One Per Customer, Ma'am

This video is old (2007), but I still find it highly amusing.  There are some things money can't buy.  A little sense appears to be one of them. 

Sphere: Related Content

Now That's More Like It

You know how the new iPhone 4S has that "cool" Siri feature that lets you talk to it and it will talk back to you with an appropriate response? You can ask Siri questions about the weather or directions. You can also ask Siri to send lovely text messages to other people for you and have Siri read you their responses. Yeah, that all sounds fine and good. But what I'd really like is for the commercials to be a little more realistic. And I guess that the fine folks over there at College Humor must have felt the same way because they have put together a lovely little parody of those Siri commercials that is just what I was looking for. Enjoy.

See all the CollegeHumor Original Videos here.

Sphere: Related Content

That's NOT How You Got Pregnant

There was a headline over at The Huffington Post today that I just loved. And when I say "just loved" I mean "just made me want to stab my myself". The headline read "Man Loses iPod, Accidentally Impregnates Wife". Uh-huh. I'm going to need to know more about this, even though I'm guessing that it will increase the urge to stab.

The headline is referring to an iPhone Touch. But the guy in question (lots of questions), a one Doug Wilson, also has an iPhone 4 which he carries around in his hand all of the time. Literally. The guy doesn't put it in his pocket because, according to what he told those at the fledgling CNN, that "...would be too risky, he said, because he might miss a photo opportunity -- like that crazy "rat tail" hairdo he saw at a fast-food spot recently. ("I was like, 'I've GOT to take a picture of this!')" Um, yeah. OK. Wouldn't want to miss that! All rightee, then. Where does the pregnancy come in?

Well, somehow, this guy managed to find himself a wife at some point, a one probably lovely Ashlee. I'm guessing it was before he started carrying around his iPhone 4 with him whenever he is awake. Just a hunch. Anyway, he claims that it was Ashlee whom he "...accidentally impregnated one evening after forgetting to look at an iPod app that explains the details of the rhythm method." Wait a minute. What now?

Correct. He told CNN "That's how we got pregnant...because I lost my [iPod Touch]." If you'll excuse me for a moment, I need to find a wall upon which I'm going to bang my head for a few seconds.

OK, I'm back. Ow. Where was I? Oh, that's right. I was about to bellow "THAT'S NOT HOW YOUR WIFE GOT PREGNANT!" Your wife got pregnant because you had SEX. It's all of the SEX that gets one pregnant, NOT the app! I'm sure that it won't surprise you to learn that this man, who believes that his iPod has the power of spermatozoa, is from Arkansas. I kind of figured that something like that was in play when he got so excited about the guy with the rat tail hair.

The story doesn't conclude with Doug saying that he has now learned what the rhythm method entails or that he's invested heavily in a nice, large supply of condoms or, most importantly, that his iPod had NOTHING to do with his wife getting pregnant. Nope. None of those. It concludes with Doug asserting that "...the slip-up was yet another reminder that his phone should be turned on, in his hand, ready to accept alerts -- all the time." Good Lord. Really? It wasn't even your PHONE that had the damned app on it! (In other news, there's an app that details the rhythm method for you. According to iphoneapples.com "There are currently 180 apps available in the App Store that help women calculate their time of the month." Huh. So, 180 calendar apps are available. Good to know. Morons.)

While I am glad that they are thrilled about the impending birth of their little girl, I'm a bit afraid for that child. Granted, things were a little stacked against her in the first place, what with the Arkansas locale and all. But this whole "I got my wife knocked up because I couldn't find my iPod" is a bit troubling. I wonder if there's an app that will help one reduce the dependence upon apps? A bit ironic, sure. But in this case, probably warranted.

Sphere: Related Content

Then Don't Do That

One of my favorite jokes has always been the one where the guy goes to the doctor and tells him that it hurts when he does this. Naturally, the doctor tells him, "Then don't do that." It's a classic. A timeless classic. Granted, it's hard to say why it's funny, but it just is. And whatever the reason, it doesn't seem to have stopped Apple from using a variation of that theme as a remedy for poor iPhone 4 reception.

Here's the deal: The new iPhone 4 came out the other day. And by all reports, the thing is pretty darned cool. But of course, there are always going to be some glitches or some things that don't work just quite the way that you'd expect them (or like them) to work. And according to the astonishingly still in business CNN, one of those things is "...that holding the phone by its metal edge causes mobile reception to suffer." See, because Apple gets all wacky cool with their technology, they've wrapped the antenna on the iPhone 4 all the way around the edge of the phone. Thus, if you hold the phone the way a normal person holds a phone, you're going to see your reception go all to hell because the antenna is being blocked by your big ol' mitt there.

