One of the main reason why Israel invaded/bombarded/massacred Lebanon is because Hezbollah's rockets are threatening the safety of Israel's cities, wasn't it? So which is it? Is Tel Aviv safe from rockets or not? Or I suppose footballers do not die from rocket blasts right? Thats the only reason I can think as to why the footballers should still play in a country under 'threat' from hostile missiles and rockets.

Secondly, aren't we at war here? And yet the Israelis are still lying on the beach and going to discos. I certainly don't remember the British partying like there's no tomorrow during the Second World War or the North Vietnamese lying on the beach during the Vietnam War (dead Vietnamese lying on the beach don't count).

Thirdly, probably very much like the previous point. Did I see that the Israelis want to have a big celebration? So what are they going to celebrate? The 1000th Lebanon civilian killed? What a load of bull...

How will human beings become extinct?

Recently Dr Stephen Hawking asked the people of Yahoo! Answers "How can the human race survive the next hundred years?" Answers range from the absurd to the hopeful and to the simple reply of humans not being able to survive the next hundred years. Dr Hawking himself said he has no answer to the question. Even the great Dr Hawking has no answer to that, I guess human beings are screwed then.

With that being the case, I'll assume that the human race will be extinct in a century's time, hence my question "How will human beings become extinct?" After some thought, I've narrowed down to the choices below.

1. A nuclear war begins, countries nuke each other. The lucky ones are killed by the initial nuclear blasts, the not so lucky ones die eventually of radiation exposure.


2. A stray meteorite hits Earth. Once again, the lucky ones are killed by the initial impact, the ones that never kena Toto freeze to death because excessive dust in the atmosphere blocks the sun's ray causing a climate change that humans cannot control. Bruce Willis does not save the world by detonating the meteor.


3. Global warming becomes uncontrollable (might already have happened), the earth becomes hotter and hotter, eventually humans can't cope with the temperature and start dropping like flies. The Arabs out live the rest of the world but still die eventually. David Blaine survives the heat but dies of old age.


4. An epidemic spreads like wild fire. With all the world's funds put into developing weapons of destruction and rewarding people who provide information on Al Qeada's latest number 2 in command, no cure can be found. Human race dies a slow and painful death eventually.


5. The Vogons zap Earth into oblivion in order to build an inter-galactical highway. Just like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. All life-forms on Earth are wiped away in an instant. The leaders of the world were still trying to agree on a ceasefire for the 100 year old Israel-Lebanon invasion.


6. We all die of George Bush's stupidity.

My heart tells me its option 6 but my brain tells me its option 3. What do you think? And are there any other possible answers?

Computer Technology...

Saw this printed on a T-Shirt while I was in Hong Kong. Pretty much gives an explanation to the workings of my favourite hardware.

Why the World needs more than one Superpower and more countries that own nuclear weapons.

Weird title, I'll agree. But there really is a need for more than one Superpower in the world, and more countries with nuclear weapons.

First of, I shall touch on the less controversial of the 2. Why should there be more than one Superpower in the world? Remember the good old Iron Curtain days? USA and USSR were in constant struggle to be the mightier of 2 Superpowers. Weapons were made, missiles were launched, men were put into space, etc. People died, but most were soldiers/spies/double-agents/Afghans/Vietnamese, so they were prepared to die anyway. But basically, other than a few hot-spots in the world, where out and out fighting was present, there wasn't much suffering in the rest of the world (except Africa, but thats another story for another day).

And why is this so? Because everyone was either on the American's side or the Ruskies' side. If you fark with me, my big brother will get you. Case in point, Cuban Missile Crisis. Good ole' Fidel Castro pointed a few missiles at the big US of A. Did the Americans start a pre-emptive strike and knock the crap out of Fidel's toys? Nope. They didn't dare, cause they know the consequence if they do. The Red Army will be down on them and a Third World War would ensue. Or at the very least, the US of A would have a 'Vietnam' in their own backyard. So they did the only logical thing, which is to coax the Ruskies to talk their little brother out of aiming their missiles at America.

Speaking of Vietnam, thats an example where big brothers (USSR and China) helped his little brother (North Vietnam). In doing so, the Vietcongs were able to repel the American forces, thus ensuring that the little guy can defeat the big bully with the backing of a Superpower.

And in a tit-for-tat reply, during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 80s, the Americans, playing the big brother role this time, secretly supplied mountain weapons and 1 Rambo to the Afghan insurgents in their war against the Soviets, making life difficult for them, which resulted in the Soviet's eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan.

A present day example where a second balancing 'Superpower' coming it useful and preventing a war would be the North Korea missile test issue. If North Korea wasn't on such buddy terms with China, the closest country to a second Superpower in the world currently, would the US just stood there and demand 'sanctions' on North Korea only? Will they bollocks? They would probably have knocked the living daylights out of North Korea even before the North Koreans 'tested' those missiles. The only reason why the Americans didn't do so is because they are afraid to piss the Chinese off.

Therefore, I conclude, more than one Superpower is required in the world so that they can 'police' each other and ensure that the other does not bully little countries.

Now the more controversial issue, more countries that own nuclear weapons. Controversial, but very easily explained. Lets say a country have a single nuclear missile, would you dare shoot missiles into it? Or invade it? Hell no. You either shoot a nuclear missile into it and get it over and done with, and in doing so, start a nuclear war, or you just don't do anything. Would Israel have invaded Lebanon if they know that Lebanon has nuclear missiles? I don't think so. This is probably a very dim view of things, but I don't see countries with nuclear capabilities being invaded so far. No invasion, no war. No war, no deaths. World Peace. Haha. I rest my case.

Oh yes, and Iraq doesn't count, unless we're talking about invisible nuclear missiles.

Droning Air-Con

Its 3:37p.m. I'm at my office. I'm staring at the laptop monitor. I'm listening to the droning air-con. I'm bored. I need a life...

Droooonnnnneeeee......droooonnnnnneeeee.....droooonnnneeeeee.....