You will know fear; you will know pain and then you will die.
These words should have been written in blood on the church door hosting the carol service I was at today. Indeed, adding "Abandon all hope all ye who enter here" would be to err on the side of caution.
First, let me state my position - I am not a Christian. I just have a thing for carols and singing. This means that I actually listen to the music. Today... this was not a good thing. And for the record, I have sung in amateur choirs with pretentions of standards.
First; the music. It is not an exacting standard to expect all the players to keep their instrument in tune; not close to it, near it or in spitting distance. On it.
And, for that matter, asthmatics should not be allowed to play a flute.
Second, the singers. Imagine, if you will, the spectrum of female singers who can be termed alto or soprano. There exists a point on this line, above the altos - and from this point every singer is alto. Yes, perhaps they can sing some soprano lines. Indeed, they might even sound nice on occasion.
But this is the same as a scalpel and a sword. Yes, you can behead someone with both - but this does not mean they are interchangeable.
Don't let a high alto pretend to be anything but what she is.
Ever.
Then, there is the choice of music to play...
Carols are beloved of many for a reason - classic tunes, lyrics learnt in the depths of childhood in a time when snow was special and hope lived.
This is why you should restrain any musical director who dreams of re-writing descants for them. Or tweaking the final verses so as to confuse everyone but the choir, who are ignoring everyone else anyway.
And while we're talking, know your limits. This applies to musical directors, alcohol and cake. Don't even dream of doing anything more than "the usual" with 5 rehearsals. With something odd or different, allow 10. If including an orchestra, changes to almost every part and new songs...christmas really does begin in June.
The Right Reverend Irrelevance. Yes, this might be the fullest you've seen your church since...last Christmas. This does not mean you're allowed to sell your Alpha course. Nor should you spend the first 10 minutes running through fire exits, the contents of the program (that we have in our hands), where the money raised in the offering is going, how persecuted christians in general are and how the world is a terrible place.
Talking of terrible places. If you pick out 8 readings, there is no requirement to play Holy Book Roulette. You don't need genesis, revelations, all the gospels and two random books. You can have real structure and meaning. You can have a theme - even, dare, I say, a message. Of the readings I think 3 had a relationship with christmas. If by message you mean mentions something which you later may rely on in court. Sorry, church.
But random quotes?? And, more to the point, if at any point your reading from *any* biblical book just sounds like an eidolon from Maelstrom - then you've really, really picked the wrong quote.
And finally, the choir. Oh the choir. There is much I could say. If your altos over-ride not the rest of the choir but the entire church singing, they need to be told to calm down and listen to themselves.
If your choir can't even stand up at the same time, there's no way they'll start singing at the same time, except at gunpoint.
But I'm going to restrain myself by saying that I believe the entire choir would have been improved by a single, simple addition.
A hand grenade.
/rant
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
How would you explain this to the children?
Have a read at the article, here.
I'm not going to quote it, but a summery would be "A women describes how she's doing all she can, up to breaking down because of running out of petrol, because she's afraid she doesn't have enough money in the account. She's doing this to send her two girls to a private school, at the cost of £8,000 a term - but she has (at least) 3 children. One of them is a boy in a state school."
Now, she does try to justify this - girls do better in single sex schools, they'd love to do the same for their son by they just can't afford it. That it's the most critical years for the girls now.
But what I'm trying to get my head around is, how will she explain to her son that for most of his life he's been relatively poor - if she can't afford petrol, that's relatively poor.
He's been relatively poor for his entire life while is parents have spent everything they had - house included - at a rate of £24,000 a year (3 terms a year, 24K a year) - on his two sisters.
That's £24K a year for 5-18...that's £24*13 = £312,000. Not including university.
How could any one explain that to their youngest child?
I'm not going to quote it, but a summery would be "A women describes how she's doing all she can, up to breaking down because of running out of petrol, because she's afraid she doesn't have enough money in the account. She's doing this to send her two girls to a private school, at the cost of £8,000 a term - but she has (at least) 3 children. One of them is a boy in a state school."
Now, she does try to justify this - girls do better in single sex schools, they'd love to do the same for their son by they just can't afford it. That it's the most critical years for the girls now.
But what I'm trying to get my head around is, how will she explain to her son that for most of his life he's been relatively poor - if she can't afford petrol, that's relatively poor.
He's been relatively poor for his entire life while is parents have spent everything they had - house included - at a rate of £24,000 a year (3 terms a year, 24K a year) - on his two sisters.
That's £24K a year for 5-18...that's £24*13 = £312,000. Not including university.
How could any one explain that to their youngest child?
Monday, November 22, 2010
Grumpy is in the building
Here I am, sleepy and tired on a Monday morning.
I turn on the radio (about 7.20?) in the morning and I find the Today program is interviewing people about the coalition's plans to change the nature of council housing. (Aka, houses owned by the local council and rented out at reduced rates to "those in need" - typically about 50% of "market rates".)
These annoyed me.
The first example was a women who had a council house - they may have said why, but I didn't hear. She was studying to be a nurse; this would take 3-4 years, but she would be able to "better herself" without the council house, or so she says.
Lets call that four years in a place with the same commercial cost as mine. So that's a rent of £500/2 = £250 a month discount. So £250*12 = £3,000 a year. So, over the period of three to four years while studying that's £9,000 to £12,000.