One guy decided to ask Apple's Grand Poobah about this problem. A chap named Amar wrote the following email to Steve Jobs: "Hi, Mr. Jobs. I love my new iPhone4 (nice work) but when I put my hand on the steel bands I lose all reception. It appears to be a common issue. Any plans to fix this? Thanks, Aram." Nice inquiry. Short. To the point. Complimentary. All of the things that you're going to want to have in an email in order to better your chances of a response. What's that? His response? "Just avoid holding it in that way." Wait. That's it? What now?

That's the response. The modern adaptation of "then don't do that". What exactly does he mean by that? The metal bands go all the way around the phone. How are you supposed to avoid touching them? I'm unclear as to how you're supposed to hold the thing if you're not touching the sides. How would you hold any phone without touching the sides? I'm not so sure that a great piece of technology is something that is only great when it's being held in a certain manner. Steve Jobs tends to pride himself on making the perfect piece of technology, so what is the deal with this?

Did the Apple folks really think that people wouldn't notice or complain? It's a worthy complaint. It's a less than worthy answer of "then don't do that". That's pretty weak. When you have a phone like the iPhone 4, you're going to be concerned with your data speeds and your reception ability. To have to hold your phone a certain way seems vaguely reminiscent of putting tin foil on an aerial TV antenna and then having to hold it with one hand as you stand on one foot. Don't get me wrong. I realize that there wasn't enough room in that teeny-tiny little phone to shove in an antenna as well and so they had to wrap it around the edges so that it would fit in there. I get that. But when it's a matter of getting reception or not getting reception, what say you sacrifice a millimeter of thickness and cram that thing in there, OK? I'm not real thrilled about paying a couple of hundred dollars for something that I have to hold a certain way in order for it to work at an optimal level of performance.

Sphere: Related Content

Apple So Holier Than Thou

You know who should go into the cryptic code business? Apple. Trying to figure out what is OK to have in their App Store and what is not OK to have in their App Store is confusingly ambiguous at best. Sure, I can completely understand why some apps have not been allowed in the App Store., but other apps I'm just no so sure about.

The Baby Shaker app is one that I can understand where the rejection comes from. I have no problem with Apple rejecting a game where the object is to vigorously shake your phone until the baby on the screen stops crying and red Xs appear over its eyes. (But as I think about it, I'm not sure why I have a problem with it. Is it because of the implication of killing the baby a la Shaken Baby Syndrome? Perhaps. But if I was going to get all philosophical about it, I'd have to figure out why that is any worse than the Halo series where there is killing all over the place with no implication whatsoever...it's just killing! Is it the baby that makes it wrong? I'm not sure. But I think that it falls under the explanation that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart gave in 1964 for the definition of what is pornography when he said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . .but I know it when I see it." I think it might be that. I can't explain what would be placed in the category of "wrong" or "unacceptable", but I'll know it when I see it. And Shaken Baby Game goes in the 'Wrong' pile and 'Halo3' does not.)

So while it's understandable to me why the Baby Shaker was not allowed, it's not so understandable to me why some other apps were not allowed. Apps like the updated Tweetie 1.3, which Apple turned away because of the "offensive language" that appears when you search the Twitter Trends. So it's not even the app itself that Apple didn't like, it was the "offensive language" on another site that wasn't OK with Apple, an explanation that I find incredibly odd. Does Apple have search engine apps that search the Internet? I can imagine that there are sites that the search engine apps could find that are riddled with obscenities. fword.com, for example. (I just made that up. Don't type it in your browser bar. I said DON'T TYPE! STOP TYPING! ::: sigh ::: All right. Fine. Just come back and finish reading when you're done. Please?) But you see my point, right?

So I'm a little confused by the latest odd rejection (I'm sure that there are more than I am blissfully unaware of), that of the "Me So Holy" app developed by a one Benjamin Kahle. The premise is simple. Upload a photo of your face or anyone else's face, choose from a small variety of religious themed individuals sans face (ie, Jesus (the child of God, not the gardener), a nun), give your face to the religiously themed individual and voila! You're Jesus! Behold!

No! No! NO!! Not that Jesus! Son of God! SON OF GOD!! Let's try it again. You're Jesus! Behold!

That's better. Where was I? Oh, yeah, so this was rejected. Before I tell you why it was rejected, let me just tell you that this app is very similar to another app, The Animalizer from the same developer. With The Animalizer, you upload a picture of your face, choose a non-religious themed animal from a virtual barnyard of 25, put your picture where the face of the animal is missing and voila! You're an animal! Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud! You know what I meant! Behold!
When did things get taken so literally around here? What if I said I wanted a hot chick?

