44 Hundred Miles from home

A few answers to questions

2011-04-20T18:19:00.002+01:00

Evening all

I'm going to be responding to a post on another blog, which can be found here.

Little Miss Giggles pointed me at this, knowing my views - so I've bitten, and I'm going to try and rationally debate the answers. Yes, on the internet. No, the other one does not have bells on.

It's a serious of questions, which Raggady Man put to the No to AV campaign and he wasn't happy with the answers. I can't blame him, I'm not either. But there are answers, which I'm going to attempt to give.

Now, question one - I don't see a need to respond to. The motivation to put "None of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet" could be almost anything - and it's not really a contentious point, really. A little dirty... but not one word that wasn't true. So let's leave that...

Question 2:...on the front page you claim that the current First Past The Post system gives one person one vote. However according to http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ with the First Past The Post system and the dominance of one party in my area I actually have around 0.25% of a vote. Can your further explain how, when my vote will be discounted if/when I don't vote for the local dominant party, I actually even have a vote worth casting in the next election.

Answer

Well, the official answer sucked - yes, the people who made the website are partisan. This does not allow you to ignore the point.

The point is in the current system, some votes aren't worth the same. Ignoring the strict, 1=1 point, this is to a degree, true. I've lived in areas that I couldn't change the outcome so much as a bean. However, does AV make this any better? Let us examine some cases in a hypothetical election...

Out right winner

1) If the majority party has more then 51% of the vote, under AV your vote matters exactly as much under FPTP as AV.

Your party won...

2) If you voted for the A party, and they win (and were the largest party) the value of your vote was the same.

3) If you voted for Party A and they won, and didn't have the most 1st priority votes cast, your vote is worth the MORE.

4) If you voted for Party B and they lost, but did have the most votes at stage 1, your vote is now worth LESS.

5) If you voted for party B and they lost and didn't have the most votes at stage 1, your vote is still the same.

Your n+1 choice won (not out right)

6) ...and your first choice was eliminated, your vote is worth more!

7) ...and your first choice is still in the running your vote is worth..less.

Someone you didn't vote for wins (not out right)

8) ...and they had the most in the first round, your vote is worth the same.

9) ...and they didn't win the first round, this just gets madly complicated. But probably balanced.

Now, my point here by listing all these possible outcomes is that the answer to the question of "Is my vote worth more with AV" the answer may be yes or no. It's complicated. But for every situation where your vote is "worth more", there is another where it is "worth less".

And for added fun, one of the most marginal seats in existence is Crawley. In 2005 there was a majority of 37. And in that seat, your vote is worth...according to http://www.voterpower.org.uk/crawley - 0.932, increasing to 0.952.

In a constituency where some voters have more pets then the winning candidate had majority voters your vote isn't worth 1.

The very metric that this site is using is flawed, because the only "perfect" situation is where there is only a majority of 1 - and that's you, alone, on an island.

According to the numbers on the page itself, swapping to AV increase the number of "marginal" seats by 6.4%.

So, really, 6.4% of people's votes are worth more.

And the people whose votes are worth the most are the minority parties - because they are the parties who will always get re-assigned.

The smaller the party, the more extreme, weird and odd the issues they consider important.

Are they the people we want to have the deciding vote?

The prank vote, the protest vote, the single issue parties?

---
Depending on response, may/may not continue with the rest of the questions - I'm out of time!

Windows Server 2008, oh the pain

2011-03-31T21:06:00.002+01:00

Morning all

How's this for infuriating. You're running windows server 2008 and you want to download linux. Not for the server, but because you're going to stick it on the netbook. Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, there's a slight catch. You see, Server has an "enhanced security configuration" for its built in internet explorer.

This means that every time you try and download something that's even vaguely risky - like, say, linux - it asks you to add the site to a list of exceptions. Fine, yes, you can add thee site.

But places like ubuntu have mirrors - that is, multiple sites that take it in turns to download the file to you - because they're fairly hefty files. But every time you click it gives you another, different mirror.

So I think fine, sod this - I'm downloading firefox. A browser that I can use. But.... no. Instead I get exactly the same problem. So I end up running my main machine overnight, when one of the explicit reasons I have it is to manage large downloads like this because it uses next to no power.

But no.

Server.

FAIL!

Telepathy - What would it really be like?

2011-03-26T11:25:00.002Z

You see it in many science fiction stories, fantasy programs - heck, every now and again it makes it into mainstream fiction!

But what would it be like, to be with someone who could read your mind? And what if you could read theirs?

I don't have to guess. I know.

For, you see, I'd taken Little Miss Giggles to a games weekend at her parents place. And there was a gentleman by the name of Bester.

Now, I've never actually played with Bester before, except while approaching that point of tiredness during which I can fall asleep in the 30 seconds between someone starts shuffling cards and dealing them.

So we started playing a game of "God's Playground" with him. Now, there's a secret bidding mechanic in this game. And if you both bid the same amount, you have to bid again - and all the extra resources are lost.

This is a four round game. So, we should have had 4 silent bids - but we didn't.

We had more than 20.

Every single time the deadlock wasn't broken by one of us making a mistake, the other out thinking us or by some fluke. It was by the other person deciding this was getting silly and deliberately not playing.

This is different from the (3? 5?) times when we both decided, at the same time, to bid 0.

Still, eventually the game ended and we went onto another, called Carson City.

By this point we were firmly in each others heads. We knew what the other player was doing. What he was thinking. Why he was doing everything.

We had to waste actions not because we wanted to do something. But because we'd seen things the other player could not be allowed to do, so they had to be stopped. And we knew that they had seen this option - because they had.

Yes, that paragraph was confusing. It was confusing because we were thinking in lines so similar that the other player of the game just didn't know what we were talking about.

At the end we were talking about what his final moves should be in semi-code. Not because we wanted to be secretive, but because the other player already knew. All you had to do was mention that "The hidden four pointer was better".

That is, the 4 point move that was hidden because the 3rd player had covered it with their hand.

So I know what telepathy is like.

It's damned annoying.

Rage at the Radio

2011-02-20T22:31:00.002Z

I'm a huge fan of radio 4, any questions and any answers specificly. despite the rage that it causes me.

But I've just sat through both and, as far as I'm concerned, EVERY SINGLE PERSON managed to miss the point on an issue.

True, I normally disagree with most people about a lot of things. But maybe I just take a long view. But yes, xx number of years after a sex crime, yes, the culprit should have a chance to be removed from the sex offenders register.

Not because of "fundamental human rights". I'm not a huge fan of them, as currently implemented.

Not because of rehabilitation - the justice system may or may not rehabilitate. To rehabilitate there must be the acceptance that it's possible - but the point of the system varies from society to society.

Not even on the insanity of keeping people with dementia on the list.

No, but because things that are a sex crime change. Fifty years ag0 - within the lifetime of a decent part of the population, homosexuality was a crime. Now, it's not. So someone who was a sex criminal then wouldn't now warrant more then raised eyebrows.

Right now there are some serious oddities in our legal system. It's a crime to be *sent* a picture of naked girl less then 18 years old. That is, if a 17 year old girl sent a naked picture which she took herself to her boyfriend, he is committing a crime.

It's lunacy I expect to be fixed at some point. But people caught by this are by definition sex offenders.

Our definition of what is a sex crime changes; so we should review - if it's not still a crime, they don't need to be registered.

Muppets.

Jelly on radio 4

2011-01-04T07:25:00.002Z

Now I'm grumpy.

Not only do I have to be up and alert on the morning after a bank holiday, but the BBC are giving air time away to a politician to lie.

Turn on the radio and we hear a labour politician being asked "What don't you like about the VAT rise?". His answer, paraphrased slightly, was:

1) Because they promised not to (but they and the lib dems were going to increase national insurance.
2) Because it's regressive
3) Because it's a tax on jobs

All this and the presenter didn't even query any of them. Now, I know the general election was last year and people might not rememebr it that well. So lets look at these claims.

1) The conservatives very clearly said (at some cost) "We have no plans to increase VAT". But they didn't promise it - they were amazingly clear on this.

2) Regressive. Define regressive. This term now seems to mean "any policy we don't like" - if it doesn't actually benefit the target groups a politician cares about, it's regressive. It's a meaningless word, and I'll show you why.

Lets say that you're going to increase tax in such a way that someone earning 10,000 a year pays an extra £10 but someone earning £30,000 pays £30 extra - that sounds progressive, right? Well.... no. You can still call it regressive. Or progressive.

Yes, the rich are paying more - but so are the poor. Indeed, if the £30K person paid £20 more then labour would be dancing up and down, it's regressive, regressive! Because as a percent, the rich are paying less of their income.

So to pass this test the poor both must pay less in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. Which makes virtually any cut you think of making regressive. Which is surprisingly difficult.

Oh, and the third point, about a tax on jobs? All taxes cost jobs. National Insurance is paid by both employers and employees. So, by definition, any increase is an actual tax on jobs.

