Youtube users who dedicate themselves to people they don't like

So I took down most of my YT videos recently because they were bad. I've gotten a tiny response so far. Some are from people who subscribed and are sad to see them go, but others are from the typical "yor juts sad kuz u cant get any abercrombie" folks. What amazes me about these people is how much free time they have to let me know how much they don't like me. It's clear that someone who didn't like my videos wouldn't subscribe or keep tabs by typical means. Since my old videos are gone though, this can only mean that some people have so much free time that they visit my page often to leave comments I won't read. If that wasn't true, they wouldn't be commenting me now.

I never understood their motives, either. People see one video they don't like, so they go through all my videos to leave some bland insult that doesn't bother me because internet insults are meaningless. What's funny is that when I still read my YouTube comments (after a while I just let my account sit there and didn't pay much attention to it) they were usually something like "DIS GUY HAZ NO LIF!!," and still I never went and left the same comment on all of their videos.

I don't know why I'm posting this, though. It's pretty common knowledge that YouTube is just one big cluster of every person with an IQ below 70, plus a few people who will grow up to do more than work at a convenience store.

"Baby it's cold outside"

I don't know the name of this Christmas song, but that guy should go eat nails. He's such an attention whore, that woman is trying to sing a Christmas song and he's just there in the background pointing out obvious shit. He's not even singing, he's just going "baby it's cold outside" like she didn't already know. 

Dear Microsoft Office for Mac, I hate you.

I wonder if Microsoft tested this at all before releasing it. When I left Windows for OS X I thought I was done with Microsoft's antics, but apparently it's not that easy. A while ago my dad got Microsoft Office for Mac for his Air and let me install it. So far it has been nothing but problems. Windows will occasionally decide to switch spaces without being prompted to do so, the formatting window will follow me through spaces, when I go to save a file for the first time the window it's in gets pushed to the back and I have to minimize all the others so I can get to it, and then there's just tons of random bugs. This is horrible, I don't know what Microsoft was thinking when they released this crap. I'm seriously going back to TextEdit, which is OS X's stock text editor. It's not as feature-loaded, but it's not like Notepad or anything and the best thing is, I have never had a single issue with it. It probably took 20 minutes for some Apple developer to code and I'm fairly sure it has remained untouched since the first version of OS X. Very disappointing, Microsoft.

But for the record, I wasn't expecting much anyway. Microsoft Office has never been that good for me (especially Word, as soon as you want to change fonts or add a picture, you're basically screwed). But I wasn't expecting this.

Screw JPG and it's deteriorating image quality

When you save a JPG, it loses a little image quality. What was once a high quality JPG could turn into a blocky mess after it's been passed around a lot. This sucks for everyone, especially those of us on the receiving end of those JPGs. I say, boycott JPG. PNG is better because it doesn't suck. If you happen to see a good quality JPG of an image worth saving, save it and make a PNG copy. You'll be doing good for thousands of people. And if you happen to get that JPG off a Wiki site, be sure to replace it with the PNG version as soon as you finish converting.

Dear Apple, no one cares about iPhoto

IPhoto is really damn annoying. When you accidentally click on it in the dock (and I keep it there because sometimes I actually use it) it decides that when you go to close it, it'll take a while to do so. Then there's that whole "add to iPhoto" shit in Safari that is right under the "save image" selection in the control-click menu. I click that so often by accident and then I can either wait for iPhoto to finish doing that despite how much I don't want it to or force-quit iPhoto and have Safari sit there and not respond for five minutes until it realizes that iPhoto is not getting the picture, in which case it gives me an error message about it. You can't turn off the "add to iPhoto" thing either. IPhoto would be great if it was out of the way and wasn't so bothersome, but I'm gonna be honest, it is terrible in that sense. And it's not even that great to use. It's not very easy to figure out, and I try to avoid using it as much as I can. There should be some way to make iPhoto have nothing to do with anything on a Mac so I can make it disappear without uninstalling it. That way it will never have to interfere with anything I ever do. You know what? Screw it, I'm taking it out of the dock.