Lets compare that to Little Johny, who's a good student, worked at school, lives with parents. Like huge numbers of students he'll have to take out loans and receive no actual support from the state - I didn't, and you don't need much in the way of "wealth" to do this. Bugger all, in fact.
Would little Johny get 9-12K in aid...?
Interview 2 was from a women who moved into a council house with her mother and family in 1984 - about 26 years ago. She's still living there.
She considers the council house "hers" - she's inherited it from her mother, effectively. Never moved out, has been subsidised for her entire adult life; almost certainly most of her life. Said that if they lost the place they would be expect to be paid for all the work they've done in the past - painting, cleaning, etc.
Total cost - half her housing costs for 26 years and administration+maintenance costs for the same.
Social housing is important... but I'm really having issues understanding why some parties are opposing the reforms.
Because they just seem fair - to those who pay for it all.
---
Edited because I first posted just a title
I turn on the radio (about 7.20?) in the morning and I find the Today program is interviewing people about the coalition's plans to change the nature of council housing. (Aka, houses owned by the local council and rented out at reduced rates to "those in need" - typically about 50% of "market rates".)
These annoyed me.
The first example was a women who had a council house - they may have said why, but I didn't hear. She was studying to be a nurse; this would take 3-4 years, but she would be able to "better herself" without the council house, or so she says.
Lets call that four years in a place with the same commercial cost as mine. So that's a rent of £500/2 = £250 a month discount. So £250*12 = £3,000 a year. So, over the period of three to four years while studying that's £9,000 to £12,000.
Lets compare that to Little Johny, who's a good student, worked at school, lives with parents. Like huge numbers of students he'll have to take out loans and receive no actual support from the state - I didn't, and you don't need much in the way of "wealth" to do this. Bugger all, in fact.
Would little Johny get 9-12K in aid...?
Interview 2 was from a women who moved into a council house with her mother and family in 1984 - about 26 years ago. She's still living there.
She considers the council house "hers" - she's inherited it from her mother, effectively. Never moved out, has been subsidised for her entire adult life; almost certainly most of her life. Said that if they lost the place they would be expect to be paid for all the work they've done in the past - painting, cleaning, etc.
Total cost - half her housing costs for 26 years and administration+maintenance costs for the same.
Social housing is important... but I'm really having issues understanding why some parties are opposing the reforms.
Because they just seem fair - to those who pay for it all.
---
Edited because I first posted just a title
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Burning bridges
If you've not heard yet, the London Fire Brigade is taking fireworks night off.
Yep, that's right - the Fire Brigades Union are calling them all out on strike, because of what they clearly consider to be critical and unresolvable differences with the management. After all, if they were resolvable they'd talk first, right?
Well, have a look here
Union position
Sounds moderately damning - new shift patterns could mean a lot of things, but they don't seem to say what's so terrible about these new patterns. But surely there must be some room here for some debate, negotiation? There must be a reason why they want to change the shifts?
A little further down...
Let me unleash my inner cynic. The firemen spend most of this 15 hour shift asleep or playing games - and this is what the unions are afraid of their members losing. But wait, further down still:
The employers are trying to improve the public safety - more community safety and the like. They've been trying to negotiate this for so long that a child could have been born during this process and grown up enough that you could talk to them about the concept of fire safety.
The union is striking on the day when that same child is most likely to die in a fire.
They need to get a grip.
Yep, that's right - the Fire Brigades Union are calling them all out on strike, because of what they clearly consider to be critical and unresolvable differences with the management. After all, if they were resolvable they'd talk first, right?
Well, have a look here
Union position
The union claims firefighters were being threatened with the sack if they do not agree to new shift patterns. FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said: "We do not want to take this action but we have no choice. The alternative is to allow London's firefighters to become doormats for their employers to walk on."
Sounds moderately damning - new shift patterns could mean a lot of things, but they don't seem to say what's so terrible about these new patterns. But surely there must be some room here for some debate, negotiation? There must be a reason why they want to change the shifts?
A little further down...
Ahhhh, now I understand. Your members are paid for a 15 hour nightshift, during which they.....wait for fires?"There are no cuts, no job losses, this is about reducing a 15-hour night shift, adding those hours to the day shift and doing more community safety work and firefighter training."
Let me unleash my inner cynic. The firemen spend most of this 15 hour shift asleep or playing games - and this is what the unions are afraid of their members losing. But wait, further down still:
Talks have been going on for 5 years. After FIVE YEARS of talks, with a half-way compromise (with no details on "range of other benefits" it's hard to say more) available the union involved decides to call a strike on the busiest night of the year."The crucial fact being ignored in all of this is that if we can agree a compromise with the FBU on different start and finish times, the whole process ends immediately. Talks have been ongoing for five years, and a compromise from the original proposal of two 12-hour shifts, to an 11-hour day and 13-hour night, with a range of other benefits, are still firmly on the table."
The employers are trying to improve the public safety - more community safety and the like. They've been trying to negotiate this for so long that a child could have been born during this process and grown up enough that you could talk to them about the concept of fire safety.
The union is striking on the day when that same child is most likely to die in a fire.
They need to get a grip.
Monday, October 25, 2010
What to do when ill...