VAT increases prices for everyone. So that's 2 actual lies and one meaningless statement - not even a follow up question.

An interview as hard of Jelly.

A few words of advice

2010-12-19T21:50:00.001Z

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

How would you explain this to the children?

2010-11-26T08:07:00.003Z

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?

Grumpy is in the building

2010-11-22T08:01:00.002Z

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

Burning bridges

2010-10-26T14:15:00.002+01:00

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

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...

"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."

Ahhhh, now I understand. Your members are paid for a 15 hour nightshift, during which they.....wait for fires?

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 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."

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 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.

What to do when ill...

2010-10-25T15:42:00.002+01:00

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?

I'll stop at the second paragraph

2010-09-17T07:53:00.002+01:00

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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...

Ideologically blind

2010-08-27T07:48:00.002+01:00

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.

Midwives...

2010-08-18T07:59:00.003+01:00

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 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?

Left speechless

2010-08-03T07:53:00.002+01:00

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.

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

2010-08-03T07:52:00.000+01:00

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!

New toys...

2010-07-31T22:51:00.001+01:00

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....

Oh dear...

2010-07-08T08:34:00.002+01:00

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...

Radiation!

2010-07-07T08:51:00.001+01:00

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!

Quote of the day

2010-04-21T07:38:00.003+01:00

"Evil. Tastes like nutella"

(Context: Weight Watchers points. Not what you were thinking of.

Morning all

2010-03-25T09:09:00.002Z

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...

Unexpected consequences

2010-02-24T23:08:00.002Z

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 .

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.

Logic and Law - not so much

2010-02-12T08:18:00.003Z

Once again politicians are doing silly things.

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.

On waking

2010-02-04T08:13:00.002Z

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.

Believe me

2010-02-02T20:53:00.002Z

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.

We all have weaknesses

2010-01-27T19:26:00.000Z

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...

The smallest library in the country

2010-01-25T15:07:00.003Z

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...

Things money can't buy

2010-01-23T23:23:00.003Z

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?

PC Free

2010-01-22T10:08:00.001Z

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....

Christmas

2009-12-25T18:03:00.002Z

There are somethings about Christmas that doesn't change.

There is always cheese. This I don't object to.

But then, so things do. Another year passed.

Things end, things begin. What you loose you loose forever.

And the BBC keep screwing up Dr Who.

Rage

2009-12-24T23:08:00.004Z

I am not an angry person.

But it's 45 minutes till Christmas and I am filled with RAGE and ANGER because of multiple FAIL on someone else's part.

And for added fun they're blaming me.

Yet still I do not shout or rant.

Maybe they'll make me feel better?

If the police are here by morning, it wasn't me...

Change isn't always good

2009-12-16T08:14:00.003Z

I'm sitting here, first thing in the morning, listening to the radio.

All I can hear is some women from the committee (I can't remember which body, it's too early!) going on about how cheques are dying and how we should set a date to abolish their use.

That less then one in a thousand transactions are cheque based.

All I can say is "you muppets!". All their arguments are being based around the fact that big businesses don't like them because they are a relatively expensive way (for them) to be paid.

About the only defense that seems to be made is that the elderly use them most.

But then, I use cheques on a regular basis. If I need to give someone like a friend or family money I almost certainly use a cheque. Small associations I belong to - they get cheques. When (ok, *if* I give to a charity) it's via small change - or a cheque.

I paid for a weekend break in January with a cheque.

People use them because for a certain class of transaction you can't replace them.

Just because it's 300+ years old does not mean we need to replace them.

Besides - think of the language.

Cheque please!

They're missing the point...

2009-12-06T07:58:00.002Z

In The Times recently....

A review of road safety announced yesterday could reduce the drink-drive limit to the equivalent of one pint of beer and introduce a new drug-drive limit.

British motoring bodies believe a lower limit would reduce fatalities compared with the 430 people killed by drink-driving last year.

The point they are missing?

Well, there are two possible reasons that this might alter the number of fatalities.

First, those people who are already breaking the law by driving while drunk stop driving because of the new limit. This I doubt. Strongly.

Secondly, the number of people who have accidents while driving while over the limit increases - because the limit is set to a lower value. This will increase the number killed by a process known as "moving the goal posts".

(The real question is how many of these deaths are caused by alcohol, how many from increasing the number of journeys included in the statistics. But that's a sensible question that isn't answered...)

A little thought experiment for you all

2009-11-26T18:20:00.003Z

As you may have noticed, on occasion I complain about public figures in the UK. So lets try a little thought experiment, shall we?

Imagine a little boy - picture him in your mind.

He's about 3, blond, wearing one of those old fashioned white and blue sailor suits that you see every now and again.

Now beat him with a pool cue till he's unconscious.

It's not nice, is it? It's monstrous, wrong and something that should never happen.

Picture his cousin - same age, a sweet little girl who only wants a pony. Beaten with the same pool cue.

Both are equally objectionable. Both leave you feeling sick to the stomach, if you really try and imagine it.

But in recent days there's been news coverage about violence - lets quote a few of the usual suspects, with our little thought experiment in mind.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said violence against women and girls was "an obscenity".

Harriet Harman, minister for women and equality, said tackling violence against women and girls was "one of the government's top priorities".

She said the strategy called Together we can end violence against women and girl, focused on prevention, which was "critical" to long-term change.

"We have to work to change attitudes in order to eliminate violence against women and girls and to make it clear beyond doubt that any form of violence against women is unacceptable," she said.

It's quite clear here - they only care about their precious victims - if they fit the right profile. The right media image.

I believe we should stamp out violence - not against women and girls. Not women and children.

I believe we should stomp on violence.

Why discriminate?

Cold blooded

2009-11-18T08:12:00.002Z

You know what it's like. You feeling ill, under the weather and debating if you should call in sick.

So you dig out a digital thermometer to check if you have a temperature or not.

And it turns out you do. It's 36.0 degrees.

You can't even get as far as the average 37 degrees required to be normal.

Let alone fevered.

The other day...

2009-11-03T08:19:00.003Z

The other day there was a power cut at one of our sites. These things happen.

Still, I happened to be there at the time and while the power was out I needed to do things. So I happily bounced along the corridor to my destination, where I met a couple of secretaries.

They were saying it's too dark to go any further down this dark corridor, that they couldn't see and they wanted a torch.

What I wanted to say was "There's plenty of light. There's enough to see you're wearing slightly opaque seamed stockings, after all".

But that would get me fired, as HR have no sense of humour. So I just told them not to worry and to get on with it. At which point they seemed to go off in a huff.

Was that not what I was supposed to say?

What were they thinking?

2009-11-02T08:07:00.001Z

What were they thinking - or were they not thinking at all?

Quoted from The Times,

Professor Nutt was sacked after criticisms he had made of the Government’s drugs policy were published in a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King’s College London. The comments were made in a lecture he delivered in July, in which he said that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. He also criticised the decision to upgrade cannabis to class B.

So what we have here is a scientist giving a lecture where he gives an honest opinion to a group of people.

This is usually called teaching.

If those who listen agree with your points and find them reasonable, with good enough evidence to reference them in a work of their own this is usually considered a WIN condition by scientists.

They fired a scientist for being a scientist.

Muppets.

Fail.

2009-11-01T15:42:00.001Z

Lets imagine, if you will, you are a giant computer software company.

You've got your own operating system and a messenger system. You would imagine that one would work on the other flawlessly.

One hundred percent of the time, perfect running. Provided that the internet is on and no security issues exist. Or - maybe not.

Allow me to introduce Microsoft Messenger. Despite being on a perfectly stable, boring Windows XP setup it refuses to connect to the internet. Which is on. Nothing running that would cause problems.

But if you reboot it *may* work.

If they can't get something as simple as a chat client to work reliably why do we trust them with an OS?

Flexibility

2009-10-30T14:03:00.002Z

There's something truly fascinating about language.

It's the way that a term can change in meaning, context to context - and how it can be used with multiple meanings at the same time.

I had a conversation yesterday that will remain with me for a long time. It involved the word "single".

Usually used to describe an individual object or unattached person.

In LARP used as SINGLE, a damage call that indicates a single point of damage, that typically can't be used more then once a second. So "Single....single...single" would be the slowest rate you could inflict damage.

Where as to me now (and to one other twisted individual) it now refers to something that should never happen. Which is beyond bad and wrong. And funny beyond belief.

And yet - and yet every time I now use the word, which will be almost every time I go LARPing I will be reminded of this conversation. And I will be smiling, no matter how inappropriate.

Language - possibly the greatest thing we've ever made. Certainly the funnyist.

There are some things I can't resist...

2009-10-27T08:21:00.000Z

On my way to a LARP event last weekend I had to walk from a rail station to the bar - only a mile or two, not a bad walk.

With cloak flowing behind me.

As you would imagine, this changes the way people respond to you. They tend to give you more space - and you're definitely Seen. People really do look twice.

But sometimes...

In this case, not 100 yards from the station as I stormed along (why stormed? Because it feels good with the cloak) but was stopped by a startled family of tourists.