I hate other people's parents

You know what is terrible? When you're walking somewhere in public and out of nowhere your vision is filled with the chunky lumps of some fat little kid. It follows it's parent (who is not even always fat like the kid) around, picking up bags of candy from store shelves and toys and putting them in the cart without a word from the parent. What the fuck is wrong with these people? How can they live, feeding their kids horrible food (usually from McDonald's) and watching them expand like that? The worst of the two is fat little girls though. They're always wearing Hannah Montana shirts, and those are tight. No one wants to see that much detail in a fat woman, so when it's a little girl, it's just awful. And no one wants to see Hannah Montana anything, but that's beside the point.

I don't know what drives the parents to buy these or even let their kids see anything Disney has made in recent years. But it's just disgusting. 

Then there's the slightly older ones who wear ludicrous amounts of makeup. Again, I blame the parents for letting them. If I ever have a daughter, she won't wear ludicrous amounts of makeup. She won't wear any makeup at all for a while. And she won't be fat. If I ever have kids, none of them will be fat. I'll fill their heads with disgusting facts about McDonalds at a young age to scare them off it for life.

Dear record companies, what the fuck

Today I have chosen to complain about CDs. Awful stupid record companies who don't care about music at all are ruining music, especially CDs, for everyone. So maybe now you're thinking "Well, what's wrong with CDs?" If you are thinking that, you're pretty ignorant. You probably shop at Hollister.

Everything is wrong with CDs. This really stood out to me the other day when I bought a Smash Mouth CD at FYE the other day. It's used, cost $4, and is almost in new condition. That was when it occurred to me that $4 is how much a CD should cost. Alright, maybe a little more, but not much more than that. CDs cost way too much today. I'm seeing some go as far as $19. This would be OK if they were loaded with tracks or something, but they're not. They aren't even always new or anything special, they're just that much because they want to charge that much. In fact, the "low" $12 is still kind of expensive. While fitting a machine with the parts to make a specific CD can be somewhat costly, pressing them can't cost much. Think about it, about $30 buys you a stack of 100 rewritable CDs (sometimes it costs more, sometimes less, but it's usually around 30). That's ¢3 per disc. On bestbuy.com I found a 100 pack for $38*, which is 38 cents per disc. So it's a bit more than 3 cents per disc, but still definitely not a lot. Then I found a 50 pack of jewel CD cases for $28, which is ¢56 per case. That comes out to ¢96 for every boxed disc. Still not a dollar. And of course these blank discs and cases had extra money tacked on for the manufacturer. If I had the manufacturing costs it'd be even less. So where does all the other money come from? Well, they need to have money to run the machines that make the discs and write to them, to make the parts that go in the machines that make each disc the specific disc that it is, and they need to pay workers. So we add to the bare cost of about ¢96 per disc the cost of all that. I'm going to assume just a few dollars, lets up it to $3.96. Doesn't sound like much, but since big record companies are selling millions of CDs each day, it sorta adds up. That'll easily pay for everything involving manufacturing.

Then how about some money for the artist. One more dollar will make the artist rich as long as it's one of those awful horrible bad ones that everyone likes because they've been pressured into liking it. In fact, it'll make any moderately popular artist rich. One dollar is plenty. Then how about some money for the record company. Two dollars, since they're greedy like that and they gotta pay all their marketing people who make the world think that their most popular yet worst artist are good. That brings us to $7 after rounding up from the 96 cents. OK so I was wrong about $4 earlier, but $7 is still not a bad price. However, I do think the record company and artist could live with a little less money.

If you've ever walked into a CD store though, you know that CDs do not cost $7. They cost $7 in heaven maybe. Where's all the money going? Right to the greedy record company and artist. Even if the artist doesn't want to charge a lot, the record company does, and so they do. They're charging you as much as $19-22 (come to think of it, sometimes they do hit 22) now for a CD that costs around $4 for supplies and manufacturing. They don't know what makes it worth that much any better than you do, they just want money. If you look you can still find some CDs that are somewhat less, ones from less rich record companies who can't afford to charge as much for a few pieces of plastic, one CD, and a few pieces of paper.

Then there's special edition type things. These tend to include a second disc and maybe some more bonus material such as album art. OK, so that's ¢38 cents for the 2nd disc, a few more for the bigger case to hold both discs, and almost nothing for the extra album art. Why does it cost $28? There is no logical explanation, it costs so little extra to make one of these that they could leave the price the same as a regular album and they'd take just about no hit from it. The problem is that they are greedy bastards.

