This is a toy torpedo. See the completely innocent pun with those two words? Toypedo? Geddit? Lovely stuff. The packaging also features a child holding said toy which isn’t phallic in any way at all. Nope. Nothing wrong here.

WAIT A MINUTE?!?! Why am I suddenly surrounded by a SWAT team?

[FailBlog]

The Field Center in Philadelphia is focused on “children’s policy, practice and research”, and “led by some of the US’s foremost experts in child welfare.”

With that in mind, this is the logo proudly displayed on their website:

You can see what they meant, but, well. No.

[Twitter]

Did you see Google’s homepage yesterday? It gave you the chance to have a background on it and… zzzzzzz. Customisable internet gubbins is big business and Google have been tinkering with their homepage for a while, in an attempt to make it more interesting.

Lately, the hit gold with the playable Pacman logo [more on that here if you've been living in a cave] but yesterday, they were wide of the mark with this pointless picture feature, leaving the company to scrap the experiment after a mere 14 hours.

It didn’t prove popular with internet users as “Google background” was only the seventh most popular search term on Google yesterday. Getting nearly as many searches was “remove Google background”.

There was indeed a link to remove the background on the bottom left of the page, but it seems that it wasn’t obvious enough and thanks to it being a white text link, no-one could even see it against the normal background or any light colours at all. This experiment was meant to run for 24 hours, but Google pulled it with 10 hours to spare. Google vice president Marissa Mayer even went as far as informing her followers how to remove the backgrounds via her Twitter account.

If you are signed in with your Google account, you’ll still have the picture of a naked woman or whatever it is you stuck up (most likely, people have used it like a picture frame on their desk and used a snap of their hideous family or something). For now at least, it seems that Google’s homepage will remain the iconic white background which has become synonymous with the company.

[PCPro]

[Huffington Post]

More Guardian-bashing now. No one knows more about those days when you just can’t be arsed, but is there really any need for this…?

(via @badjournalism)

Avid Bitterwallet reader Steve Mordey was recently looking forward to the opening of a brand new stall on an unused pitch at Leeds Market. But when he turned up on the big day…

Rape yellow? Small problem with the spelling of ‘melon’ too…

[Dark Beige Twitter]

A newspaper yesterday

Over in the antiquated world of print media, the doddery old puffins who run things have spent the last few months trumpeting away about their erections. To elaborate, the erections in question are paywalls – mysterious barriers that separate readers from content with the magic battering ram being hard cash.

Naturally Rupert Murdoch is a keen advocate of paywalls and we can expect him to start erecting his all over the place in 2010. But the early signs are not good, at least if the trailblazing paywallers at the Long Island daily Newsday are anything to go by.

With new owners and a restructuring and relaunching budget of $4 million, hopes were high that readers would stump up the five dollars a week (about £3) to read the paper in its online form.

But at the end of the first three months, Newsday have admitted that they have the grand total of just 35 subscribers – the relaunch outlay of $4 million recouping a mere $9,000.

Could this be a sign that news junkies will refuse to cough up cash for their fix if there are free goods elsewhere? It remains to be seen but the news could well have made Rupert Murdoch a tad twitchy.

Needless to say, your caring, sharing Bitterwallet will remain free to use – until we can guarantee a surefire way of raking the coin in of course!

Only joking – or are we?

Taken from today’s Metro newspaper. Paul McKenna is not suspected of any crimes…

Thanks to avid Bitterwallet reader Nerys Evans

This is probably fake but a sizable part of my soul hopes it isn’t. To be the friend that discovered Steve left himself logged onto Facebook and saw the potential – that’s the sort of guy who’s thinking the big picture. If it is real, then Steve is not only out the family will, but probably not allowed within a 200 metre radius of his best friend. Had too much booze this afternoon? Leave the computer alone.

[The Luxury Spot] via [Buzzfeed]

Thanks to Bitterwallet reader Emma for spotting this over on Failblog – baby goods that will guarantee to help them sleep… possibly forever!

Below that is a clip from The Antiques Roadshow which proves beyond doubt that you can’t give a baby booze…

Vodafone UK has announced a 45% belly-flop in adjusted operating profit as worried citizens curl up into impenetrable balls of frugality. The figures included a 7.3% drop in UK call revenue which went unmatched by a 4% increase in (presumably replacement) messaging revenue and roaming charges have declined along with our affinity for lush hols to exotic locations. The firm has also lost 450,000 customers during Q1 2009 (down to 18.7m), a worrying statistic compared with iPhone-harbingers O2 who have (allegedly) gained 250,000 in the same period. The fact Voda had to dissolve 500 jobs as a mid-quarter cost-cutting spree can’t have helped…

However this all does seem to answer the question embedded in Paul Smith’s earlier post on Vodafone scrapping their roaming charges for the Summer. With roaming charges evidently in decline perhaps the mobile giant is trying to recoup or bind in what customers it can in the savviest way possible… In any case, if you’d like to take advantage of a giant toppling over, just grab a free SIM card and register for the free roaming deal regardless.

[Vodafone Group PLC Results y/e 31-Mar-2009]

[Consumerist]

We’ve mentioned Best Buy’s impending entrance into the electrical retail arena with some relish – not because we want to see the current leading names fail, but rather because we want an improvement in customer service standards and value for money.

Don’t think for a moment that Best Buy will be some kind of white knight coming to the rescue of the UK consumer – like everyone else, they’ve got their critics and are regularly caught with their pants down when it comes to looking after the punters.

American blogger Michael T. Barrett has written of the shocking service his mother-in-law received when she tried to return a camera she had bought at Best Buy that had already had its seal broken and was filled with someone else’s photos (above). The store manager stonewalled her and refused to replace it, claiming the camera had clearly been dropped (???).

However, there was some serious backtrackage once Michael ferreted around in the camera some more and found some pics taken instore featuring a hairy member of Best Buy’s own ‘Geek Squad’ repair team. Hmmm. So Best Buy Store #519 in Douglasville, Georgia sells used cameras as new.

Maybe it was a one-off, a genuine error or maybe there’s a culture among Best Buy’s hierarchy to try and pull fast ones against the consumer wherever possible. All we know is that the phrase “Best Buy sucks” brings up almost 25,000 results in Google. Maybe it’s like The Who sang: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” We’ll see…

[Consumerist]