I knew they were tourists because there was a family, clearly from somewhere like to Japan, China or somewhere else in that area. Expensive cameras, very poor English...and they asked me in their fashion "Are you prince Harry?".

To the best of my knowledge, I look nothing like him. Nor do I know if he has a thing for black fantasy costumes and cloaks.

I should have said no. Or shaken my head. But I couldn't resist.

I was in LARP mode. I looked left...then right. Turning to them I put my finger to my lips and said but one word.

"Shhhhssh".

They were excited by this.

Online madness

2009-10-21T21:21:00.000+01:00

I have a boredom threshold that varies between saint like patience and a three year old's - you may have noticed.

So there I was, having already done what the instructor wanted us to do - so I thought I'd have a look to see how much the last book in the wheel of time set would cost me.

Web browser, amazon.co.uk...and stop.

Because I'm looking at the list of recommended products - and it's madness.

The machine had no history with the site, no amazon user was logged in. And what did it recommend?

Windows 7 - How much did Microsoft pay for that??
Shoes - Nope, not what I'm after..
Jeans - I need some, but I'd much rather try them on first - fail.
Coats - No thankyou...
Dresses - Just no.
PC/video games - Possibly, but I've just not got the time.
Cutlery - What??
Lamps - WHY??!?

So of all the possible recommendations the could possibly suggest not one is that for which they are famous.

Books.

Mornings

2009-10-20T21:50:00.001+01:00

Mornings

I'm not a huge fan of mornings - atleast, not if I have to be awake.

But I've found a reason to love them. Well, to not hate them.

Work have sent me off on a training course (which was kind of them) - then only catch is that I have to leave at 7am, probably not back till 7pm.

This tends to leave me just a tad tired. However...there is an upside. We're car sharing on the way down and because my car is so small, I can't drive us.

Under work terms and conditions, I can claim the additional travel time as time off in lieu.

That is, I can claim the time I spend sleeping in someone elses car on the way down as time off in lieu.

They're paying me to sleep.

Yay.
--

There will be mails and things to people tomorrow. I will write them on the netbook during the drive.

Self harming

2009-10-08T20:39:00.002+01:00

I'd always thought that self harming was a thing people did on their own. Probably in private. It would appear that this is not the case...

Have a look here.

Royal Mail postal workers have voted to take strike action over job security and working conditions.
They voted three to one in favour of action, with 61,623 out of a total of 80,830 workers who voted saying they wanted to strike.

Now, given this is a service for which there are alternatives, does this strike you as a good idea? I mean, really?

Given that..

The company says the number of letters and parcels its core business delivers is falling by 10% each year

Do they really think that striking will in any way improve things? Have the regional strikes done anything but loose things (like, say, birthday things sent to Canada)?

Nope. Every strike will bleed the industry a little more.

Muppets.

Things not to say at work...

2009-10-01T22:33:00.002+01:00

I was talking to someone on the phone at work, while waiting for something to happen. This isn't such a rare thing, as moving anything across the network can take a measurable amount of time.

So there we were, talking about the sort of thing you might say to someone you've never met and don't know. I've had some weird conversations like this - and this one turned to fitness.

She had just joined a gym, was very enthusiastic about it and tried to persuade me it would be a Good Thing to pick a goal and to run with it.

So I thought and said "Yes, I've got a goal. I want to be able to keep up with Katie"

Which lead on to why keeping up with Katie was so hard. "Well, she wears chainmail and plate armour and can run faster then I can - just carrying myself".

The silence on the other end of the line lasted for some considerable time...

(22:40 > )

Bad time to remember things

2009-09-30T23:31:00.003+01:00

Things not to remember as you rest in warm blankets.

That the road tax is due *today*. So now I can curl up in the (now cold) blankets and try to get to sleep.

Sometime later then intended.

(2330: 0750. *Tired*)

Tell people what to do

2009-09-30T07:57:00.002+01:00

We're in a recession

You may have noticed. I don't think the Unions have...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6836208.ece

Now, I'm not here to talk about high heels - if women should wear them or not. My point of view is biased.

What I find so laughable here is the attitude of the unions and their speakers. Examples? Well...

The exact motion that was passed was: “High heels may look glamorous on the Hollywood catwalks but are completely inappropriate for the day-to-day working environment.”

Important point: the unions are the largest donor to the labour party. They have great influence with them.

So here we have a group that helps the current government set policy complaining about what people wear.

Right now there's a RECESSION happening. But they're not talking about how to help companies, organisations and employers get through this, saving as many jobs as possible.

About the innovative steps being taken by some private sector companies. No. They're worried that women may choose to wear shoes that they disprove of.

They've lost the plot, the book...and possibly reality.

(This was written at the time, but I've been a tad lax...)

Drugs!

2009-09-17T07:13:00.001+01:00

As you may have noticed I'm a fan of letting people behave like adults - and of cost effective, sane social policy

Which is why when I saw the article here I realised that this would never make it into general policy under the current govenment.

What is it? Well, it's a way of dealing with drug addicts. It's a very simple policy. You give them what they want, under medical supervision.

Sounds daft, right? Support their evil, self destroying habbits.

But lets look at the (limited) details of the study as presented by the BBC.

Number of Heroin addicts given heroin on request: 39
Cost of scheme per user per year: Aprrox 15,000
Number of crimes commited in month before scheme: 1731
Number of crimes commited in last month of scheme: 547

Ok, lets look at this. 1731-547 = 1184 crimes "saved"
1184/39 = 30.35 crimes per user saved in the last month

So a fair approximation would be the scheme saved one crime per user per day. Which makes a degree of sense - you need a fix, you steal something to pay for it. The next day, rinse and repeat.

So over the course of a year, that's about 365 crimes saved. At a total scheme cost of 15,000 / 365 = 41 pounds per crime saved.

Now, is a crime worth 41 pounds. It would save on...

1) Police time
2) Less cases in criminal justice system
3) Less insurance claims and premiums
4) Less ordinary people suffer crime and it's affects

That would save the public money, I"m fairly sure.

Then we can factor in a few other things...

1) Less drug addicts in jail
2) Far fewer possession crimes
3) No overdoses caused by uncertain drug purity
4) Reduced cases of diseases caused by dirty needles
5) Organised crime and gangs loosing major income source

Over all, I'm fairly sure you could make a very good economic case for this. I'm certain that in the long run (hell, the short to medium term!) you would at the very least break even.

As it stands now we've failed to prevent this. These people are ALREADY addicted. Threatening them with jail isn't going to help. They are already a problem to society.

Is there any better way to deal with them?

Feeling guilty

2009-09-16T20:04:00.002+01:00

Yep, I feel guilty.

I've just done a 11 hour day at work, feeling like I could fall asleep any moment. I'll probably be asleep the minute I close my eyes tonight.

And yet I feel guity - we're so under-manned at work...and I took a whole day off ill yesterday.

Ah well. Same again tomorrow...

Oh so tired

2009-09-14T20:42:00.002+01:00

To give you an idea of how much fun I have at Maelstrom, here's a description of how badly my event went...

1) I slept through at least 12 hours of game time (I think I might actualy be slightly ill)
2) I only managed one complete experiment with my partner in experimental theology
3) I slept through the finding of something that would have been really, hugely interesting for my character
4) I never got a really good explanation of the fluffy bunny

And yet I consider the event to have been awesome...

Night all

Why?

2009-09-10T06:57:00.000+01:00

Where I work I sometimes get odd requests and complaints.

These sometimes make sense. A perverted kind of sense that has as much to do with common sense as a 700 pound dress made from clingfilm - but sense.

Today I've had a new one. A request for me to change the email system so that a user can't email Peter Dunn. Because we have two people named Peter Dunn and she keeps emailing the wrong one.

So she wants every email to go to "The right" Peter Dunn.

And she's sure that "the wrong" Peter won't mind "The Right" Peter forwarding on all his mail.

I'm not sure how to explain to her that the solution to the problem is for her to read who she's sending emails to...

Ideas?

Birthdays

2009-09-08T23:13:00.000+01:00

I was thinking today about birthdays. (And no, this is not a gentle reminder about the near future)

What I was thinking about was how they've changed.

I remember, all those years ago, of bring so excited about getting a floppy disk of my own for the computer we had back then. One of my very own, to store files and things on.

I'm sitting here now and I can't think of anything that would generate as much excitement. Unless NASA is looking for astronauts.

Is a reflection of how much more I have then when I was 7?

Or have I lost that spark of "Oh WOW!" that turned a little square of plastic and magnetic film into awesomeness?

A bit of a critic

2009-09-07T22:45:00.003+01:00

I'm only writing this because since I've remembered I've got to do it, I won't be able to sleep otherwise....

All I demand of a sequel is perfection. I know, that's a little harsh.

But take Underworld. Awesomely cool movie.

Underworld 2 - moved it to a different country and broke the plot in so many, many ways. Even the sex scene with Kate Beckinsale couldn't save it. (I'm not sure it would save the movie if she came to me, personally and took me out to dinner. No, really, it was that bad)

But I've just seen parts of Underworld 3.

