Recently we posted about a disturbing incident where brads were used to secure a stretcher and, obviously, failed to do so in a very dangerous fashion. Today we are posting about another dangerous incident related to the use of brads.
It began much as any other day, a family were playing in a hotel room in Orlando, Florida. As the day progressed, however, the four-year-old child quickly became bored with what the parents were doing and chose to play on the balcony. Unfortunately this balcony was on the fourth floor, but fortunately when the toddler fell someone was there to prevent a scary fall from being a prelude to a funeral.
"So," you may ask, "what were the parents doing?" We have been studying the evidence for several days now and have determined that they were examining and polishing their brad collection. We haven't been able to ascertain (as we have been denied access to the crime scene by local authorities) whether they were using brads to transport drugs, but we do know that they were so obsessed with their brads that they let their child wander into a life-threatening situation.
It seems that brads are once again becoming more popular, and this is probably our fault to some extent. We have been so successful in managing the threat that world citizens who are not so well informed as you are are beginning to not fear them anymore. We have heard them say things like, "One brad won't hurt," or "Since the Company is gone there's no real threat anymore." Apparently we have failed in instilling in them a knowledge of the intrinsic evil that is the brad. At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not sorry for our mistake and will continue to work tirelessly to correct it!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
The evils of brads
At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not committed to spreading the word about the evils of brads. For those who have been living under a rock for the last several years and may be asking themselves something along the lines of, "What could possibly be wrong with a tiny piece of metal?" we answer with the following post.
Yesterday a seriously ill woman was being transported from a cruise ship along the coast of Norway to a life boat, when her stretcher was dropped unceremoniously into the frigid sea. She suffered greatly from the exposure and was in the near-freezing water for several minutes. But what, you may ask, does this have to do with brads? The answer is simple. Over the last few years (since we have crushed the Company) we have a decline in overall brad use, but at the same time we have seen an effort by brad enthusiasts (apparently acting alone) to get people to use brads for non-traditional uses. One of those uses was to secure stretchers during rescue operations at sea, and preliminary investigations show that in this particular incident the stretcher had, in fact, been secured using brads. The brad enthusiasts may tell you that the brads will work perfectly, but do not believe them. They are, for the most part, evil and twisted individuals bent on your pain and suffering, and on the subjection of women to the whims of men.
Yesterday a seriously ill woman was being transported from a cruise ship along the coast of Norway to a life boat, when her stretcher was dropped unceremoniously into the frigid sea. She suffered greatly from the exposure and was in the near-freezing water for several minutes. But what, you may ask, does this have to do with brads? The answer is simple. Over the last few years (since we have crushed the Company) we have a decline in overall brad use, but at the same time we have seen an effort by brad enthusiasts (apparently acting alone) to get people to use brads for non-traditional uses. One of those uses was to secure stretchers during rescue operations at sea, and preliminary investigations show that in this particular incident the stretcher had, in fact, been secured using brads. The brad enthusiasts may tell you that the brads will work perfectly, but do not believe them. They are, for the most part, evil and twisted individuals bent on your pain and suffering, and on the subjection of women to the whims of men.
Monday, April 18, 2011
A partial explanation
Since we discovered that the birds, not the bird watchers, seem to be responsible for the computers that have been giving us trouble we have been tirelessly investigating them and their computers. All of our effort recently led us to an important discovery and a partial explanation of the birds' behavior.
Apparently this particular flock of birds (Scarlet Ibis, for the curious) has been genetically modified. The records we found are incomplete (we assume they were destroyed) and we have to interpolate many things, but we are 97.3589% confident that our conclusions are substantially correct. It appears that the very birdwatchers that were apparently customers of the birds' network expertise were part of a foundation that raises money for unconventional experiments such as those run on this flock of birds, and were thus responsible, at least in part, for the genetic manipulations. We have traced many of the funds and can categorically state that the vast majority of them came from puppet companies set up by the Parent Corporation, although their motives are as yet unclear. The birds' keepers unwillingly informed us that the modifications were to increase their intelligence and computer skills. It appears that, once genetically modified, the birds were able to use the computers to their advantage, but it is not clear yet whether the birds have the intelligence to have programmed the computer system that took over the GPD. We doubt they do, but we have yet to prove that they do not, so we'll leave it at that for now. We have our best operatives on this, so we hope to know more soon!