I want you to imagine - you're ill.
You've been running a temperature for days, quite high at times. Paracetamol, plenty of fluids etc, What would you do....
1) Stay in bed, huddled in blankets and read/sleep/do nothing
2) You're ill and can't go to work - a chance to do all the housework/dusting/sorting of photos/crocheting
3) Nothing. I'm ill, I'm allowed to not do anything. Daytime TV!
4) Chart your temperature, log all your drugs and try and determine how effective paracetamol is as an antipyretic and determine how long it's effective for
What can I say?
Have thermometer, will meter?
You've been running a temperature for days, quite high at times. Paracetamol, plenty of fluids etc, What would you do....
1) Stay in bed, huddled in blankets and read/sleep/do nothing
2) You're ill and can't go to work - a chance to do all the housework/dusting/sorting of photos/crocheting
3) Nothing. I'm ill, I'm allowed to not do anything. Daytime TV!
4) Chart your temperature, log all your drugs and try and determine how effective paracetamol is as an antipyretic and determine how long it's effective for
What can I say?
Have thermometer, will meter?
Friday, September 17, 2010
I'll stop at the second paragraph
Morning all
As my Stars partner has failed to send me a turn, I'm having to resort to blogging this morning wake me up. This is fine, because first I went to a couple of news websites, to see what was happening in the world. And I found this.....
Where scientists fear to tread... why would scientists fear to tread? Oh, that's right. Because of women like her. Because if they find in a nice, blind study something that backs up a common prejudice feminists and "writers" will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Science should NEVER fear to tread somewhere.
Because it's possible for science to be wrong. Scientists are fallible people to. But science has (in most fields) this pesky ability to find these errors and correct them. Some times it takes longer then others - they once believed in the aether - and now we know better, because they went and made a test for it.
If there isn't a way to prove it wrong, it's not science.
So she wants scientists to go away, or at worst, only prove her pet little theories right, because... oh, never mind the because. Look at the next line.
"leaving the merits of scientific evidence aside". Right. So she doesn't care about what the science shows - because she's going to ignore it anyway, because she is right and science is irrelivent.
Oh, and the final line cracks me up. After telling the historians to bugger off and leave history alone she then has the audacity to talk about "historically".
So what she wants is for us to ignore history and science and accept that women are equal (and/or better) , that the reason women aren't equal is because of the prejudices of men and that we should ignore anyone who says anything to the contrary.
The thing is, the world isn't that simple. What we should do is accept this and understand, not ignore and stifle debate. There are differences you can observe in your own home and the world is better because of this.
Well, with a pair of consenting adults...
As my Stars partner has failed to send me a turn, I'm having to resort to blogging this morning wake me up. This is fine, because first I went to a couple of news websites, to see what was happening in the world. And I found this.....
Dr Cordelia Fine's new book, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference, argues against the idea that male and female brains are programmed by nature to provide contrasting talents and skills. Fine's conclusions provide a timely warning against taking too seriously the deluge of books and articles that would have us believe that men are biologically advantaged when it comes to mathematics, racing driving or map reading – and that women are naturally more intuitive and nurturing, so better at childcare and multitasking (they can look after a child and clean at the same time). No marks for guessing that "masculine" skills tend to be the ones with status in our particular society.
So, let's see. Some feminist is releasing a book and is trying to get free advertising. Her friend in the guardian (if only via the "sisterhood") repeats the core message, saying that we should ignore science that shows differences between men and women. Or at least be very skeptical about it.
Oh, and as a side issue, being good at maths, science and reading doesn't seem to hold any status at school - it makes you more of a target then anything else.
Historians would be unwise to enter? I'm sorry? The point of a historian is to tell us what happened in the past and try to understand it. To reach the cause of events explain, so that we can learn from the past. So why should they be unwise to enter - it's not their fault. Oh, you mean that what they find might be different to what you believe? *mutter* Those who forget the past are condemned to repeating it.
Gender difference is a thorny issue and historians would be unwise to enter where even some scientists fear to tread. But leaving the merits of scientific evidence aside, history shows that whenever women start to demand equal access to what have traditionally been men's roles, theories about their "natural" unsuitability tend to emerge.
Where scientists fear to tread... why would scientists fear to tread? Oh, that's right. Because of women like her. Because if they find in a nice, blind study something that backs up a common prejudice feminists and "writers" will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Science should NEVER fear to tread somewhere.
Because it's possible for science to be wrong. Scientists are fallible people to. But science has (in most fields) this pesky ability to find these errors and correct them. Some times it takes longer then others - they once believed in the aether - and now we know better, because they went and made a test for it.
If there isn't a way to prove it wrong, it's not science.
So she wants scientists to go away, or at worst, only prove her pet little theories right, because... oh, never mind the because. Look at the next line.
"leaving the merits of scientific evidence aside". Right. So she doesn't care about what the science shows - because she's going to ignore it anyway, because she is right and science is irrelivent.
Oh, and the final line cracks me up. After telling the historians to bugger off and leave history alone she then has the audacity to talk about "historically".
So what she wants is for us to ignore history and science and accept that women are equal (and/or better) , that the reason women aren't equal is because of the prejudices of men and that we should ignore anyone who says anything to the contrary.