And it makes the second film look good. How in the name of Hastur did a film this bad ever see the light of day??

--
Sleeptime, 10:55 -> 0700

Tyranny of choice

2009-09-03T18:59:00.003+01:00

I've just got home, looked in the fridge for food and not found a Whole Meal.

So I'm going shopping. The only problem is that I can buy anything I like.

And I can' t think of a single thing I want.

Damn it.

--
Space left for sleep times
22:50 ->

Autumn II

2009-09-02T22:11:00.004+01:00

I seem to remember a post a wrote, last year.

In it I mentioned that for me autumn happens three times a year.

Maybe I'm being gloomy, tired and sad. But I think this year it's come early.

I was dazzled by the golden light off fallen leaves, as I drove to work today. Even though autumn comes in the evening, this morning it was a chill that passed through my heart.

The summer has gone.

And the golden twilight has come.
--

Sleep, 10:18 after a hard written email. Tomorrow to send it.

Sleep on it, so they say...

And the alarm goes off at 730 - far to early.

Sleep

2009-09-01T23:09:00.003+01:00

I'm always complaining I'm tired and grumpy.

But as any scientist would tell you - or a sleep psychologist - that's terrible data. The first step would be to collect proof.

So I am.

Every night I'll try and post what time I turn out the light...and what time I get up in the morning.

I'll attempt to put a (non-political) blog entry in as well, but that will be secondary.

I'm tired. And Grumpy.

And I'm going to bed...at 23:13.
Awake at 07:45

How do you solve a problem like...a law that works?

2009-08-28T21:25:00.002+01:00

Now, here's a dilemma...in the UK we have the Criminal Records Bureau check, or the CRB. Now, this CRB is intended to catch those nasty people who want to work with children for very wrong reasons.

It does, after all, make a degree of sense to keep convicted sex offenders away from children - the easiest way to fail the CRB check is to be on the sex offenders register.

So far, so good,

But it turns out that Harriet Harman has found a group she believes is discriminated against by this. Have a look here...

The Government Equalities Office, which is overseen by Labour’s deputy leader, is promoting claims that devotees of skinny dipping and nudist campsites suffer prejudice equivalent to that experienced by gays, ethnic minorities and the elderly.

A submission written by British Naturism has been included in a review into discrimination. “Naturists encounter prejudice in employment,” it reads.

“This is a particular problem for people in the caring professions and education. Any occupation requiring an enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check is potentially a serious problem.”

So the problem really is differentiating between those who expose themselves to others...and those who expose themselves to others in some way that is (somewhat?) socially acceptable.

But the law is working exactly as intended.

By going the whole anti-discrimination route you cause a whole heap of problems. You can just imagine - court cases claiming that some poor unfortunate was discriminated against because s/he is a naturist. Completely impossible to prove of course...

Or there's always Plan B - change the CRB rules to allow you to appeal the result and defend certain charges, by pointing out that it was at a registered naturist site, for example...

But this is Harriet - why be sensible in the face of discrimination?

That's all folks

2009-08-21T18:03:00.000+01:00

I'm feeling ill and grumpy. And people keep dying around me - so only a short post.

More a task, if you will. Office 2003 (and I'm assuming other versions) capitalise the word "halfing". Your task is to find other odd words it capitalises.

I've tried Ilithid, ogre, elf, dwarf....

Badly spent money

2009-08-19T23:17:00.003+01:00

I'm a grouch, I admit this.

But have a look at this article here...

During the past 12 months, 40 councils have hired more than 140 experts, including healthy lifestyle tutors, wellbeing officers and community walks co-ordinators, at an annual cost to the taxpayer of almost £3m.

Public bodies hiring people for the public isn't a bad thing - if they're hired for the right reason...for the right role.

Now, to me (from the limited amount of data here) these job titles would appear to indicate non-jobs. All doing things that (to be honest) should not be done by the state.

Community walks co-ordinator? Who are you co-ordinating? How much co-ordination does it take to follow a map??

And the cost - 3 million, 140 people...tell you what I'd do. Fire the lot. Hire 140 youth workers.

What was that? You're shocked that I'd spend the money, not cut taxes?

Well, look at it like this. If each youth worker persuades or influences one teenager who's going off the rails. Just one... how much crime can one such young person cause and do?

A year in prison costs far, far more then the cost of hiring the youth worker for a year. Imagine... the youth worker helps 2 trouble makers to get a job, finish their education...

They pay for themselves, in the long term. I could argue they'd make us a long term, real world saving.

What's the pay back on a well-being officer?

Zombies!

2009-08-18T16:48:00.002+01:00

Now I - like most sane people - have a zombie survival plan.

It's not that complicated and can be summed up quite simply. Go to the closest place with automatic weapons ans secure it.

Given there's only one such place in 20 miles, everyone who knows where I am can see the slight difficulty with that plan. Still, come the Zombie Apocalypse a rifle is the way to go.

Shoot them all with extreme prejudice.

But - surprising to say - people doing research agree.

Kill them all.

Character flaw?

2009-08-17T18:38:00.001+01:00

Today, this morning I ran into a bit of Bad News.

Well, probably only bad news. The capitalisation is probably unnecessary. However, when I saw it my first thought was "That's inconvenient". Not "Oh my god" or anything along the lines.

That's inconvenient. Closely followed by an analysis of costs that probably deserved it's own spreadsheet.

All this with the emotional involvement of spilling milk. Actually - I'd have been more upset if I had spilt milk.

So the question....is this a flaw in my character?

Or should I just get out more?

Well, I won't be going to Alton Towers now....

2009-08-12T20:30:00.002+01:00

And why wouldn't I go to Alton Towers, one of the biggest (and some would say best) of Sunny England's amusement parks?

And why would I suggest you don't go either?

I'm glad you asked...

It's this. Quoting the important bit, without the paragraphs of blather relating this to semi-famous people....

The company said today that a number of men had been sporting tight trunks in its waterpark during the recent hot weather.

It went on: “To prevent embarrassment among fellow members of the public and to maintain the family friendly atmosphere at the resort, bosses have taken the extreme measure of banning these tight trunks from their popular waterpark located within the Splash Landings Hotel.

“While women may hail the return of the skimpy bathers, the style itself is not deemed public or family friendly, and therefore we are requesting that male swimmers wear more appropriate styles such as boardshorts.

"The resort is also considering introducing mandatory bikini waxing for men, in a bid to prevent unsightly hair from being on display.”

I've got a few issues with this.

But to start the balls rolling, lets do some homework. Go to google and do an image search on the terms "bikini" and "speedos". Study the images for a few seconds...

...that's long enough...

The first issue is very simple. A very basic thing in the UK is that, by and large, you are free to wear what you wish. Your employer probably has a dress code, but in most places you can wear what you like.

In swimming pools and water parks (and basically anywhere you're likely to get really wet) people wear...well...nothing really. But being a liberal democracy we accept if you get embarrassed by the fact other people aren't sexless automatons we give you a right - the right not to look.

We don't even tell them to grow up.

I have great objections to modern fashion - but I would never *dream* of enforcing my fashion views on others in a "you must wear this" fashion. The most coercive I'll get is that I'll only buy clothes for people that I think they'll look good in.

Which seems fair enough to me.

But the idea of banning men from wearing swimming trunks is madness. Would you prevent women wearing bikinis that consist of more then string? How about we enforce minimum standards. Women should be fully veiled at all times and- nope, sorry, wrong misogynistic fundamentalist religion.

The very concept of "fashion police" strikes a chilling chord. Which leads me to my second point.

Within certain VERY limited exceptions within a civilised society pain is pretty much an optional experience.

Ok, ok, fine, we haven't found any really good ways around childbirth, period pain and some medical conditions. But these are broadly speaking biologically unavoidable - and as such outside the scope of this rant.

If you don't want body piercings you don't have to have them. Don't want to wax? Fine - don't. Giving blood is a trivial amount of pain which saves lives - but we don't even have to say no. Pain is entirely voluntary.

Inflicting pain on another has names. Assault, battery, rape, murder - I'm sure you can see the theme. Do so accidentally (say, a car crash) and your insurance company pays out large sums to compensate for pain and injury.

Or to look at it another way, it pays off the victim so they won't sue you.

But then we have... "The resort is also considering introducing mandatory bikini waxing for men".

Inflicting pain so others live up to your standards of beauty. Have they noticed that body hair is a secondary sexual charactoristic of HALF the population?

Causing pain on half the population because they don't live up to your standards.

Stalin wants a word - something about copyright...?

Your tone of text

2009-08-05T22:49:00.001+01:00

When reading things others have written I hear the tone of voice. I don't have to know them or their voices. It's in the text.

Normally this isn't a problem - until you get to something really funny.

An email, addressed "Dear Sirs... (complaint) ... signed "Chloe Smith. (Mrs)."

Can you imagine how that sounded??