And now what's with the lower quality of CD cases? I'm not talking flimsier plastic or anything like that. The other day when I was at a CD store I was flipping through some Parliament CDs (don't criticize me for not looking for vinyl, my record player doesn't work right) and I saw something awful. It was either styrofoam or that paper material they use to make egg cartons (pretty sure it was styrofoam) as the part that holds the CD, wrapped in thin cardboard (so you could slide out the styrofoam part, shrinkwrapped. It was the most half assed, budget cutty thing I have ever seen. Seriously, what the fuck was that? Not only was it clearly just to spend less money on a better case, but it would be much easier to destroy than a plastic CD case. Think about it. It could get squished in a stack of CDs or an overstuffed CD shelf and be forever disfigured, it could bend and stay that way forever (as well as lose it's ability to hold the CD), there's just so many things that could go wrong with something like that. 

Another thing I have problems with is the way stores package the CDs. They seriously need to stop putting price tags on the actual case. Especially since they usually wrap them in plastic after that. After you peel them off you have sticker residue (or worse, the sticker falls apart and then you have some paper stuck to the case that never goes away and turns into a sticky goopymess that attracts dust and hair after a few years that still doesn't go away), or you could leave them on and have an unsightly price tag on your case. Put the fucking sticker on the plastic or price everything at a fair $6 or $7 so the cashier can always know how much something is.

I also don't like those stickers that they put along the top of the CD. They're annoying to remove since they like to shred when you peel them off, then they leave some residue that attracts hair and dust. Plus, if you've got any CDs in your collection with cases made of cardboard, this can stick to that, and if that happens long enough, it can tear the cardboard. 

Speaking of cardboard cases, it's horrible when stores put stickers on them. Cardboard cases are most often used for singles, but I have seen them for full albums (my The Day I Turned to Glass from Honeycut is made of cardboard). I don't really have anything against cardboard cases, because they pose as no problem when you take care of them right. But if you buy one with a sticker on it, it's already ruined. The sticker is going to tear it up, or you can leave it on and naturally have it look awful. This is why it's good to always buy them new online.

If vinyl were easier, I'd switch mostly over. I buy a lot of CDs that also have vinyl releases, and vinyl releases tend to sell used for around $1. Awesome. Thing is, records are easier to screw up than CDs, they require more care, they aren't as convenient, and they're much less easy to put on your iPod. I do like vinyl though, and when I have a good sound system and more money, I am going to get a nice record player and start collecting. New vinyl still costs about as much as new CDs though.

So what can you do to boycott CDs? Not much, mostly just pirate/file share. I don't do that though, for numerous reasons. In fact, I still buy CDs. This is why I don't pirate/share though:

- If it's an artist I like, I still want to support them. Unfortunately though, buying a CD (or using a service like iTunes, which is slightly better, but not by a ton) is just about the only way to do that.

- File sharing and pirating is convenient and free, except you usually get the wrong songnames/artists, so in an automatically organizing system like the iPod, you could have 20 songs from one artist and they'd all display under different artists. On the iPod, all the songs from an artist need to have the artist's name typed, capitalized, and punctuated the same way, or it displays as different artists.

- File sharing and pirating almost never gives you good sound quality, and you still don't get the 1444 kbps of a CD for listening on very high end systems (where digitally encoded music vs better digitally encoded music shows more of a difference). Some people don't mind that, I do.

- I also won't switch to buying on iTunes. I do use iTunes, and while albums costing less money (usually) are pretty tempting, if I'm going to buy an album I want a hard copy. A hard copy can be played on a separate stereo without burning, there's no DRM bothering me, and while some iTunes songs come in a pretty nice 256 kbps (that's the iTunes Plus songs), others come in a measly 128kbps. 256 is pretty nice, but iTunes will never give the 1444 kbps of a CD. I do use it if I want just one or two songs from an album though, since it saves me money and space on my CD case.

To conclude (Jeez this was long), CDs are great. Record companies are just ruining them.