The thing is, the world isn't that simple. What we should do is accept this and understand, not ignore and stifle debate. There are differences you can observe in your own home and the world is better because of this.
Well, with a pair of consenting adults...
Friday, August 27, 2010
Ideologically blind
I've just been listening to the "Today" program on radio 4.
And today there was a section on education and school admission policy, which isn't what I want to comment about.
No, I was irritated by a comment from a representative of the Barnados charity, which complained that the difference between the academic achievement of the rich and the poor hadn't shrunk. And by implication that was a bad thing the government could fix.
Now, I don't know about you, but I can see a very simple reason why this might be the case - which just didn't seem to occur to the representative.
Intelligence is an inheritable trait - and intelligence can be linked to both educational achievement and income.
True, the link is far from perfect. It's an indication only. But we should not be terribly surprised if the children of the "winners" of the last generation "win" this one as well.
We should be taking advantage. Look, look , study the sciences. Understand the universe. Learn how we can manipulate reality at the level of the atom. Build server farms.
Because science and technology are directly responsible for the industrial revolution, the computer revolution and now the biological revolution.
Each such revolution has benefited the society as a whole, eventually.
Trying to push back the tide - sorry, ignore reality for an ideology that says everyone is equal and that it's the systems fault that they haven't achieved...
Hasn't.
And today there was a section on education and school admission policy, which isn't what I want to comment about.
No, I was irritated by a comment from a representative of the Barnados charity, which complained that the difference between the academic achievement of the rich and the poor hadn't shrunk. And by implication that was a bad thing the government could fix.
Now, I don't know about you, but I can see a very simple reason why this might be the case - which just didn't seem to occur to the representative.
Intelligence is an inheritable trait - and intelligence can be linked to both educational achievement and income.
True, the link is far from perfect. It's an indication only. But we should not be terribly surprised if the children of the "winners" of the last generation "win" this one as well.
We should be taking advantage. Look, look , study the sciences. Understand the universe. Learn how we can manipulate reality at the level of the atom. Build server farms.
Because science and technology are directly responsible for the industrial revolution, the computer revolution and now the biological revolution.
Each such revolution has benefited the society as a whole, eventually.
Trying to push back the tide - sorry, ignore reality for an ideology that says everyone is equal and that it's the systems fault that they haven't achieved...
Hasn't.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Midwives...
Morning all
For your daily dose of insanity, have a look here...
It would appear that the medical establishment has published a report that says that a home birth has three times the risk of the baby dying.
It came complete in the lancet with an editorial, which is quoted in the guardian as including the line... ""women have the right to choose how and where to give birth, but they do not have the right to put their baby at risk"."
Now, I'm going to go as far as assuming that no one in the article has lied or is materially wrong in what they say. Which, for me, is rather generous.
The response from someone who could be described as the head of a midwife trades union was...
She's wrong. And for a couple of reasons. Let us list them?
1) They aren't comparing the same thing. The medical journal reported on infant death; she's talking about maternal death.
2) "Global" is not a dirty word. The "Global medical establishment" has eradicated smallpox. What she's saying is that "One of the most educated professions in the world disagrees with me"
3) "attack and backlash" Hmmm. Either it's an attack on "home births" or it's a backlash against something midwives are doing. You can't have an attack and backlash at the same time. They describe different things.
4) That last paragraph is a little confusing. If I was to paraphrase the entire thing, what would it say? "There is a chance women could be misinformed about risk". Ok, fair enough. Which is why studies like this are important, because slightly flawed though it probably is, it remains better then no evidence.
She just doesn't like it.
5) Comparing cars to tractors. I haven't had anything to do with maternity hospitals, home births or the risks of child birth. However, I do know a few things.
One of the critical things is that doctors will strongly advise anyone who hasn't had a perfectly ordinary pregnancy to give birth in a hospital. Be it high blood pressure, diabetes or infection by zombie bite - they all advise a hospital is safer.
This forms a self selecting group, those at home who are low risk, those in the hospital at higher (average) risk.
And yet, despite all this, three times as many babies survived in hospital.
Which sounds safer to you?
For your daily dose of insanity, have a look here...
It would appear that the medical establishment has published a report that says that a home birth has three times the risk of the baby dying.
It came complete in the lancet with an editorial, which is quoted in the guardian as including the line... ""women have the right to choose how and where to give birth, but they do not have the right to put their baby at risk"."
Now, I'm going to go as far as assuming that no one in the article has lied or is materially wrong in what they say. Which, for me, is rather generous.
The response from someone who could be described as the head of a midwife trades union was...
She said midwives now "feel there is a concerted and calculated global attack and backlash against home birth which is being unfairly pilloried by some sectors of the global medical maternity establishment.
"There is a danger that risk during childbirth is presented in a way which is leading women to believe that hospital birth equals a safe birth. It does not. There is no hard and fast guarantee that a woman will have a safer birth in a hospital than at home".
She's wrong. And for a couple of reasons. Let us list them?
1) They aren't comparing the same thing. The medical journal reported on infant death; she's talking about maternal death.
2) "Global" is not a dirty word. The "Global medical establishment" has eradicated smallpox. What she's saying is that "One of the most educated professions in the world disagrees with me"
3) "attack and backlash" Hmmm. Either it's an attack on "home births" or it's a backlash against something midwives are doing. You can't have an attack and backlash at the same time. They describe different things.