What is the government definition of solving a problem?

2009-08-04T21:16:00.002+01:00

What is the government definition of solving a problem?

It's not actually fixing the cause of the issue, clearly.

Lets take the current employment crisis for graduates - that many big employers have cut graduate schemes drastically. There are currently (if reports are to believed) 49 or so graduates applying for every place.

Combine this with the fact that the government wants 50% of all students to go to university - the problem is clearly that we have more graduates then we can support.

Let's ignore the implication that if 50% of the population then some of the people studying will have an IQ of LESS then 100. I could write a whole post on the implications and insanity of that.

Anyway, back to the point- we have a surplus of graduates this year. So what's the government going to do?

Why, obviously what the government needs to do is to pay for 500 odd graduates to go on a gap year - so next year, when they get back we'll have all the graduates that have just graduated and five hundred more from the year before.

Just putting the problem off.

Government problem solving.

Muppets.

(Edit to add)
The 49 figure was there, I'd swear, when I wrote this over lunchtime. That's what you get for not print-screening the page. Sorry.)

Why some people should be kept...quiet...

2009-08-03T19:03:00.002+01:00

Some times you don't have to parody. You don't have to make jokes.

You only have to point at what they say and laugh.

Well, Harriet Harmon is at it again. This time she shows her true colours. In the midst of economic crisis, unemployment and fiscal chaos it's clear what her priorities are.

Not the country - when her party is in power.
Not the economy - when she's the deputy leader of the party in charge of repairing this.
Not the labour party - when she must have known how badly these comments would be received.

But with her minority group of interest - women.

She makes her point very clear. She doesn't trust men in power. To quote...
“I don’t agree with all-male leaderships,” she said. “Men cannot be left to run things on their own. I think it’s a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership.”

So nice to know that the Minister for Equality has such a high view of half the population she represents. Men can't be left to run things.

So what does she want? A quota system, so mummy can keep an eye on the naughty boys.

You do not - and never can - achieve equality through quotas and requirements. You can only ever reach it through merit. Choosing the best candidates, the best skilled and those with vision.

She's forgotten this because she was never the best, the most skilled or gifted with vision. Instead, she's become obsessed with her view of reality - and forgotten something important.

When you become obsessed with the enemy you become the enemy.

(Even if there isn't one)
(Kudos to the first to identify the quote)

A good thing

2009-07-31T23:15:00.001+01:00

I'm always told that I'm being negative about things I don't like.

This is true.

So I'm going say something positive about the worst thing I can think of. No, that's not the Labour party. Or the weather.

Nope - I'm talking Windows Vista. Now, all of you who have spoken to me about Microsoft and Windows know my views. But I'm going to say something nice about it.

Vista allows you to install without a code, for 30 days.

This means you can set it up, realise how abysmal it is and uninstall it without spending a penny.

I am being positive. Really!!

All good things

2009-07-23T20:50:00.002+01:00

I should right now be packing for Maelstrom.

Really, I should.

But instead I've been distracted by All Good Things.

That is, the very last episode of Star trek, next generation. Arguably the last good episode ever flmed. That I've only ever seen once.

The sheer intelligence of the episode - the first time you see it, unprepared and unwarned. The first, last and only truly epic time travel episode.

Picard - Now tell me one thing: this anomaly we're looking for - will that destroy humanity?
Q - You're forgetting, Jean-Luc - you destroy humanity.

Being tired

2009-07-20T22:03:00.002+01:00

I'm tired.

Really, really tired. Maybe even a little ill. Probably not anything interesting.

Because I've got Maelstrom at the weekend. There is no peace in the war - and I need to be there. I have things to do. There are demons to kill.

And a small child that needs to be laid to rest. After a party. With cake.

But I don't even have the energy to write a review of My New Toy. I'm going to bed in a minute - and I dread the morning sun.

Because I'll only want to sleep again.

This whole sperm thing

2009-07-11T21:41:00.003+01:00

If you pay any attention to the news - at all - in the last couple of days you've probably heard the news that some scientists have managed to create sperm using stem cells. Significantly, they can do this from a woman's stem cells.

As you can predict there's been things like this - a list of 101 uses for a man and the like. It's dotted around the media...all over the place.

And I'm getting rather sick of it.

Because it's even more short sighted then cutting off your feet - because you've got a remote control.

There's a couple of reasons this isn't going to go anywhere.

1) Check the person who made this possible - a man. In all of human history a large proportion of new technology has been created and designed by men.

Women have made huge contributions - but if you want complete obsession over 20 years of dedication, without distractions of children, real life or even noticing an oncoming train...

Or - to put it another way - women tend to lead rounder lives, with things like a work-life balance. Men do not.

2) Economics - right now the cost for the majority of couples who want children the cost to create them is negative. That is - they pay less to conceive them, because they are not using (some form of) contraception.

Imagine if the cost was somewhat similar to a medical procedure - but I'm not going to pick one. Look around on the internet - they are Expensive. But as a opening number, lets say £2000. Average UK wage is about 25% (according to the ONS, anyway) - so 1/3 in tax (wishful thinking, I know..) leaves us with about 16K. So that's 6 weeks income straight.

And what do you do in our perfect female society when a boy is conceived? Abort them all? Separate out all the male sperm? (Good luck with that)

So we're talking a large cost that could be avoided, with additional moral dilemma and heartache for added fun.

3) And the real reason this won't happen any time soon - not economics, not science..

Most women rather like men. Most men rather like women. No matter how much they might complain about each other...however many painful heartbreaks they have they still want the other.

So this scientific miracle will be left as a oddity that might help a few childless couples, perhaps a few children might be born to pairs of women.

But society as a whole will not spend a huge amount of money on a solution that would exclude the low paid, leaving half the population rather upset and the other half unsatisfied.

If any country did try it people would just leave for another that didn't. And before you say "what if we all did it" - imagine trying to sustain this technology in somewhere like Africa. It's hard enough to live there as it is.

So could the mainstream media please stop going on about a fantasy world that will never exist and get back to reporting the real news.

like this

I'm going slightly mad

2009-07-03T19:40:00.002+01:00

Just to let everyone know I Have Returned.

Like Return of the Jedi, but less lightsabers and more unpacking. I've only been awake for the last 30 or so hours, so I'm rather tired.

I don't have any net at home now - although I've put an order in - so for the moment I'm sponging off the parents, while they cook me dinner.

This works all round, as far as I can tell...

Fatality

2009-06-20T02:50:00.003+01:00

The laptop has suffered a possibly Final Death.

Posting might be a tad....delayed....

I'm still here...

2009-06-16T19:46:00.001+01:00

Blog posts will be light while I'm away.

More stories to tell when I get back. Although I might find a rant for you later...

Election Predictions

2009-06-03T23:15:00.002+01:00

I'm sticking my neck out and giving some election predictions for the local elections tomorrow.

Since I'm not entirely sure what councils are voting, I'll give fractions.

Labour will loose about half their councilors, which will go in a 3/1 splt to conservatives/lib dems.

Other parties will gain a small number, with regional parties doing well. BNP will probably gain a couple of seats - but a whole council. And probably very localised.

Conservatives to gain ~20 councils. Mostly from NOCs, with labour loosing about half of theirs to NOC.

Those are my predictions - just because it's no fun saying "I was right" without sticking my neck out.

European elections...not sure yet. But very bad for labour.

They must be joking

2009-05-29T11:42:00.006+01:00

It always amazes me the things they say on the BBC. Take for example, this article...

The offensive quotes:

Around seven million people in the UK are involved in illegal downloads, costing the economy tens of billions of pounds, government advisers say.

Researchers found 1.3m people using one file-sharing network on one weekday and estimated that over a year they had free access to material worth £12bn.

What's so bad about this? Well, lots.

But lets look at the Really Big Number They estimate that these downloaders can access 12 Billion pounds worth of stuff. That's a LOT of stuff. No, really.

If we said that an hours TV was worth £1 per hour - and given that the average season of a TV show on amazon is less then £25 for anything that isn't the Last Season Gone this is a fair assumption. Lets say we've had 200 TV stations broadcasting new material for the last 60 years, 24/7, saved it and that it's all available on line, thats...um....60*365*24*200=105.12 million hours of TV.

Or about 1% of the 12 billion total.

Lets assume that there are 1000 films made every year for the last 60 years, at about £10 per film. Given they seem to be selling most for less then £6 of late... thats 1000*60*10 = 0.6 million - not enough to even worth putting into a percentage of 12 billion.

Music - lets call it 10,000 tracks a year...no...100,000 tracks a year, for 60 years, at £1 a track - aka typical ITunes prices - that's 6 million.

Books...for sake of argument, say that 4 times the number of books in project guttenburg covers the period to 1900 (so about 100,000), and since then 1 million a year for 110 years, at £5 per book. Thats (100,000 + 1,000,000*110) * 5 = 0.5505 billion pounds worth.

So with a bunch of assumptions so large I could fly the Starship Enterprise through them I can just, almost, make 1 Billion Pounds of media. Well, maybe 0.7 billion.

