Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_styles() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601

Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_scripts() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601
Worldwide Ace » Fun With Headlines

Worldwide Ace

Because a true Ace is needed everywhere…

Entries Comments


Fun With Headlines

7 December, 2005 (14:26) | Media

ESPN Headline: “Braves send Estrada to Arizona for pitchers”
My thought: “Diamondbacks now have the best bike cop ever.”

ESPN Headline:“Rare copies of Black Sox reports returned to library.”
My thought: “Library declines to issue late charges out of relief.”

CNN Headline: “Elian Gonzalez celebrates 12th birthday”
My thought: “Declares himself eligible for MLB draft citing birth certificate stating he’s 15.”

CNN Headline: “Pinochet stripped of immunity”
My thought: “Expected to be voted off next on Survivor: Chilean Dictatorship.”

CNN Headline: “Technology helping blind, deaf enjoy movies”
My thought: “Next up, helping people who can see and hear.”

CNN Headline: “Mel Gibson planning Holocaust miniseries”
My thought: “The Passion of the Hitler to both gorily portray deaths of Jews and deny Holocaust.”

CNN Headline: “Saturn moon geologically active”
My thought: “Still jealous Jupiter moon is sexually active.”

MSNBC Headline: “Scientists discover how cancer spreads”
My thought: “Decidedly not an affect of dreaded ‘cooties’ virus.”

MSNBC Headline: “Most home PCs not protected, study finds”
My thought: “PCs now targeted in most NRA ads.”

MSNBC Headline: “Coke to offer coffee-infused ‘Blak’ drink”
My thought: “KKK petitioning name change to ‘Wite.'”

Fox News Headline: “Ex-British PM Thatcher in Hospital After Feeling Faint”
My thought: “Band threatens sexual harassment suit against aging Thatcher.”

Fox News Headline: “Bush Trumpets Iraqi Economic Success”
My thought: “Now considered best selling Iraqi instrument of all time.”

Fox News Headline: “Spokane Mayor Recalled in Gay Sex Scandal”
My thought: “Witness fondly described the mayor as ‘best fuck I ever had.'”

BBC Headline: “South Korea fines Microsoft $32m”
My thought: “Gates plans 10% tip for bad service.”

BBC Headline: “Bosnia most wanted ‘out of reach'”
My thought: “Europe cheers as Bush plans movement of the unpopular country to other side of Siberia.”

BBC Headline: “Tehran schools closed due to smog”
My thought: “Militant Kindergarteners claim responsibility for the vicious smog attack.”

And this one’s just for :
BBC Headline: “Wikipedia tightens online rules”
My thought: “Wales, Wikipedia’s founder, suddenly restricts entries to trust worthy sources, avoiding high level of stupid among most internet users.”

«

  »

  • Passion of the Hitler was pretty funny, but this one literally made me laugh out loud:

    Fox News Headline: “Bush Trumpets Iraqi Economic Success”
    My thought: “Now considered best selling Iraqi instrument of all time.”

  • Passion of the Hitler was pretty funny, but this one literally made me laugh out loud:

    Fox News Headline: “Bush Trumpets Iraqi Economic Success”
    My thought: “Now considered best selling Iraqi instrument of all time.”

  • lol. Wikipedia.

    I’m using it as a reference on my cognitive science paper. The draft is here:

    http://webfiles.colorado.edu/talbert/draft.pdf

    I couldn’t find a better site with information on Terence McKenna’s “Stone Ape Theory” of language evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution

  • lol. Wikipedia.

    I’m using it as a reference on my cognitive science paper. The draft is here:

    http://webfiles.colorado.edu/talbert/draft.pdf

    I couldn’t find a better site with information on Terence McKenna’s “Stone Ape Theory” of language evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution

  • Be forewarned: websites, wikipedia included, is NOT an academic source and should not be counted as one. There is something called a “library” where you can take out “books” and “scholarly journals,” and those would be considered academic sources.

  • Yeah, that’s my favorite too.

  • Be forewarned: websites, wikipedia included, is NOT an academic source and should not be counted as one. There is something called a “library” where you can take out “books” and “scholarly journals,” and those would be considered academic sources.