4) That last paragraph is a little confusing. If I was to paraphrase the entire thing, what would it say? "There is a chance women could be misinformed about risk". Ok, fair enough. Which is why studies like this are important, because slightly flawed though it probably is, it remains better then no evidence.
She just doesn't like it.
5) Comparing cars to tractors. I haven't had anything to do with maternity hospitals, home births or the risks of child birth. However, I do know a few things.
One of the critical things is that doctors will strongly advise anyone who hasn't had a perfectly ordinary pregnancy to give birth in a hospital. Be it high blood pressure, diabetes or infection by zombie bite - they all advise a hospital is safer.
This forms a self selecting group, those at home who are low risk, those in the hospital at higher (average) risk.
And yet, despite all this, three times as many babies survived in hospital.
Which sounds safer to you?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Left speechless
As you're all aware, I'm not a great fan of certain groups of people. I believe in equality, rather then feminism for example.
Which leads me to this...quoted from the Guardian due to the pay wall at the Times.
I'd strongly urge you to read the whole article, but the gist is contained above.
So, the accusation is two fold, that the government failed to check to see that the budget was gender neutral and that it will primarily affect women.
The first thing is a sign of the problem - that the last government changed the law to require an assessment on the effect of changes in policy on groups such as women and the disabled. Sound like a massive bureaucratic waste of time that could be scrapped in a heart beat? This is the sort of thing that is costing a fortune. "Oh no, we've made a decision! Lets quickly check it doesn't disadvantage HALF THE POPULATION".
Secondly, they say that the cuts will primarily effect women. Now, given the Fawcett society didn't say that the cuts were targeted against women, they aren't. They'd be screaming from the roofs if this was the case.
But if you remember the budget, one of the points was increasing the rate that retirement age would increase to 66.
Critically, women currently retire at 60, rather then 65. So the biggest gender specific measure was to cut five years of paying a pension to women while their male counterpart worked.
Isn't equality such a terrible thing?
----
And a side note, since they've never complained about the budget before, does that mean all the rest were either neutral or pro-women?
Which leads me to this...quoted from the Guardian due to the pay wall at the Times.
The coalition government's emergency budget could be branded unlawful after a groundbreaking legal case was launched in the high court. Papers filed on Friday claim that Treasury officials broke the law by failing to carry out an assessment of whether the plans for heavy spending cuts would hit women hardest.
.....
"There is a point of principle here. The question is – had the government followed the proper process, would parliament have voted for the budget? If they had known that 72% of the cuts would be borne by women, would they have voted for the budget?"
I'd strongly urge you to read the whole article, but the gist is contained above.
So, the accusation is two fold, that the government failed to check to see that the budget was gender neutral and that it will primarily affect women.
The first thing is a sign of the problem - that the last government changed the law to require an assessment on the effect of changes in policy on groups such as women and the disabled. Sound like a massive bureaucratic waste of time that could be scrapped in a heart beat? This is the sort of thing that is costing a fortune. "Oh no, we've made a decision! Lets quickly check it doesn't disadvantage HALF THE POPULATION".
Secondly, they say that the cuts will primarily effect women. Now, given the Fawcett society didn't say that the cuts were targeted against women, they aren't. They'd be screaming from the roofs if this was the case.
But if you remember the budget, one of the points was increasing the rate that retirement age would increase to 66.
Critically, women currently retire at 60, rather then 65. So the biggest gender specific measure was to cut five years of paying a pension to women while their male counterpart worked.
Isn't equality such a terrible thing?
----
And a side note, since they've never complained about the budget before, does that mean all the rest were either neutral or pro-women?
We have notohing to do with the animal kingdom
This morning, in the 10 minutes I was listening to the news on my way to work yesterday it managed to annoy me.
There was an article on a new study which reportedly showed that a mother who goes to work when their children are very young doesn't do any damage to them.
Now, this isn't what inspired the anger. They had a representative from some organisation whose name escapes me. Dedicated to helping mothers to stay at home with their children.
What sparked off my rage was their first comment on "How in the animal kingdom animals looked after their young...".
I wanted to take her and turn her in a circle, pointing to the world around her.
The rate of infant/maternal mortality. Childhood diseases now rendered so rare they make the national news on occasion.
Yes, in the animal kingdom mothers have to hunt for their children. Pull down and slaughter prey that fights back or find other food, edible foliage and the like.
She has to go to tescos.
THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
There was an article on a new study which reportedly showed that a mother who goes to work when their children are very young doesn't do any damage to them.
Now, this isn't what inspired the anger. They had a representative from some organisation whose name escapes me. Dedicated to helping mothers to stay at home with their children.
What sparked off my rage was their first comment on "How in the animal kingdom animals looked after their young...".
I wanted to take her and turn her in a circle, pointing to the world around her.
The rate of infant/maternal mortality. Childhood diseases now rendered so rare they make the national news on occasion.
Yes, in the animal kingdom mothers have to hunt for their children. Pull down and slaughter prey that fights back or find other food, edible foliage and the like.
She has to go to tescos.
THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
New toys...
We all like new toys - and telling the world we have them.
And I've got a new toy!