Assumptions like:

*All this material is available
*300 music tracks are made a day
*3000 books are written a day
*All TV content is only shown once, ever
*All TV content is worth £1 - including commercials, 24 hour news, blue peter

I'm not sure there's enough media on the planet to actualy come to £12,000,000,000 total.

Apologies...probably not happening any time soon.

2009-05-18T22:11:00.004+01:00

Almost every time someone - let's be honest, some man - in the office takes a few days off due to a cold or flu like bug the same things are always said.

"It's only man flu" is the start and the comments proceed downhill from there. You very rarely hear the reverse, men commenting on the time off women have. It just doesn't happen.

But I saw this article on the BBC the other day.

In brief:

Men really do have an excuse for supposedly being wimpy about coughs and colds - their immune systems are not as strong as women's, research suggests.

A Canadian study indicates that the female sex hormone oestrogen gives women's immune systems added bite

And while I would quibble with the word "wimpy" in this context (if you're actualy suffering more how is that wimpy? If you were suffering less and complaining more, that's wimpy.) what it says is clear - all else being equal, a man will suffer more while suffering from the same infection.

Well, till the next study comes out saying the reverse. But for the moment, we have clear evidence that "man flu" is no laughing matter.

Think we'll get an appology gentlemen?

I doubt it...

Have on going net problems

2009-05-12T22:39:00.001+01:00

Rather like the ones here

I am not happy with Demon.

Not one bit.

I'm going to work shortly, but...

2009-05-11T08:29:00.003+01:00

Ah hoy, pirates!

After loosing the court case, the pirate bay have found a new type of web attack.

Denial of Dollars - Do$. Much more painful then a Denial of Service - a typical techie attack. Quote from their site, here:

Pirate Bay Founder Devises DDo$ Attack

Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm (aka anakata) recieved a bill for the 30 million SEK that he, along with Peter Sunde (aka brokep), Fredrik Neij (aka TiAMO), and Carl Lundstrom, was fined in the verdict of the Pirate Bay trial just over three weeks ago. The bill inspired anakata to devise a plan involving sending money to Danowsky’s law firm, but not to pay the fine of course which they say will never be payed. Anakata’s clever plan is called internet-avgift, internet-fee in English. Anakata encourages all Internet users to pay extremely small sums around 1 SEK (0.13 USD) to Danowsky’s law firm, which represented the music companies at the Pirate Bay trial. The music companies will not benefit from this, instead it will cost them money to handle and process all the money.

The plan can be called a Distributed Denial of Dollars attack (DDo$). The plan is an away-from-keyboard DDoS attack. DDoS attacks involve lots of users overloading the victim with internet traffic damaging their ability to provide services. Money, instead of Internet traffic is used in this case. The victim is Danowsky’s law firm which represented the IFPI at the Pirate Bay trial.

A friend of anakata told Blog Pirate that the bank account to which the payments are directed has only 1000 free transfers, after which any transfers have a surcharge of 2 SEK for the account holder. Any internet-fee payments made after the first 1000, which includes the law firm’s ordinary transfers, will instead of giving 1 SEK, cost 1 SEK to the law firm. Since Danowsky & Partners Advokatbyrå is a small firm, all the transactions are handled by hand. Handling all payments will be time consuming, costing the law firm in productivity. Maybe it will even affect their success in other cases.

Make direct payments to
Danowsky & Partners Advokatbyrå KB. Plusgiro 79 31 21-5.

Additionally if after paying the internet-fee you determine that your payment was erroneous, Swedish law states that you can request the money back, putting an additional load on Danowsky’s law firm.

I think this is absolutely genius.

But...well...asking for a refund.

That's just class.

State of mind

2009-05-09T09:41:00.003+01:00

There are some people who really shouldn't be allowed out without a minder. (No, I'm not one of them.) Here's an example, here...

Quick summery of Prof Julian Le Grand's position, quoted from the article...

Without having to undergo a public ceremony or take any vows, they should simply be regarded as married in law as soon as the child's birth is registered, Prof Le Grand, Tony Blair's former Downing Street health adviser, said.

Those who later decide to separate would have to go to court to seek a divorce in exactly the same way as a couple who had married formally in church or a register office.

The London School of Economics professor, who is also chairman of Health England, argued that the idea would make family units more secure...

"There would be a benefit to the child as it would make separation that much more difficult," he said.

"There would also be benefits for the woman, particularly, who would acquire rights that many cohabitees think that they have already but actually they don't.

"There are no such things as common law wives although people think that there are."

Now - as yu can probably see by now - there's rather a lot I could attack here. But I'm not going to, because people tend to complain. (Anti-women, etc)

And there's a better attack I can make.

It goes like this. There is a fundermental difference between married couples with children and unmarried couples, tempory couples and short term pairs (such as one night stands).

That difference is the state of mind. Both have committed to each other and any resulting children. They've commited to this before witnesses, the state and the law - and quite possibly the church, their families and friends.

They have a host of reasons to work through any issues. Marriage is a state of mind - a long term view.

The state simply declaring that a couple are husband and wife changes nothing but a tick box on a form. You can't create good parents - or a good family life - with tick boxes.

This proposel wouldn't work. I don't know what affect this will have on society - although I can think of a few. What I promise you is that it will fail.

And you won't like the side affects.

Star wars day

2009-05-04T22:20:00.000+01:00

Blogging is light, because I've been busy moving boxes.

However, May the 4th be with you.

Shopping

2009-04-27T13:51:00.002+01:00

I'm not much of a shopper, but at the weekend I went looking for two items for an upcoming LARP event.

A black, polo-neck shirt (one of those things you can roll up to hide half your neck) and some form of black cosmetic (probably lipstick) to go with the rest of the black makeup I'll be wearing.

Because there's nothing worse then getting all dressed up...just for your first cup of tea to dissolve the makeup covering your lips.

It just looks wrong.

So there I was, looking for the shirt.

In the entire town center shopping district, serving a population of about 100,000 people I found...not one.

Not even anything close. There are two possible reasons that I couldn't find one. I suspect it's a combination of things, to be honest, but...

The first is floor space. Broadly speaking there are three types of clothing shops. Those that exist solely for women - casual, smart, shoes - whatever. There are those that sell suits for men. And there are mixed stores that have a varying ratio of stick.

Most clothes stores fit the first category. The second category was useless to me, as I didn't want a suit - and the type of shirt I want was far, far to casual to buy there.

Which left the third type.

Now, here the amount of space varied depending on the store. The best store found was "Marks and Spencer". Here they had most of upstairs as a mens section - although I'm unsure of the logic of putting lingerie right next door to the men's shoes. But that's a side issue.

More to the point, they had a decent selection of clothes, helpful staff and even though they couldn't help me - they tried.

The far side of the spectrum was another department store. Here what few clothes they had for men were sandwiched between luggage and the garden section - just enough space to swing a cat.

They had more space put aside for handbags then they did for half the human race. They had twice as much space dedicated to women's underwear. They had three times the space dedicated to cosmetics.

The staff didn't even care enough to look interested in a potential customer - I've seen more life in a LARP corpse.

In the end, I failed completely to find what I was looking for.

Either due to the complete lack of floorspace dedicated - or the for the second reason.

Polo-neck shirts are a strictly winter item.

And it's sunny.

Why you shouldn't fear terrorists

2009-04-26T10:19:00.003+01:00

You shouldn't fear terrorists because - essentially - they're muppets.

If a terrorist group wanted to cause some real damage they wouldn't be bombing places. Nope - it's a pointless exercise, because you can never do enough damage.

Number of bombings in the last 10 years in the UK that actually inflicted damage? Ditto, the USA, Canada?

No. An intelligent terrorist group would right now fly to Mexico and find some people infected with this.

Infect the dedicated in, say, London - wouldn't need to be many, maybe 10 - and have them go to the cinema. The theatres, football and a school play.

That would cripple the country - much more so then taking out a tube station or three.

Don't attack property. Inflict real fear.

(What can I say? I have high quality nightmares sometimes)

"Safety" proposals

2009-04-21T13:41:00.003+01:00

Once again our glorious leaders in Westminster have put forwards proposals to protect us from ourselves. Details, here.

What was that? I don't sound impressed?

You'd be right. Lets look at a few...

Police would no longer need to suspect that an offence has been committed in order to stop and breath-test a driver. Breath specimens taken at the roadside would become admissible as primary evidence in court, removing the need to carry out additional tests at a police station. Drivers would lose the right to demand a blood test.

This sounds like a good thing, right? No more driving while intoxicated? Well....no.

What a roadside breathalyzer is the truly tiny amount of alcohol present in the air you breath out. This alcohol seeps out of your blood in the lungs to the air in them at a very slow rate. We're talking small quantities here people.

Silly things like using mouthwash, hyperventilating, being diabetic, having dentures or simply Being Odd all screw up the numbers involved. Which is why it's not actually illegal to have a high level of alcohol in your breath.