  • Yeah, that’s my favorite too.

  • A popular wikipedia article is probably more peer-reviewed, accurate, and unbiased than anything published in a journal.

  • A popular wikipedia article is probably more peer-reviewed, accurate, and unbiased than anything published in a journal.

  • Of course. Why else would they need further restrictions to make sure everything’s right.

  • Of course. Why else would they need further restrictions to make sure everything’s right.

  • Because unlike something that’s already published, and contains errors at the time, was incomplete, or is now out of date, people try to keep wikipedia accurate, up-to-date, and error free.

    This is why you see professors toss journals out after a few years. No more than ever they’re wastes of paper.

  • Because unlike something that’s already published, and contains errors at the time, was incomplete, or is now out of date, people try to keep wikipedia accurate, up-to-date, and error free.

    This is why you see professors toss journals out after a few years. No more than ever they’re wastes of paper.

  • You did hear that Wikipedia may come out with a print version. That, at least, I’d trust to be correct, but there’s too much room for “common knowledge” to overrule the correct answer with Wikipedia online. Maybe this move will secure Wikipedia a position of believability, but as of yet, I haven’t found a completely trust-worthy online course that allows addendums by users.

    Even Wired wonders how credible it is.

  • You did hear that Wikipedia may come out with a print version. That, at least, I’d trust to be correct, but there’s too much room for “common knowledge” to overrule the correct answer with Wikipedia online. Maybe this move will secure Wikipedia a position of believability, but as of yet, I haven’t found a completely trust-worthy online course that allows addendums by users.

    Even Wired wonders how credible it is.

  • You’re thinking like a slave.

    The whole idea behind wikipedia is that if there’s something wrong, you can change it. It’s very similar to democracy.

    You’re like “Ohh please, massa… I don’ts truss ma self ta be da learn’in kind. You jus tell me wha da truif iz, an’ I believes it.”

  • You’re thinking like a slave.

    The whole idea behind wikipedia is that if there’s something wrong, you can change it. It’s very similar to democracy.

    You’re like “Ohh please, massa… I don’ts truss ma self ta be da learn’in kind. You jus tell me wha da truif iz, an’ I believes it.”

  • Dude. That was totally racist.

    The problem is that people don’t look up what they already know. They may look things up further, but that’s rare. And if information’s wrong, they’re more likely to think they were mistaken because Wikipedia is god’s gift to the gullible. This creates a culture of misinformation. I’m all for a variety of sources, especially when information is so unreliable, but Wikipedia’s attempt to have a variety of sources in one spot is only a marginal success at this point.

  • Dude. That was totally racist.

    The problem is that people don’t look up what they already know. They may look things up further, but that’s rare. And if information’s wrong, they’re more likely to think they were mistaken because Wikipedia is god’s gift to the gullible. This creates a culture of misinformation. I’m all for a variety of sources, especially when information is so unreliable, but Wikipedia’s attempt to have a variety of sources in one spot is only a marginal success at this point.

  • *claps* I give this thread a TEN OUT OF TEN, baybee

  • *claps* I give this thread a TEN OUT OF TEN, baybee

  • Dude. That was totally racist.

    Malcom X totally would have said the same thing.

    The answer is that other people frequently look up what they do know, and they have a way to call bullshit on wikipedia if something is incorrect. People also like to share knowledge and be correct. People take pride in explaining things they know a lot about.

    When people learn more about things they don’t know about and notice something was incorrect later, instead of getting frustrated and bitter with the source, they can change it.

    What REALLY creates a culture of misinformation is bowing down before any printed journal, textbook, magazine, professor’s lecture notes, etc like it’s some kind holy grail of infaliable knowledge about a topic.

    When was the last time you could call up 9news and say “Hey, what you said last night, that was fucking bullshit” prove it, and have them rebroadcast a correction? Almost never. Why? Because they’re arrogant pricks who think they’re above being questioned (like most journalists — present company excluded).