Apparently this particular flock of birds (Scarlet Ibis, for the curious) has been genetically modified. The records we found are incomplete (we assume they were destroyed) and we have to interpolate many things, but we are 97.3589% confident that our conclusions are substantially correct. It appears that the very birdwatchers that were apparently customers of the birds' network expertise were part of a foundation that raises money for unconventional experiments such as those run on this flock of birds, and were thus responsible, at least in part, for the genetic manipulations. We have traced many of the funds and can categorically state that the vast majority of them came from puppet companies set up by the Parent Corporation, although their motives are as yet unclear. The birds' keepers unwillingly informed us that the modifications were to increase their intelligence and computer skills. It appears that, once genetically modified, the birds were able to use the computers to their advantage, but it is not clear yet whether the birds have the intelligence to have programmed the computer system that took over the GPD. We doubt they do, but we have yet to prove that they do not, so we'll leave it at that for now. We have our best operatives on this, so we hope to know more soon!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Birds?
Earlier this month we believed that the bird watchers may have been orchestrating a bid to rule the world by getting their computers to shut down their competitors, but we were sadly mistaken. The bird watchers, sadly, have no such ambitions, and merely desired a way to organize their pictures and clips, and to be able to collaborate online. In order to meet this pathetically simple goal, they enlisted the help of an unknown e-mail writer who sent them an offer of services. They haven't thought much about that anonymous solicitation since then, but when the computers shut down our operation temporarily and we responded by shutting down their computers they started complaining.
To make a long story short, or at least shorter, we have been investigating the source of that solicitation for some time, and it appears to have come from a source none of us suspected. It appears that a group of birds living in an aviary in Denver, Colorado, had access to computers as part of a study, and it appears that the birds themselves sent the e-mail. They also, apparently, responded to the bird watchers and set the computers up for their online collaborative tool.
At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not skeptical of the birds' ability to use computers that many humans have trouble with, but the facts we have been able to obtain as of yet seem to point to the birds as the source of the computer troubles we had. We'll continue to investigate this bizarre incident, and hopefully be able to explain it a bit better.
To make a long story short, or at least shorter, we have been investigating the source of that solicitation for some time, and it appears to have come from a source none of us suspected. It appears that a group of birds living in an aviary in Denver, Colorado, had access to computers as part of a study, and it appears that the birds themselves sent the e-mail. They also, apparently, responded to the bird watchers and set the computers up for their online collaborative tool.
At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not skeptical of the birds' ability to use computers that many humans have trouble with, but the facts we have been able to obtain as of yet seem to point to the birds as the source of the computer troubles we had. We'll continue to investigate this bizarre incident, and hopefully be able to explain it a bit better.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The Dangers of Becoming an Advertisement
At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not willing to learn from our mistakes, which is why we often make course corrections after we attempt groundbreaking new ideas. If you will recall our experiment in headvertising, and another in odortising, you will know that the GPD is not about to shy away from controversial advertising techniques, but you should also know that we do not keep beating dead horses. At least not since our lawyers told us that could be construed as animal cruelty, although why beating a carcass is cruel I don't think I'll ever understand...