All right. Annnnnny-wayyyyyy, where was I? Oh, right. So it's OK to put your face on an animal, but it's not OK to put your face on Jesus. Yes, that sounds funny, but that's the way it is. And while one could assume that Apple, which seems to think that it is God a lot of the time, it's basing it's rejection on what it bases all of the rejections on, that being Section 3.3.12 in the iPhone agreement. (I knew that was it!) This section, also known as the 'we're going to use this section to justify doing whatever we want due to the ambiguous language we used to craft this document', reads:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."


I believe the key word there is 'reasonable'. Actually, upon further review and nit picking, I believe the key words there are "may be found". There are a lot of things that 'may be found' to be anything. I "may be found" to be a complete nutjob. I also "may be found" to be a super genius. Monkeys "may be found" to fly out of my arse. Then again, I "may be found" to have made up all of that stuff about the monkeys and my arse. The point is that a lot of things can happen. As long as something isn't forbidden by the laws of nature or physics/science, it can happen. Fortunately, there's a little thing called 'probability' that tends to regulate whether or not we should be prepared for a multitude of things that 'can' happen. Turns out that a lot of things that 'can' happen, don't.

If Apple interpreted the word 'reasonable' to actually mean 'reasonable', then they would understand that the Me So Holy app is not sacrilegious in any way, shape or form and it does not carry the intent of offending anyone on any level of any sort of religious grounds. And I'm talking real offended. Not fake offended (or "fakefended", a term that can often be used in a story which contains fake controversy, or "fakeroversy"). What's so offensive about making your face into a nun? I'll bet that nuns wouldn't be offended. Heck, there'd be more nuns! They'd love that!

But really, if you're going by their rationale, the app itself doesn't contain the content that I'm guessing could be found offensive. That is, someone else trying to portray that they're Jesus (or Jesus-like)

You know what this app is? It's nothing more than Photoshop. In fact, it's considerably less than Photoshop. Are there Photoshop-ish apps for the iPhone? I'll bet there are. How The Animalizer can be OK, but Me So Holy isn't OK is beyond me. Is it because the animals can't speak up for themselves to say that they're offended? If that's the case, then you have to remember that the animals, while voiceless themselves, do have PETA and those PETA folks are crazed. I'd rather take my chances with upsetting religious folks than I would with upsetting a bunch of PETAphiles.

The title 'Me So Holy' reminds me of the 2 Live Crew song 'Me So Horny'. Perhaps that is why Apple is all in a wad about this one. I don't really know, but let's just remember that one of the best selling apps of all time at the App Store is the iFart app. Synthesized flatulence is good, making yourself appear to be Jesus or a nun is bad. Go figure. Perhaps they were just peeved that including Steve Jobs as one of the religious icons was missing from the app and they couldn't add on their tag line "There's an app for that." Get over yourselves, Apple.

Sphere: Related Content

Shaken By Rejection

Over there in the parallel universe that is everything Apple, there is the App Store where one can download a variety of apps ranging from the incredibly mundane all the way to the completely useless. Oh, and with a useful one thrown in now and again. The majority of these apps are created by a third party not otherwise affiliated with Apple. They write their apps and submit them to Apple for approval for sale in the App store. For the most part, Apple approves the vast majority of submitted apps. No one knows what their criteria is because Apple operates under a veil of secrecy similar to that of the CIA only without all of the leaked memos. Occasionally, however, an app will get by and make it into the store only to evoke horror and outrage amongst those sitting around scanning the App Store for horror and outrage.

The latest app to catch the eyes of the outraged horror scanners was something called Baby Shaker. According to ABC News, the description reads: "See how long you can endure his or her adorable cries before you just have to find a way to quiet the baby down!" Um, wut? Yep, that's the GAME. See, then what happens is that the "users shake the iPhone to stop the crying until Xs appear on the eyes of the baby." All of that so-not-tasteless fun for the low, low price of just 99 cents! Well, until Apple pulled the app from the store and apologized to anyone who was or who might have been offended.

OK, at first I kind of thought that there might have been a bit of overreaction to this. After all, it's a game, yes? Well, yes, but not a good one! I guess I thought it would have been some sort of cartoon rendition of the baby. Not so much. No, it looked more like the little adorable Gerber baby that I've NEVER wanted to shake. Behold!

Yeah, see, that's just creepy. And odd that someone would come up with such a thing. I mean, congratulations to the person for having a marketable skill, but my God, man, can't you use it for something else?

