Re: The i-Gen thread

by horace Wed 18 Feb 2015, 02:37

Agree but I think Jobs just accelerated the process.

Since us humans emerged from the primeval genetic soup I doubt there has been a more individuated, atomised and egocentric set of humans to have walked on the planet than the boomers, X's Y's and I gens.

by Bradman Wed 18 Feb 2015, 03:31

Agree h. At xmas I couldn't believe how many people in one living room could spend no time not talking to each other. Three generations tapping away, probably to people they don't or hardly know, whilst conversation was limited to my useless attempts to upset everyone there.

by taipan Wed 18 Feb 2015, 03:58

A bit of an ironic conversation for an Internet chat board?

by Bradman Wed 18 Feb 2015, 04:01

I realised that as I wrote it. But I use this forum via the same device I have since 2001. Occasionally if there's a tablet lying around and even then it's all too hard.

by embee Wed 18 Feb 2015, 04:05

Bradman wrote:I realised that as I wrote it. But I use this forum via the same device I have since 2001. Occasionally if there's a tablet lying around and even then it's all too hard.

A gin bottle?

by taipan Wed 18 Feb 2015, 04:08

Bradman wrote:I realised that as I wrote it. But I use this forum via the same device I have since 2001. Occasionally if there's a tablet lying around and even then it's all too hard.

Not sure the other two participants did.

by skully Wed 18 Feb 2015, 05:44

Just what is the attraction of sitting around taking farkin pics of one's self and sending them to the world via Faecesbook?? FMD.

by embee Wed 18 Feb 2015, 05:59

If you are taking a selfie with a famous land mark in the back ground or with some minor celebrity it is relatively ok

If you are just taking a picture of yourself for no apparent reason then it stupid . total FIGJAM

if you are a hot chick taking photos of your curves then that is definitely ok (providing they aren't on the Disney channel)

by taipan Wed 18 Feb 2015, 06:07

embee wrote:If you are taking a selfie with a famous land mark in the back ground or with some minor celebrity it is relatively ok

If you are just taking a picture of yourself for no apparent reason then it stupid . total FIGJAM

if you are a hot chick taking photos of your curves then that is definitely ok (providing they aren't on the Disney channel)

Aye, I just can't see what the objection is.

by skully Wed 18 Feb 2015, 06:54

embee wrote:If you are just taking a picture of yourself for no apparent reason then it stupid . total FIGJAM

This seems to be 99% of the versions taken - the mirror shot.

Frankly, I am highly confident I will never take a selfie. A) I'm an ugly farker; B) As stated, I simply don't see the point.

The tourist attraction selfie is an interesting discussion point. Is that selfie proof that you were there? Isn't the fact that you took the pic proof enough? Why spoil a vista with your own ugly mug?

I may be wrong, but I doubt any posters here would queue for a selfie of themselves with a celebrity unless for a dare, a bet, or you're pissed. Definitely seems a generational thing.

Anywho, selfie away, all. I merely questioned the point of it all. I don't get it. shrug

by horace Wed 18 Feb 2015, 23:49

taipan wrote:A bit of an ironic conversation for an Internet chat board?

meerkat[squeak]meerkat

by embee Sun 22 Feb 2015, 04:28

skully wrote:Huz-farkin-zah!!

I seriously cannot believe farkers use these things.

The i-Gen thread - Page 18 B-a-cymIQAA3vvx

No selfie stick required by < L

by skully Fri 27 Feb 2015, 21:19

i-Gen - "WTF's a floppy??"...

The i-Gen thread - Page 18 H3A117A1B

by Nath Fri 27 Feb 2015, 21:53

dumbasses!

by skully Wed 04 Mar 2015, 23:41

by skully Fri 06 Mar 2015, 21:45

by skully Sun 08 Mar 2015, 21:27

i-Gen doing good, sort of. Perhaps increasing tourism to Rottnest?? The latest i-Craze - selfies with quokkas...

The i-Gen thread - Page 18 54f5b0b1a74c6

by skully Wed 11 Mar 2015, 03:39

So the new $500 (starting price for base version) Apple Watch ("i-Tracy"??) only works when you carry your i-Phone with you?? FFS. *cough* - sort of defeats the purpose, really.

And how many i-Farkers will want to replace it every year when it's superseded? Rolling Eyes

On the up side, owners get to look like complete i-Farkwits talking to their watch. Cool

by tricycle Wed 11 Mar 2015, 06:18

Have to agree. It's a watch ffs. It looks not much better than one of those watches that used to come free with a horlicks, and without the iphone, it has a similar functionality.

Samsung already tried and failed. It was a crap device.

Although, I guess it has one benefit... it could measure energy used in a fap more accurately than everything else, if one's willing to wear it on the wrong wrist.

by skully Wed 11 Mar 2015, 06:26

by taipan Wed 11 Mar 2015, 06:28

tricycle wrote:Have to agree. It's a watch ffs. It looks not much better than one of those watches that used to come free with a horlicks, and without the iphone, it has a similar functionality.

Samsung already tried and failed. It was a crap device.

Although, I guess it has one benefit... it could measure energy used in a fap more accurately than everything else, if one's willing to wear it on the wrong wrist.

RD has bought 2.

by tricycle Wed 11 Mar 2015, 06:35

That is serious talent.

by taipan Wed 11 Mar 2015, 06:37

He is completely ambidextrous.

by skully Tue 24 Mar 2015, 19:38

by tricycle Wed 25 Mar 2015, 01:58

I think this one is fake tbh. The headline font is not what the BBC use/used. The letters are much fatter.

Secondly, the date is conveniently cleared.

Edit: can't find any article on the bbc either.

by Sponsored content