But I digress. This post isn't about deceased equines, it's about questionable advertising techniques, such as this one, proposed by Adzookie. It's not that it won't provide good exposure and drive people to Adzookie, but that it could easily be abused by the slightly less-than-honest advertiser. Even when the GPD ran its headvertising campaign we received complaints of people being duped into putting absurd or pro-brad messages on their heads. If the Company and the Parent Corporation were able to take advantage of our advertising campaigns, how much more will they take advantage of this third party's campaign. Don't be surprised if you sign up and discover some morning that your home is an advertisement for hole punches, and don't expect any sympathy from us. You have been warned, after all. Adzookie may not be aligned with the Unholy Brotherhood of the Hole Punch, but we haven't confirmed that yet, and we know how desperate they are to get their message out there now that people are realizing that we have been right all along.
But I digress. This post isn't about deceased equines, it's about questionable advertising techniques, such as this one, proposed by Adzookie. It's not that it won't provide good exposure and drive people to Adzookie, but that it could easily be abused by the slightly less-than-honest advertiser. Even when the GPD ran its headvertising campaign we received complaints of people being duped into putting absurd or pro-brad messages on their heads. If the Company and the Parent Corporation were able to take advantage of our advertising campaigns, how much more will they take advantage of this third party's campaign. Don't be surprised if you sign up and discover some morning that your home is an advertisement for hole punches, and don't expect any sympathy from us. You have been warned, after all. Adzookie may not be aligned with the Unholy Brotherhood of the Hole Punch, but we haven't confirmed that yet, and we know how desperate they are to get their message out there now that people are realizing that we have been right all along.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Bird Watchers
After a number of rounds of negotiations with our lawyers and theirs, the bird watchers have decided to talk with us. It seems that they, too, were convinced of the wisdom of leaving computers in charge of their online operations, and that they were intimidated by the complexity of the Internet and didn't want to hire someone when computers would do the job much more cheaply.
So, why do we mention this? Because it proves that the bird watchers themselves were victims of the computers, not their programmers. At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not thorough, so you can trust us that we checked out their claims. The bird watchers were approached with an e-mail offering the computers' services, so we'll have to keep tracing where they came from, but at least we know the bird watchers aren't in league with the computers.
So, why do we mention this? Because it proves that the bird watchers themselves were victims of the computers, not their programmers. At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not thorough, so you can trust us that we checked out their claims. The bird watchers were approached with an e-mail offering the computers' services, so we'll have to keep tracing where they came from, but at least we know the bird watchers aren't in league with the computers.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Democracy
At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not helpful, which is why we have decided to respond to a very common question we receive, even though the answer is apparent to anyone who has taken GPD 101 at the GNU Public University (also here). (Let us not forget to mention that courses at the GNU Public University are available free of charge).
The question, in essence, is why the GPD isn't the GNU Public Democracy instead of the GNU Public Dictatorship. To answer the question, let's define a few terms:
Democracy - A government where every citizen has an equal voice in deciding what the government will do.
Republic - A government where citizens choose representatives that then decide what the government will do.
Oligarchy - A government where a few citizens or classes of citizens decide what the government will do.
Monarchy - A government where an individual decides what the government will do.
Some like to believe that the best form of government is a democracy, where the people have the power. Unfortunately, this requires a lot of the citizens. They must stay informed about current events and must dedicate a large percentage of their time to keeping the government running smoothly. When citizens fail to stay informed or fail to spend the time necessary on keeping things running smoothly, there are problems. Perhaps citizen A doesn't like citizen B, so instead of researching the issues, he or she simply votes against what citizen B votes for. Suppose citizen C is more interested in Leonardo DiCaprio's latest performance than whether the roads in a neighborhood need to be repaired and chooses to vote against the repairs just so that he or she can get home sooner to enjoy an evening with Mr. DiCaprio. As you can see, a democracy simply demands too much of individual citizens, and if they fail to deliver what is demanded, the system breaks down.
A republic solves some of the problems facing a democracy, by creating a class of people whose job it is to stay informed and to care, and ostensibly to represent the citizens who chose them as representatives. Unfortunately, this system only works when these representatives are properly engaged by their constituents, and, for reasons similar to those mentioned about democracies, this rarely happens. Republics also demand that representatives be altruistic, which is difficult for many people. Self-interest tends to overcome altruism, and the desire to maintain one's status as a representative forces individuals to present misinformation to their constituents to protect their own interests. Rather than listening to their constituents and representing their interests against corporations and other entities that are better-funded, they tend to listen to the better-funded entities and represent their interest against those of their constituents.