    Wikipedia admits upfront — hey, sometimes we’ll be incomplete, and sometimes we’ll make mistakes. But the good news is that we’re not above admitting to a mistake. In fact, we’ll even let you make the correction!
    Those are the kind of people you want to ask questions because they’re not out trying to advocate some retarded proprietary view.

    This is why things that are self-correcting are always going to be better than things that aren’t. You admit up front that you’ll make mistakes, but that you have a culture that corrects them. In general, information from something like that will always be better than information from dictator-like structures feeding the masses information to control them.

    Wikipedia is like the Buddhism of encyclopedic knowledge. The Dalai Lama is have people go through all of the buddhist teachings looking for things that have been proven scientifically incorrect, and fixing them.

    While all of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc just adhere to their dogmatic principles breaking or bending the truth to defend their fragile faith.

    What would the Bible look like today if it had been wiki?

  • Dude. That was totally racist.

    Malcom X totally would have said the same thing.

    The answer is that other people frequently look up what they do know, and they have a way to call bullshit on wikipedia if something is incorrect. People also like to share knowledge and be correct. People take pride in explaining things they know a lot about.

    When people learn more about things they don’t know about and notice something was incorrect later, instead of getting frustrated and bitter with the source, they can change it.

    What REALLY creates a culture of misinformation is bowing down before any printed journal, textbook, magazine, professor’s lecture notes, etc like it’s some kind holy grail of infaliable knowledge about a topic.

    When was the last time you could call up 9news and say “Hey, what you said last night, that was fucking bullshit” prove it, and have them rebroadcast a correction? Almost never. Why? Because they’re arrogant pricks who think they’re above being questioned (like most journalists — present company excluded).

    Wikipedia admits upfront — hey, sometimes we’ll be incomplete, and sometimes we’ll make mistakes. But the good news is that we’re not above admitting to a mistake. In fact, we’ll even let you make the correction!
    Those are the kind of people you want to ask questions because they’re not out trying to advocate some retarded proprietary view.

    This is why things that are self-correcting are always going to be better than things that aren’t. You admit up front that you’ll make mistakes, but that you have a culture that corrects them. In general, information from something like that will always be better than information from dictator-like structures feeding the masses information to control them.

    Wikipedia is like the Buddhism of encyclopedic knowledge. The Dalai Lama is have people go through all of the buddhist teachings looking for things that have been proven scientifically incorrect, and fixing them.

    While all of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc just adhere to their dogmatic principles breaking or bending the truth to defend their fragile faith.

    What would the Bible look like today if it had been wiki?

  • Wikipedia has already begun flame wars and bastardizations within its ranks. The Wikibible would likely still be being fought over. There would sect everywhere waging holy wars over rewrites with new sects appearing each year. Knowledge is power, and without a certain structure to it, culture would break down.

    This doesn’t mean bowing down to certain texts is proper, but rather that certain texts should be allowed to reign with the understanding that individual knowledge is the real truth.

  • Wikipedia has already begun flame wars and bastardizations within its ranks. The Wikibible would likely still be being fought over. There would sect everywhere waging holy wars over rewrites with new sects appearing each year. Knowledge is power, and without a certain structure to it, culture would break down.

    This doesn’t mean bowing down to certain texts is proper, but rather that certain texts should be allowed to reign with the understanding that individual knowledge is the real truth.

  • I’m not saying it’s perfect — just like democracy isn’t perfect. In the same way, it’s still so much better than the alternatives. I haven’t seen a better way of collecting, verifying, and disseminating knowledge.

    Wikis a really amazing in that respect.

    This doesn’t mean bowing down to certain texts is proper, but rather that certain texts should be allowed to reign with the understanding that individual knowledge is the real truth.

    This maybe the single most potent line of bullshit ever to appear in your journal.

  • I’m not saying it’s perfect — just like democracy isn’t perfect. In the same way, it’s still so much better than the alternatives. I haven’t seen a better way of collecting, verifying, and disseminating knowledge.

    Wikis a really amazing in that respect.

    This doesn’t mean bowing down to certain texts is proper, but rather that certain texts should be allowed to reign with the understanding that individual knowledge is the real truth.

    This maybe the single most potent line of bullshit ever to appear in your journal.