It IS enough to bring you in to a station and take a blood test - actual proof you've broken the law.

So what we have here is the possibility of being pulled over and being convicted of driving under the influence based on an estimate that's unreliable and is supposed to be used as an indicator only.

Oh, and you've lost the right to demand a test that would clear you.

Or lets look at another part.

Offences such as failing to signal or passing too close to a cyclist, which currently would draw a verbal warning, could result in a £60 fine and three penalty points.

Failing to signal. That's a sin, I'd agree.

But to put points on peoples licenses for failing to signal - that's a little harsh. Let's be honest - it's madness.

Signal that you're turning left at a roundabout - where you are turning? That could be a an offense - if you don't know that there's another tiny road. Get to a round about and don't know if it's the first or second turning or say, five? That's an offense.

There's a whole list of situations where signaling - or not - could be misleading, unsafe and downright dangerous.

Right now, a policeman could tell me off - and if it was dangerous driving there is an offense to cover this. An automatic fine and points? Bad idea...

I could go on, but I'm running out of lunch.

Things that intrigue

2009-04-20T20:27:00.002+01:00

What does it take to get your attention?

I'm tired. So tired that I've got a hot mug of milk at my elbow and I'm going to bed in just a minute. After posting this, most likely.

But as usual for a Monday I listened to "Old Harry's Game" - a show based in hell. But that's a side issue. On the radio clip, before it starts there's some quirky music that sounds really out of place.

So odd and out of place, I might even listen. If I wasn't falling asleep already.

--

Side issue: I'd love to say that because I'd rather go to bed early and sleep it clearly proves I'm not a WoW addict. Because I can't.

The net here is still screwed and about as usable as a waterproof teabag.

Not much

2009-04-19T20:50:00.002+01:00

There's not much I ask for a sunday evening.

Food, a net connection and a fun raid on warcraft.

It's really easy.

But after the net company (Demon) is supposed to have given me an UPGRADE I've got a connection somewhat more flakey then a flake 99, dropping me at intervals of 30 seconds to 3 minutes.

Even things like MSN refuse to log on. They can't even establish a sodding conection.

Arrrrrrggghhhhh!

Again??

2009-04-18T21:26:00.002+01:00

What is it with weekends and my net connection - once more, I've seem faster corpses.

I can't even sustain a connection long enough to run a speed test.

Grrrr.

You grumpy lot!

2009-04-18T13:25:00.002+01:00

Updates have been delayed by such petty things as food, sleep and me being lazy. All perfectly valid excuses.

About the weekend - it was fun. Immense fun.

We went from fear of attack to imminent attack. We hoped and stood ready.

We planned and talked. We dragged Justice down and blinded him. We did more damage to Justice then I believed could be done to a closet immortal.

We rampaged through Havockstan with a simple cry.

No peace in the war!

--
Am I going back?

Oh yes.

Normal Service Part 2

2009-04-14T23:38:00.002+01:00

I will do a real post tomorrow.

But over the weekend I did 148.7 miles.
I used 9.61 liters of fuel.

That's 70.34 miles to the gallon. In bank holiday traffic, both ways.

I'm actualy rather proud of this.

Normal Service

2009-04-13T21:47:00.002+01:00

Normal service will resume shortly after my weekend away. Details will be forthcoming.

However - it has to be said.

No peace in the war!

What a way to ruin a day

2009-04-07T23:54:00.004+01:00

In my time I've seen a lot of computer errors.

Dead hard drives. That smell of burning plastic. I've even seen sparks flying.

There are two things I fear the most. The hard drive that departs this world for the next carrying 100gb of my data with it. For this can cause unheralded misery - can I get my photos back? When did I back it up last?

The other is a completely different form of panic.

You've arranged to meet someone online. You've got a raid planned. An email to write. Something that must be done, NOW, online. And it fails.

You run though all the usual fixes, trying to breath life into the shattered web. Renew the IPs. Check the cabling. Reboot this. Tweak that.

And all you get is this...

Meet my sunday.

Head and shoulders

2009-04-05T21:43:00.000+01:00

I was shopping on Saturday and was forced to my more shampoo.

Mainly because I use it on occasion - and we all seem to have a different one. And it's empty.

So there I am, pottering about the shampoo, hair dye and conditioner bit of the supermarket. Almost an isle full - and I can't find what I'm after.

I can't find it because the brand isn't there. It's head and shoulders - everywhere sells it.

Nor is it concealed among others. It's right there in front of me.

I can't find what I want because of the choice. There's a few choices.

-Mint
-Conditioning
-Dry hair
-Ocean lift(?)
-Smooth and silky
-Coloured
-Extra volume
-Citrus
-"Classic"
-For men
-Refresh
-Sensitive

I'm quite sure I missed some. Now, what do I buy?

Conditioner? (Does it matter?)
Mint? (Smells nice at least)
Colour? (I don't dye my hair - that's easy, no)
Extra volume (Good god no, my hairs bad enough as it is)
Sensitive? (Umm.....probably not)
Dry? (Only if it's for my sense of humour)
For men? (Hold it, are ALL the rest of the brands for women??)

I settled for conditioner. But only because it was on offer.

So - does it actually matter? At all?!?
---
Edit to add:

And they've changed the shape of the bottle. So if you're essentially blind in the shower (like me) I now have to go looking for it - rather then just know what it looks like. Blue blob on white.

A new face

2009-04-01T21:57:00.000+01:00

One of the lovely things about blogging and the internet is that you might find something completely Different. You look for one thing and find the reverse.

Searching for certain childrens cartoon characters - you exoect Disney and get - well, I can't possibly mention in polite company.

On WoW addiction, you find lots - broken lives, dirges and songs of sadness. But that's not all you can find. You can also find something like this tale of hope.

A few quotes...

"At family meals, I had no idea what they were talking about; I didn’t even understand the language they used. We had grown apart and the gap was widening."

"The solution was thought up by my younger son, who hit upon the idea of getting me, his mother, to play WOW. I was reluctant to say the least; I simply didn’t see the attraction, it was an alien world, I didn’t ‘do’ gaming."

"After 3 months of playing, my older son was married..... Several of the wedding guests introduced themselves by their online character names in the receiving line (bizarre).... They were sworn to secrecy in case the bride's mother found out, she might not have understood..."

I could go on and selectively quote the whole thing - but it deserves much better then that. Go on over and read it. It's her first blog post and everything - so give her some support.

She's made the first step into the wider world.

The next step...the hardest step....the second post...

This test awaits her.

Polite-off

2009-03-29T10:29:00.000+01:00

This post is about warcraft - but it's mostly about that strange species - The English.

Imagine, if you will, 11 people gathered for a weekend activity. All with shared interests, most on at least nodding terms. Even three couples - some married!

But into this garden of joy slithers the snake of circumstance - only 10 can play. And it's three hours or more a go.

In some cultures people would argue for their right to go, based on need, merit, superiority or just being on time.

Not so here...

Of the 11 players, 4 apologised for being unable to give way. They all had essential roles. Be this tank, healer or the only disenchanter - all had to go, for the good of the raid. They were essential.

Of the remaining 7, 6 offered to give up their place. Some stated they had been late. Others claimed to have not eaten yet and that playing with a keyboard and fork was a bad idea for all. Another said she had other things that needed to be done.

All the players bar one were perfectly willing to sit out, to be polite and put their interests aside. A polite off - like a stand off, but much more English.

"After you."
"No, after you."
"Please - you first."
"No, I wouldn't dream of it."

But what of the 11th person you ask. Was he brash, bold and insisting he should go?

Nope - he wasn't at his keyboard - and apologised later.
--

Edit to add:

It's been pointed out to me that the cause of this whole episode was me changing plans and turning up that night. Where as previously I was scheduled to be elsewhere...

So I should stress that ultimately they were all willing to give up that nights run for Me - someone that only 2 of them have ever met in person.

You've got to go a long way to find a bunch of people that friendly.

You probably missed this one

2009-03-27T08:28:00.000Z

One of the (many) problems with only watching news broadcasts by the like of the BBC, Channel 4, Sky and the like is that sometimes they miss things.

One thing they've missed is this speech - it's an attack on Gorden Brown by a Member of the European Parliament. And it's great.

There's a lot you can't do in the Commons. It's ruled by convention - you can't attack someone directly - you have to go through the Speaker. You can't just attack the prime minister at Prime Minister's Questions - you have to phrase it around a question. A short-ish one at that.

And in the Commons the victim of your attack gets to reply - well, pretend to reply. As is far to often the case it is a "duck and weave", anything but answer the question actually asked and admit you might have got something wrong.

I'd respect Gorden Brown a little if he actually answered. Well, a little.

But it's rare - so very rare - that someone stands up to say exactly what they want - representing the views of their constituents - and sits back down again.

So sit back and enjoy this one....

A stapler.

2009-03-24T13:33:00.001Z

How many IT people does it take to fix a stapler?

Not a question asked on a daily basis, but an important one that was addressed today.