Then I was reminded of other apps that made it into the App Store (and a few that did not) that were rejected by Apple after the expression of horror and outrage by the folks of the same name. One of those was the "I Am Rich" app. All this piece of crap consisted of was a picture of a glowing red ruby in the middle of the screen. The description read: "The red icon on your iPhone or iPod Touch always reminds you (and others when you show it to them) that you were able to afford this. ... It's a work of art with no hidden function at all." All of that pretentiousness for the low, low price of only $999.99! For reals. And if you're shocked by that, you're going to pass out when I tell you that eight morons actually paid for and downloaded it. (There's a name for people like that. It's a name probably not appropriate for this venue, but let's just say that it would be the same name as a fairly popular nickname for folks named Richards.)

Of course, since that went over so well and received a bunch of publicity (because isn't that what the news outlets are supposed to report on?) someone else had to make an "I Am Poor" app. All that one did was show a picture of some Top Ramen, macaroni and cheese and tuna fish. No word on how much it cost, but it was rejected by Apple before making it into the App Store. (And really, how much sense does that make anyway? You're going to have an app that says "I Am Poor" on your six hundred dollar phone? Spare me.)

There was the inexplicable rejection of the "Obama Trampoline" game, where you choose your politicians from either Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or a pants-less Bill Clinton and then have them jump on a trampoline in the Oval Office. Apple claimed it was rejected because "...it ridiculed public officials." Well, YES! Of course it does! Public ridicule is part of being a politician! It's nothing new! (It's also the rationale behind why you can't have the Shoe Throwing app or the Freedom Time app, which counts down the time until the Bush administration was officially over.) However, I deem this rejection inexplicable because there IS an app called "Pocket Arnold" featuring various sound bites and clips of words and phrases said by the Governator of California himself. It's sort of like a make your own crank call factory. No word on whether or not the Governator is wearing pants and Apple did not explain itself. Because it's the king of everything.

And I cannot for the life of me imagine why in the world Apple would reject an iBoobs app! It's just like what it sounds like it is. A pair of very full breasts, clad in a bikini top, appear on your iPhone screen and when you shake the screen you shake them as well! It's pure genius, I tell you! But Apple didn't call it pure genius. They called it an app with "inappropriate sexual content", not to mention "obscene, pornographic, offensive, or defamatory content." Huh. And all of that even knowing that the breasts were not even real, rather they were computer generated. (I've gotta get me some computer generated breasts. You know, in case I need a spare or something.) And if you must see for this civilization ruiner, there's a video over yonder on YouTube that you can check out by clicking the handy link there.

There's also Slasher, an app which featured a picture of a bloody knife on your iPhone screen and when you moved your arm in a way as to simulate a stabbing motion, the app would play the "horror sound". I can only imagine that the "horror sound" is similar to that which I have dubbed the "pay attention music". It's those ominous two notes every five to ten seconds or so. Dun-dunn. Dun-dunn. But for all I know, it could just be someone screaming (probably one of those horror and outrage folks). The reasoning given for not having this gem in the App Store was the same reason for not having iBoobs in the App Store. That reason being, of course, that Apple is a bit holier than thou on occasion, apparently.

So if all of those apps are inappropriate for the Apple App Store, you have to be wondering what IS appropriate? I'll tell you what's appropriate. Farting apps. That's correct. Apps that simulate human flatulence are HUGE at the App Store. There are no less than FIFTY such apps (and yet only ONE way to actually BE flatulent. Go figure.) iFart Mobile (I swear!) has been downloaded over 13,000 times by December 23, 2008 at the tune (no pun intended, I swear) of $0.99 each. With Apple taking a 30% cut, the creators of iFart Mobile netted around $9,198 according to Venture Beat Digital Media. But wait! There's more! On Christmas Day, 2008, there were almost 40,000 downloads of the Fart Machine, netting those folks close to $30 grand! For an app that makes your phone sound like it's farting! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Well, OK then. Good to know we live in a world where baby shaking simulators are not OK. Not sure about the world we live in where we flock to download flatulence replications by the tens of thousands. Definitely sure that I need to get myself an iPhone or an iPod Touch relatively soon, however, as I hear that there are a myriad of apps which simulate cow bells, fake lighters (for fake concerts, I'm assuming), dice rollers, coin flippers and a virtual level (so you'll never be anywhere and not know if a surface is perfectly flat). As I'm sure you know, one can never have too many cowbells. Flatulence simulators, yes. Clanging bovine neck devices? Never.

Sphere: Related Content