I'm fairly sure I've ranted about my netbook on here once or twice - I love the thing to bits, after all. But, well, it's not perfect.
And the one thing that bugs me is battery life. I can use it for between 1-2 hours. An hour playing warcraft or two hours with notepad, tea and some serious thinking.
(I know,doesn't happen often lately)
But if you use it for half an hour, while eating lunch at work...maybe use it later in the kitchen, listening to the radio while you cook. That leaves you at 50% or less.
Then you've got to start making choices - because deep discharging (aka, running till flat) is very bad for lithium rechargeable batteries.
So do you use it for another half an hour, push it to 25%? But what if you need it in a hurry for something else afterwards... shouldn't you be recharging it?
However, this problem is now solved.
For I've gone and spent money (painful though it was) for a new battery. It's not the same size, nor twice or thrice as big. It's 3.4 times as big. So a naive assessment says it should last 3.4 hours to 6.8. This sounds like an improvement!
But no, better yet - because it's new and not started to degrade it hasn't suffered the fate of the old one yet. The old one could store only 80% of a full charge due to age.
So that's really 4.25-8.5 hours. Getting better...
And still further - because it has more cells (9 vs 3) the drain on each cell is reduced by a third. So there is less energy lost at that stage as well. I can't quantify this (to do so would require a really sensitive thermometer and a sealed, controlled environment) - but it's one more reason the new battery is just...
...well...
...shiny....
And I've got a new toy!
I'm fairly sure I've ranted about my netbook on here once or twice - I love the thing to bits, after all. But, well, it's not perfect.
And the one thing that bugs me is battery life. I can use it for between 1-2 hours. An hour playing warcraft or two hours with notepad, tea and some serious thinking.
(I know,doesn't happen often lately)
But if you use it for half an hour, while eating lunch at work...maybe use it later in the kitchen, listening to the radio while you cook. That leaves you at 50% or less.
Then you've got to start making choices - because deep discharging (aka, running till flat) is very bad for lithium rechargeable batteries.
So do you use it for another half an hour, push it to 25%? But what if you need it in a hurry for something else afterwards... shouldn't you be recharging it?
However, this problem is now solved.
For I've gone and spent money (painful though it was) for a new battery. It's not the same size, nor twice or thrice as big. It's 3.4 times as big. So a naive assessment says it should last 3.4 hours to 6.8. This sounds like an improvement!
But no, better yet - because it's new and not started to degrade it hasn't suffered the fate of the old one yet. The old one could store only 80% of a full charge due to age.
So that's really 4.25-8.5 hours. Getting better...
And still further - because it has more cells (9 vs 3) the drain on each cell is reduced by a third. So there is less energy lost at that stage as well. I can't quantify this (to do so would require a really sensitive thermometer and a sealed, controlled environment) - but it's one more reason the new battery is just...
...well...
...shiny....
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Oh dear...
Morning all.
I was going to rip apart an article on pornography today. Mostly because I was reading the website and thought I'd fallen into the twilight zone.
However, I'm not.
Because I never want to talk about something on here that I wouldn't explain to a child.
So if you want a look, go here - but be warned, the author may not have a good relationship with reality. I certainly couldn't relate to any part...
I was going to rip apart an article on pornography today. Mostly because I was reading the website and thought I'd fallen into the twilight zone.
However, I'm not.
Because I never want to talk about something on here that I wouldn't explain to a child.
So if you want a look, go here - but be warned, the author may not have a good relationship with reality. I certainly couldn't relate to any part...
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Radiation!
Grrrr.
I often find myself telling the radio that it's wrong. And today was a case in point.
There was a "not-in-my-back-yard" environmentalist complaining about plans to store nuclear waste. You see, he's wrong. badly wrong. We shouldn't be trying to get rid of it. We should be getting more.
There are two ways to deal with very highly radioactive waste - we're talking fuel rods and the like. The easy one is store it. You find somewhere quiet and isolated (say, Scotland? In a Welsh mountain?) and store it for the next age or two. This does work, yes. You build a big enough facility and tell countries who want to get rid of the stuff "Pay us xxx, deliver it safely to [point] and we'll take it off your hands".
Charge enough and you cover costs - so a good approach to start with. It's stored in a high tech country away from nasty terrorists and freedom fighters and the like. (And no, I don't count the Scottish as freedom fighters. Other words spring to mind.)
But the other one is better - that is, after having acquired as much of the worlds really radioactive waste as we can, we change the plan.
We build a new reactor and use the damned stuff as fuel. It's so dangerous and radioactive BECAUSE IT CONTAINS ENERGY. You set up an environment where the neutrons it emits are recaptured by other material - this causes more fission and more and more. This generates more radiation for a short time - along with shed loads of heat.
End product - low carbon energy and your high level waste is suddenly not so dangerous.
Get rid of it? Buy it!
I often find myself telling the radio that it's wrong. And today was a case in point.
There was a "not-in-my-back-yard" environmentalist complaining about plans to store nuclear waste. You see, he's wrong. badly wrong. We shouldn't be trying to get rid of it. We should be getting more.