The answer was both enlightening and disturbing in equal measures.

It took three to determine that the correct action was to replace it. That the little bit of metal that came spinning out of it couldn’t be put back in. So yes – there is sanity in IT. It takes three, but it can be found.

It also takes three to take that slither of metal and absolutely destroy the stapler and the metal shard in attempts to repair it using whatever tools came to hand.

Screwdrivers. The desk. Anything in reach.

And we trust these people with servers costing thousands.

*Gulp*

Why I rant...

2009-03-18T08:05:00.001Z

I've been asked why I don't get on with, and why I occasionally rant about women and feminists.

The answer is - purely - they usually deserve it. I find what they say infuriating, along with the refusal to debate and the personal attacks they make to be hugely aggravating.

Disagree and you become a misogynist - and things go downhill from there.

But why do they deserve it? They say things like this...

Women have contributed more to the expansion of the world economy than either new technology or the emerging markets of China and India

This just takes my breath away. More to the economy then technological improvement.

So women have contributed more then the economic value of agriculture? Or the ability to make fire?

Both of those are "new technologies" - without which we'd still be stuck in caves. True, I'm being a little silly there. Let's stick to new technologies within her lifetime.

How about advances in computing and electronics in the last 54 years - since she was born. I've got more computing power in my desktop then existed in the world for about half that time.

Put together.

That is part of what I find infuriating - they say silly things like that and expect you to accept it.
--

(I'm not going to go into the question of "Why didn't she directly compare the economic growth of men and women? Why cherry pick this part of the market....or that part of the market...not a useful overall comparison?)

Decisions

2009-03-14T18:45:00.001Z

I'm terrible at making decisions.

You lot know this. So I'm looking at a choice - no bonus points for guessing what it is.

I've looked into the options - attempting my usual method of problem solving. That is - understand the problem. Eliminate the impossible and the downright silly.

Once you've done this there's rarely more than an option left. Or, if there are several options there's usually one clear and certain optimal solution.

I'll be damned if I can see it.

How to tell you are getting old

2009-03-10T14:45:00.000Z

You have a quiet weekend coming - last weekend, for argument's sake.

Instead of a wild party, with dancing girls, loud music and far to much alcohol - aka, a lot of fun - instead you choose to go shopping.

You buy some decent cheese, the bits needed for a nice Caesar salad, some good bread....and a cadburys cream egg. All to eat in the garden, to the sound of the wind....

What kind of sane person would rather have a decent lunch in sunshine over a party?

An old(er) one.

Why I can't stand Harriet Harman

2009-03-09T08:14:00.000Z

Meet Harriet. She's a labour party member, politician - and that's as far as I can go in my description. After this I start using offensive names.

Why do I dislike her so much? Well, she is...

-Minister for women
-Minister for women and Equality
-Deputy leader of the labour party
-Party chair of the labour party
-Leader of the House of Commons

Yes, you read that right - she's twice the minister for women. I could say about the logical insanity of a "Minister for (subgroup) and Everyone else" but I'm not going to. I'll be good and not say "Why isn't there a minister for men".

Today I want to look at what she said.

In the Times, on Jan 25:

Harriet Harman, the women’s minister, said: “There is a major fear about women being targeted by their employers during the downturn. This is unlawful.” Another senior minister said women could be set back for “a generation”.

The latest official employment statistics show that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter, compared with a fall of 36,000 for men. It means women are losing full-time jobs at twice the rate of men, because men significantly outnumber women in the workplace.

That seems fair enough. Except that in the Telegraph on the 7th of March

The Office for National Statistics published new data showing that fewer female workers were sacked at the end of last year than male staff, most likely because more of them have jobs in the public sector.

Its figures come just two days after the Government launched a new campaign specifically to help women cope with the effects of the downturn, along with a survey claiming that they are more worried about the economy than men.

Harriet Harman, the Women's Minister, said: "We cannot and will not allow women to become the victims of this recession."

And this is why I reserve a special place in my heart for Harriet - with the whips, chains and nails.

Because she doesn't care about anyone but her Chosen Group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're in a bit of a recession. People are loosing jobs. Companies are folding.

But her chosen group must be protected from harm. Except that it turns out they're relatively unaffected. But has Harperson apologised? Has she announced that if companies fire proportionately more men will suffer legal action? An apology?

Of course not. Because Harriet doesn't care.

What was that? Legal action? Here, have a look, from the times, same article...

The government is to work with the EHRC to monitor businesses for evidence of discrimination over redundancies. Companies found to have unjustifiable discrepancies between male and female redundancy rates are being warned they face court.

Yep, us evil men have to be watched, monitored and sued if we fire more women. So not only does she not care about men - she believes we would deliberately act against women - as a group - given the chance.

It's got to the point where the moment she opens her mouth I disbelieve her. A new bill for equality? Look hard for a moment and you find it allows positive discrimination.

It wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't constantly on the news right now. But every time I see her the rage slowly grows...

Is a little fairness to much to ask for?

Or failing that, how about a week of peace?

Thoughts invited

2009-02-25T13:32:00.000Z

Well, you all know know how I am with decisions - terrible.

So, here's a situation for you all to comment on...

I've been offered the rent of a place, for a sane (or better then sane) price. It's more then I'm paying the parents rent wise - even more when you add little things like bills.

However, it's within the limits of available finances.

Now, the question is what do I do? What should I consider?

Sometimes I'm afraid to look...

2009-02-22T00:32:00.000Z

We've all been there at some point.

You go to a web page, seeing and/or reading some that that you just wish you hadn't. Some graphic detail of someones life. Some quirk or twist.

You want to stop reading but you can't quite bring yourself to. It's the terrible fascinating that draws you along like a prisoner dragged to the executioners axe.

And then there are the pages that you see sometimes. Like this one....

(Open the picture if you can't read it as is)

I'm tempted to read the article. Find out what's so interesting that it's got to the top of The Times news website. Understand why it's the most read story today.

But will it turn into one of those "I really, really didn't need to know that" pages.

Problem is, I can hear the headman. He's sharpening his axe...

Grrr

2009-02-21T23:47:00.000Z

Another thing on my list.

Politics is the art of persuading people that you are the best (or least bad) person for the job.

So I find this sort of thing infuriating.

First paragraph or four...

Hain voices fear over BNP victory

A former minister has warned that the UK's main parties are "complacent" about the British National Party, after the BNP won a local election.

Labour MP Peter Hain told the BBC that Labour's own supporters were being targeted by the far-right.

He said the government needed to make sure local, rather than foreign, workers were prioritised for jobs.

A BNP leader said the recession had helped the party win because potential supporters were being hit hardest.

Mr Hain was speaking after the BNP won a seat at a by-election for Sevenoaks Council in Kent.

Why does this annoy? Well, I'm not a huge fan of the BNP. They are a tad...extreme for my taste.

But if it's really such a problem why don't the politicians - the professional persuaders - get off their fat, lazy, government funded arses and actually campaign against them?

Address local issues. Talk to people. Perhaps fix the huge mess they've made of pensions, the economy and this little thing you might have heard of - a credit crunch?

Not complain when they win.

Winning not because of some tax give away. Nor bribes and lies.

But promising to try and do something about what people care about. What politicians are supposed to do.

Grumpy

2009-02-17T21:40:00.000Z

There are many things that make me grumpy.

No, really - there's a long list. A really, REALLY long list.

And on that list is something that's inherent in society at large. It's called advertising.

Lets suppose we have two products, A and B. They are for all practical purposes identical. So to get you to buy B, not A they advertise. Be this TV adds, product placements or just great big posters dotted around the place.

This irritates me because if A and B were different then it wouldn't be needed. Imagine, if A was better for one purpose, and B for another. If you had to do something you would simply buy the better product for your task. Advertising would be pointless.

There are two reasons to advertise - your product is not clearly better then the opposition....or no one knows what you make.

It's one thing to tell the world "I exist". Its another to try and worm your way into peoples minds. To make them think "I prefer that one" simply because you've burnt more money on air time.

What brought sudden hatred on tonight?

Because I've just been subjected to a barrage of (really, really pretty) women on TV telling me that I need product xxx to leave my hair so much softer and shinier. That I need lotion yyy to leave my skin soft and wrinkle free. That for the perfect kissable lips I need zzz lipstick available in 4 billion colours.

But it wasn't the products that drove my mind to rage against the lies.

Or that this was in the middle of my sodding sci-fi show, on a channel aimed virtually exclusively at men who don't have to share the remote with someone who might actually want any of these products.

Nope - the truly offensive thing was that I could only spot this because I wasn't interested in the products.

If I was interested - if they were selling...perhaps....Masters of Orion 3, could I have been objective?

Or would they have slipped past my inner cynicism and persuaded me that maybe it's worth a try....

Not selling things because they work, but because they are well presented as being better then rivals by people calculated to distract you, leaving you vulnerable to the deceit.

As I said, it makes me grumpy.

That said, falling asleep and missing the ending really didn't help!