  • Most potent form of government? Democracy. On figurehead and a bunch of rich bastards actually running things for the most part behind the scenes. Who’s really in control of the US? The same is true of literature. Hemmingway, Faulkner, and Oprah’s Book Club rule the way, but it’s all about individual preference.

  • Most potent form of government? Democracy. On figurehead and a bunch of rich bastards actually running things for the most part behind the scenes. Who’s really in control of the US? The same is true of literature. Hemmingway, Faulkner, and Oprah’s Book Club rule the way, but it’s all about individual preference.

  • Everytime you drive by a manger scene over the holidays, and catch a glimpse of the baby Jesus… Realize, when you say things like this, you make baby Jesus cry.

  • Everytime you drive by a manger scene over the holidays, and catch a glimpse of the baby Jesus… Realize, when you say things like this, you make baby Jesus cry.

  • Jesus died. Some poor bastards took his body and ate it. Everyone thought it was a miracle. Oh, and the “virgin” was married (requiring sex to consumate). Sounds to me like Jesus is dead. Dead people don’t cry.

  • Jesus died. Some poor bastards took his body and ate it. Everyone thought it was a miracle. Oh, and the “virgin” was married (requiring sex to consumate). Sounds to me like Jesus is dead. Dead people don’t cry.

  • It totally only gets worse.

  • It totally only gets worse.

  • On figurehead and a bunch of rich bastards actually running things for the most part behind the scenes.

    is there any government that doesn’t fit that description? you know, that exists for more than five minutes before being trampled and replaced by one that does.

  • On figurehead and a bunch of rich bastards actually running things for the most part behind the scenes.

    is there any government that doesn’t fit that description? you know, that exists for more than five minutes before being trampled and replaced by one that does.

  • Of course there is: dictatorships often being with the poor taking power. In current and recent examples of communism, most everyone is poor due to ineptness. In the UK parlaiment has both rich and poor (though they all qualify as twits). There are more examples, but I just woke up.

  • Of course there is: dictatorships often being with the poor taking power. In current and recent examples of communism, most everyone is poor due to ineptness. In the UK parlaiment has both rich and poor (though they all qualify as twits). There are more examples, but I just woke up.

  • Actually, now that my thoughts are more composed, I’d say any government which isn’t highly influed by the US has the chance to be that way. Cuba, for one, doesn’t have a figurehead (which I intended to mean puppet leader). Their leader is quite real, albeit old and dying.

  • Actually, now that my thoughts are more composed, I’d say any government which isn’t highly influed by the US has the chance to be that way. Cuba, for one, doesn’t have a figurehead (which I intended to mean puppet leader). Their leader is quite real, albeit old and dying.

  • are you implying that a dictatorship is an improvement? i know that’s not exactly what i asked, but i figured that if you were going to suggest an alternative, you would suggest one that is better.

    and now that i think about it, are there many countries left on the planet that our wonderful government hasn’t made a hobby of fucking with?

  • are you implying that a dictatorship is an improvement? i know that’s not exactly what i asked, but i figured that if you were going to suggest an alternative, you would suggest one that is better.

    and now that i think about it, are there many countries left on the planet that our wonderful government hasn’t made a hobby of fucking with?

  • Directly, plenty. Indirectly, not many. Most of the countries we aren’t influencing are actively anti-American (see Iran).

    I didn’t say successful non-figurehead governments were going to be improvments. You merely asked for examples. The UK when Winston Churchill ran it is also a good example of a leader who’s a leader and didn’t take shit from no upper classes (not that classism didn’t factor into his rule regardless).

  • Directly, plenty. Indirectly, not many. Most of the countries we aren’t influencing are actively anti-American (see Iran).

    I didn’t say successful non-figurehead governments were going to be improvments. You merely asked for examples. The UK when Winston Churchill ran it is also a good example of a leader who’s a leader and didn’t take shit from no upper classes (not that classism didn’t factor into his rule regardless).

  • i just wanted you both to see this…

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16

  • i just wanted you both to see this…

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16

  • That’s fucking awesome.

  • That’s fucking awesome.