There are two ways to deal with very highly radioactive waste - we're talking fuel rods and the like. The easy one is store it. You find somewhere quiet and isolated (say, Scotland? In a Welsh mountain?) and store it for the next age or two. This does work, yes. You build a big enough facility and tell countries who want to get rid of the stuff "Pay us xxx, deliver it safely to [point] and we'll take it off your hands".
Charge enough and you cover costs - so a good approach to start with. It's stored in a high tech country away from nasty terrorists and freedom fighters and the like. (And no, I don't count the Scottish as freedom fighters. Other words spring to mind.)
But the other one is better - that is, after having acquired as much of the worlds really radioactive waste as we can, we change the plan.
We build a new reactor and use the damned stuff as fuel. It's so dangerous and radioactive BECAUSE IT CONTAINS ENERGY. You set up an environment where the neutrons it emits are recaptured by other material - this causes more fission and more and more. This generates more radiation for a short time - along with shed loads of heat.
End product - low carbon energy and your high level waste is suddenly not so dangerous.
Get rid of it? Buy it!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Quote of the day
"Evil. Tastes like nutella"
(Context: Weight Watchers points. Not what you were thinking of.
(Context: Weight Watchers points. Not what you were thinking of.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Morning all
Blogging has been light of late, but for the moment...
What did you think of the budget yesterday.
Did you enjoy the tax rises?
Yep, that's right. Tax rises for every single full time working person in the UK. And most of the part timers as well.
You see, it goes like this. Every year we have inflation, the gradual process of rising prices. Every year the government raises the amount you can earn before they tax you by a similar amount.
Except for labour. Who didn't increase it at all.
Tax by stealth...
What did you think of the budget yesterday.
Did you enjoy the tax rises?
Yep, that's right. Tax rises for every single full time working person in the UK. And most of the part timers as well.
You see, it goes like this. Every year we have inflation, the gradual process of rising prices. Every year the government raises the amount you can earn before they tax you by a similar amount.
Except for labour. Who didn't increase it at all.
Tax by stealth...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Unexpected consequences
As you've probably worked out by now, I'm a believer in Equality. Which doesn't seem hugely popular out there in the real world.
Anyway, read this .
Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average women will in her lifetime have 2.5 children. That she's probably going to have them between the ages of 20 and 40.
Yes, I know these numbers are both flawed - I'm picking them to keep things simple.
2.5 children * 20 weeks = 50 weeks... essentially a year. We assumed a time frame of 20 years - so for 1 in 20 years they are a cost, not an asset.
That is, they are 5% less effective over that time.
This "women's rights committee" will have done more to undermine equality and fairness with this proposed law then...then... I can't think of a good enough example.
People don't usually shoot themselves in the foot with anti-tank weapons.
Anyway, read this .
A massive extension of maternity leave across Europe was last night voted for by the Womens’ Rights Committee of the European Parliament to make it compulsory for employers to pay mothers for a minimum of 20 weeks on full pay.
Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average women will in her lifetime have 2.5 children. That she's probably going to have them between the ages of 20 and 40.
Yes, I know these numbers are both flawed - I'm picking them to keep things simple.
2.5 children * 20 weeks = 50 weeks... essentially a year. We assumed a time frame of 20 years - so for 1 in 20 years they are a cost, not an asset.
That is, they are 5% less effective over that time.
This "women's rights committee" will have done more to undermine equality and fairness with this proposed law then...then... I can't think of a good enough example.
People don't usually shoot themselves in the foot with anti-tank weapons.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Logic and Law - not so much
Once again politicians are doing silly things.
Have a look here, with a quick quote.
But here's the thing - I didn't know where the local lap dancing club was till it was pointed out to me as I walked past with friends. In a city I've lived for years - that's discrete.
But children *do* walk past the local Anne Summers shop (which sells very adult toys) every single day.
If you want to do something, do it. Don't blame it on "protecting the children" - because it isn't.
Have a look here, with a quick quote.
New powers to crack down on lap-dancing clubs
New powers to crack down on lap-dancing clubs will be given to local councils, the Home Office has said.
Currently residents can object to venues for licensing reasons only, such as crime and disorder, nuisance, public safety and protecting children.
LGA culture chairman Chris White said: "Parents' concerns about what their children might see during their walk home from school ....
But here's the thing - I didn't know where the local lap dancing club was till it was pointed out to me as I walked past with friends. In a city I've lived for years - that's discrete.
But children *do* walk past the local Anne Summers shop (which sells very adult toys) every single day.
If you want to do something, do it. Don't blame it on "protecting the children" - because it isn't.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
On waking
We all know dreams disappear so fast on waking. Seconds, minutes at most.
Sometimes good - nightmares that fade away in daylight.
Sometimes bad - happy places that can never be.
Or tragic. A hauntingly beautiful song that slips away - the faster you try to write it down, record the two voices the quicker it dissolves away from you.
Leaving 2 lines of chorus that mean little and are nothing special, even to you.
We know where you come from;
We know why your here.
Sometimes good - nightmares that fade away in daylight.
Sometimes bad - happy places that can never be.
Or tragic. A hauntingly beautiful song that slips away - the faster you try to write it down, record the two voices the quicker it dissolves away from you.
Leaving 2 lines of chorus that mean little and are nothing special, even to you.
We know where you come from;
We know why your here.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Believe me
I want you to believe me.