Such a state of affairs is more properly termed an oligarchy, since there is a class of people (politicians and well-connected individuals) who tend to make the decisions and then tell the people what they should want. As long as this ruling class provides enough Leonardo DiCaprio movies, most citizens rarely object.
The GNU Public Dictatorship does not adopt any of these models as we find them fraught with errors. We also do not support a monarchy or a traditional dictatorship, since one person rarely has enough knowledge and information to make proper decisions. Instead, we create a dictatorship where exceptional individuals meet together, discuss society's problems, and find solutions. If the people don't believe their leaders are exceptional individuals, they will voice their opinions and the other members of the Board of Dictators will be obliged to sever ties with the non-exceptional individuals. By consolidating decision-making power into the hands of the Board, the GPD allows for quick responses to difficult problems. By following the open source model, we ensure that citizens' interests are represented without corporate interference. It's really a wonderful model!
The question, in essence, is why the GPD isn't the GNU Public Democracy instead of the GNU Public Dictatorship. To answer the question, let's define a few terms:
Democracy - A government where every citizen has an equal voice in deciding what the government will do.
Republic - A government where citizens choose representatives that then decide what the government will do.
Oligarchy - A government where a few citizens or classes of citizens decide what the government will do.
Monarchy - A government where an individual decides what the government will do.
Some like to believe that the best form of government is a democracy, where the people have the power. Unfortunately, this requires a lot of the citizens. They must stay informed about current events and must dedicate a large percentage of their time to keeping the government running smoothly. When citizens fail to stay informed or fail to spend the time necessary on keeping things running smoothly, there are problems. Perhaps citizen A doesn't like citizen B, so instead of researching the issues, he or she simply votes against what citizen B votes for. Suppose citizen C is more interested in Leonardo DiCaprio's latest performance than whether the roads in a neighborhood need to be repaired and chooses to vote against the repairs just so that he or she can get home sooner to enjoy an evening with Mr. DiCaprio. As you can see, a democracy simply demands too much of individual citizens, and if they fail to deliver what is demanded, the system breaks down.
A republic solves some of the problems facing a democracy, by creating a class of people whose job it is to stay informed and to care, and ostensibly to represent the citizens who chose them as representatives. Unfortunately, this system only works when these representatives are properly engaged by their constituents, and, for reasons similar to those mentioned about democracies, this rarely happens. Republics also demand that representatives be altruistic, which is difficult for many people. Self-interest tends to overcome altruism, and the desire to maintain one's status as a representative forces individuals to present misinformation to their constituents to protect their own interests. Rather than listening to their constituents and representing their interests against corporations and other entities that are better-funded, they tend to listen to the better-funded entities and represent their interest against those of their constituents.
Such a state of affairs is more properly termed an oligarchy, since there is a class of people (politicians and well-connected individuals) who tend to make the decisions and then tell the people what they should want. As long as this ruling class provides enough Leonardo DiCaprio movies, most citizens rarely object.
The GNU Public Dictatorship does not adopt any of these models as we find them fraught with errors. We also do not support a monarchy or a traditional dictatorship, since one person rarely has enough knowledge and information to make proper decisions. Instead, we create a dictatorship where exceptional individuals meet together, discuss society's problems, and find solutions. If the people don't believe their leaders are exceptional individuals, they will voice their opinions and the other members of the Board of Dictators will be obliged to sever ties with the non-exceptional individuals. By consolidating decision-making power into the hands of the Board, the GPD allows for quick responses to difficult problems. By following the open source model, we ensure that citizens' interests are represented without corporate interference. It's really a wonderful model!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