Oh, and before I finish this post, why isn't SACD taking off? It's so perfect. Most SACDs can still be read on an ordinary CD player, but SACDs have better quality on an SACD player. It's the perfect successor (so fuck DVD audio) and will apparently sound better on a moderate system (I confess I still haven't used it myself). The thing is, no CD stores sell them, and they just don't advertise it at all. There's also no SACD drives for your computer (to my knowledge), so us computer listeners can't get SACD joy on our computers. So yeah, let's see more SACD.

* http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8739065&st=cd-r&type=product&id=1201913867194

** http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7950014&st=cd+case&type=product&id=1152229204211

Actually The Jonas Brothers just suck.

Can you say "horrible generic tasteless American rock?" These guys suck. I found out that they have a YouTube channel. The video on the channel page decided to start playing on it's own and I only had to listen for about 10 seconds after the music started to realize that they are awful. Just for you, I decided to take the first few paragraphs of their description and complain about them:

Ask the Jonas Brothers who they're hoping to turn into fans with their new self-titled CD and they won't say "everybody." But that's precisely what they'll mean. "We're aiming for people our age," says 17-year-old Joe. "But we also wanna get kids younger than us," adds 14-year-old Nick. "And older people, too," 19-year-old Kevin pipes up. How samrt* of you, Jonas Brothers. You aren't targeting everyone, but you are targeting people your age, people who are younger, and older people too. Even the guy who wrote this paragraph knows how stupid you're being. And for those of you planning to argue with me, I know they aren't going to read this.

The highly anticipated People without fully developed opinional lobes (usually kids 11 or under, but some bloom late) do not count as people, so technically it was anticipated by no one follow-up to the New Jersey I'm gonna have to move. Now I know why all the other states dislike NJ so much. I apologize for everyone in the state to all the other states for this. siblings' 2006 debut—which featured the TRL hit "Mandy"—The Jonas Brothers is sure to make good on the band's goal: It's a high-energy pop-punk disc No it's not overflowing with insanely catchy hooks no, muscular guitar fuzz what? and mature songwriting what? that reveals just how much growing up the boys have done since we last heard from them. 

I only did those because there's no way in hell I'm going to listen to all their songs (no, not even the 30 second previews on iTunes) so I can say what's wrong with each of them.

By the way, has anyone noticed how unfortunate they look? They aren't as "attractive" as the fans make them out to be (as mentioned before). To quote someone from Yahoo! Answers, their faces look sorta like garden gnomes. I guess the least unfortunate one would be the eldest brother, but none of them are much to look at.

*Yes, I do realize that Maddox has made the joke.

Oh now I remember that thing I was gonna blog about last night but the computer was off so I decided I'd do it today but when I woke up I forgot it

I hate Jonas Brothers fans. Now if you don't like me you're probably going to use this as a reason to continue saying that I hate everything (after all, all the things I've said I hated or didn't like are the only things  in the world, so if I hate all of them then I hate everything), but I have pretty good reasons.

To start, just about all of them are tasteless 10 year old girls. What happened to music being not targeted towards children? That way it was easier for people who suck to not get famous. My mom tells me that when she was a kid she liked David Bowie. Was he aimed at kids? Hell no. Did adults like him? Yeah. Then again, when they use clever advertising and marketing to fool the feeble minds of today's kids into liking things, they can take advantage of having invaded the delicate "opinion" part of the small child's brain and make them buy tons of overpriced low quality crap, like shirts and bags and pregnancy tests and soda cans themed after the child-aimed crap. But I digress.

As soon as you insult their perfect, physically attractive Gods of music, they decide to go into a fit of stupidity and immaturity, getting angry because you expose to them the truth of their horrible music tastes. This can multiply itself especially when you break it to them that the only one who isn't ugly is the oldest one, which still isn't saying a whole lot.

They're also pretty stupid and just annoying to see. Tell me, does it comfort you knowing that people who would say "omg jonas brothers are so HOT and i luv their music LOL!!1 there so good and sexy and i loev them omg i watn 2 kill pepl who dont lik them becuz thear the BEST EVAR LOL!! their just gealus bekuz there music isnt this good" exist? Well what I just typed is pretty much the majority of them. Some of them can be so stupid that I consider it amazing that they know how to breathe.

By the way, the Jonas Brothers suck. Now I ask that you please direct some fans of theirs to this blog post so I can laugh at the stupid things they probably have to say.