I want you to believe me when I tell you that here, in this bottle is miracle stuff. This stuff goes in your washing machine with a couple of clothes - say, a cloak.
You wash your cloak in water and this magic stuff. It tumbles round in the water, spins and soaks. Just like any other washing cycle.
But after all this - believe me - it will be more waterproof.
Sounds like madness, doesn't it.
Smells a little like PVA glue.
But that is where we are now. You can go down to the shops in most towns and buy a liter of stuff that sounds like witchcraft. Fifty years ago they'd laugh at you.
Three hundred years ago they'd burn you at the stake for such a claim.
That's where we are now - we can buy miracles.
Here.
I want you to believe me when I tell you that here, in this bottle is miracle stuff. This stuff goes in your washing machine with a couple of clothes - say, a cloak.
You wash your cloak in water and this magic stuff. It tumbles round in the water, spins and soaks. Just like any other washing cycle.
But after all this - believe me - it will be more waterproof.
Sounds like madness, doesn't it.
Smells a little like PVA glue.
But that is where we are now. You can go down to the shops in most towns and buy a liter of stuff that sounds like witchcraft. Fifty years ago they'd laugh at you.
Three hundred years ago they'd burn you at the stake for such a claim.
That's where we are now - we can buy miracles.
Here.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
We all have weaknesses
We all have weaknesses.
Some can't resist chocolate. Others can't save themselves from the cuteness of a kitten.
No, really - imagine it, sitting there, looking up at you...
I'm laying here on the bottom bunk, travel mate (probably) asleep - quite sweet really, even if she would kill me for saying that.
There's a few options here. I have hours of audio material on this netbook. There's a pair of good books in the bag. More then one hundred hours worth of sewing that needs to be done.
Instead I'm typing away on the blog (even if this will be posted late - probably when I get to civilisation)(yes, I mean, wifi) half watching a musical.
But there's one small difference.
I happen to keep this specific musical around because it's really easy. It's short, fairly sure to make me smile and sing along.
But I watched this with a friend the other month. We were singing along quite merrily...and she commented about the lyrics.
She pointed out exactly how filthy they were.
Now, I'm not going to give you an example, because this is a family blog. Well, it's intended to be readable by family members from work, anyway.
But all I want to do is sit here and sing along, trying not to laugh at the *terrible* double and triple meanings.
Certainly not going through the motions...
Some can't resist chocolate. Others can't save themselves from the cuteness of a kitten.
No, really - imagine it, sitting there, looking up at you...
I'm laying here on the bottom bunk, travel mate (probably) asleep - quite sweet really, even if she would kill me for saying that.
There's a few options here. I have hours of audio material on this netbook. There's a pair of good books in the bag. More then one hundred hours worth of sewing that needs to be done.
Instead I'm typing away on the blog (even if this will be posted late - probably when I get to civilisation)(yes, I mean, wifi) half watching a musical.
But there's one small difference.
I happen to keep this specific musical around because it's really easy. It's short, fairly sure to make me smile and sing along.
But I watched this with a friend the other month. We were singing along quite merrily...and she commented about the lyrics.
She pointed out exactly how filthy they were.
Now, I'm not going to give you an example, because this is a family blog. Well, it's intended to be readable by family members from work, anyway.
But all I want to do is sit here and sing along, trying not to laugh at the *terrible* double and triple meanings.
Certainly not going through the motions...
Monday, January 25, 2010
The smallest library in the country
I may well be in the smallest country in the world.
I certainly have more science fiction and fantasy books. I probably have more fiction books...
I don't have more books with authors starting with "Mac". Here, they have an extra 18 inch section before "M" starts...
I certainly have more science fiction and fantasy books. I probably have more fiction books...
I don't have more books with authors starting with "Mac". Here, they have an extra 18 inch section before "M" starts...
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Things money can't buy
There are many things money can't buy.
Hope, love, peace and time.
But in a city of more then one hundred thousand souls - so not a town, but a city - there is something else you can't buy.
For a day I searched. I looked in the small shops - the local businesses. I searched the chain stores and the national stores that bestride the place. Not a sign.
I can understand not finding an honest politician.
But are non-serrated needle nose pliers to much to ask for?
Hope, love, peace and time.
But in a city of more then one hundred thousand souls - so not a town, but a city - there is something else you can't buy.
For a day I searched. I looked in the small shops - the local businesses. I searched the chain stores and the national stores that bestride the place. Not a sign.
I can understand not finding an honest politician.
But are non-serrated needle nose pliers to much to ask for?
Friday, January 22, 2010
PC Free
Well, sometimes you just have to do the unpredictable.
Wear a suit to work. Do something you can't stand. Stroke a spider.
If you're the same person at the end of this year as you were at the end of last then it's a waste of a year. Well, unless you're dead. In which case you're not my target audience.
So I'm getting rid of my main PC...and not replacing it for a while.
How long, we shall see. But it'll stop me playing any computer games significantly more complicated then tetris for some time....
Wear a suit to work. Do something you can't stand. Stroke a spider.
If you're the same person at the end of this year as you were at the end of last then it's a waste of a year. Well, unless you're dead. In which case you're not my target audience.
So I'm getting rid of my main PC...and not replacing it for a while.
How long, we shall see. But it'll stop me playing any computer games significantly more complicated then tetris for some time....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)