I've just been on something of a spending spree.
Some of what I've bought it necessary. Other stuff I've kinda convinced myself is necessary but probably isn't.
First thing I bought was a new TV. This is not necessary in so far as I have a perfectly functional telly already. But there are a couple of problems.
First off it's a 15" CRT. This means it's quite small and I'm getting sick of not being able to make out some details very well. It's also not widescreen, and basically now I have freeview everything is output in widescreen, which means that even though it was 15 inch it wasn't really, because of letterboxing.
The second thing is at some point in the relatively near future I want to step into the High Def world. This will likely mean buying a Blu Ray player, but could also involve HD-freeview or a game consoles.
The only real downside is that I've had to buy an LCD. The main reason I've held back was that in my opinion CRT is still a better display technology than LCD or plasma. And while OLED is clearly awesome and the future, it's also really early in its development and incredibly expensive.
My next purchase is a new duvet. This is definitely necessary now that it's starting to look like summer may actually happen this year. I can't sleep without a duvet of some kind and my big thick one I got for Christmas would probably end up killing me.
To go along with this I bought another bed sheet cover thing, which should be useful with the summer months and my increased sweating.
I also bought some new socks. This is another of those probably not necessary as I have socks, but at least a third of them have whacking great holes in and it's starting to make me look like a tramp.
The last purchase was some new writable DVDs and two new portable hard drives. These are another borderline thing. I am rapidly running out of burnable DVDs, but not to the extent that I need them now; however, I thought I might as well since I was blowing my cash and like I say I will need them imminently.
The portable HDDs are a little more tricky to justify. I realised a while back that the portable HDDs that I'd bought solely for the purposes of backing up have actually become regularly used things. Now I try my best to subscribe to the whole multiple independent back-ups thing, but I've kinda realised that I'm just not doing that in practice, hence me buying some new drives.
See, I can convince myself of anything if I try hard enough.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Thursday, 20 May 2010
well that was... fun?
Some people are walking disaster areas.
On Tuesday we received an invitation to submit a proposal and the guy running it is a complete and total numpty. Almost everything he did or asked for was either stupid or contradictory.
For example, the ITT turned up and they'd changed the title, but didn't tell us. We'd previously done an expression of interest for it and it was called something else then. So when my boss got this she thought it was something new and wasted a day before she realised.
Then the deadline for the ITT was Thursday. By post. They'd given us less than 3 days to put together an entire ITT. My boss had to basically bully the guy into excepting an electronic version, even though all of our other customers are happy to take electronic versions with hard copy to follow.
And it wasn't a simple ITT, it had all sorts of little bits and bobs and nauseating, un-necessary crap to it. The best example of this is that it required that the document have 3 sections, 2 of which contained pricing information.
Fair enough, because what you normally end up doing is producing a priced and un-priced version, where you blank out the pricing information. However, they didn't want a priced version. That's right - we put these things in the ITT only to blank them out. They then wanted the bits with the price on separately!
It's just been ridiculous, and all basically caused by this guy.
On Tuesday we received an invitation to submit a proposal and the guy running it is a complete and total numpty. Almost everything he did or asked for was either stupid or contradictory.
For example, the ITT turned up and they'd changed the title, but didn't tell us. We'd previously done an expression of interest for it and it was called something else then. So when my boss got this she thought it was something new and wasted a day before she realised.
Then the deadline for the ITT was Thursday. By post. They'd given us less than 3 days to put together an entire ITT. My boss had to basically bully the guy into excepting an electronic version, even though all of our other customers are happy to take electronic versions with hard copy to follow.
And it wasn't a simple ITT, it had all sorts of little bits and bobs and nauseating, un-necessary crap to it. The best example of this is that it required that the document have 3 sections, 2 of which contained pricing information.
Fair enough, because what you normally end up doing is producing a priced and un-priced version, where you blank out the pricing information. However, they didn't want a priced version. That's right - we put these things in the ITT only to blank them out. They then wanted the bits with the price on separately!
It's just been ridiculous, and all basically caused by this guy.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
lesbian vampire killers
When Lesbian Vampire Killers (LVK) came out I seem to remember it got a mauling from the critics.
And if I'm being totally honest I can sort of understand that, but I also think that in time-honoured critic fashion, slating it seems to miss the point somewhat. LVK is, in essence, an exploitation movie very much in the Hammer Horror vein. The clue to this really is in the title.
What makes it work is that it's a very modern take on this genre. How to put this? It never actually breaks the fourth wall, but when the main characters played by Horne and Corden find themselves in the middle of a Hammer Horror film there's a degree of self awareness to it.
I mean, it's not that they behave unrealistically, it's more like they behave as if they expect the late Jeremy Beadle to suddenly pull off his fake beard and for a cameraman to walk out. It's difficult to explain - it's a tonal thing. It's like all the other characters are living in a Hammer Horror film and a couple of outsiders have wandered into it and they're not quite so sure.
The director makes an interesting point in the commentary that at no point did he think he was making a scary film. He was always making a comedy film that just happened to have a horror setting. But not like the Scary Movie films - this isn't a parody, it's more like a comedy homage to Hammer.
The reason that's particularly interesting is that the film presents itself like a straight horror/exploitation movie just like Hammer used to make, but it isn't - it's full of jokes and by playing it straight I think it works.
I'm kind of working this round to saying something fairly simple: I wasn't expecting to, but I quite liked it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was a work of genius, the comedy bowls almost entirely at the lowest common denominator and it doesn't make any bones about its exploitation shtick - the film is veritably dripping in hot chicks in skimpy clothes kissing each other. But what I'm getting at is that there's a degree of self-awareness to it all.
The only thing I think I'd really criticise is it flirts with a degree of misogyny that it doesn't properly acknowledge.
I mean, the film is about a lesbian queen of vampires who, in stereotypical lesbian fashion hates men and, when biting women not only turns them into vampires, but also turns them into lesbians as well. The only way to defeat her is with a special sword. A sword that, if you didn't already pick up the on penis/sword thing, has a cock for a handle.
So the only way to beat a lesbian is with the power of a man. Or, the insinuation is that penis is the only thing that can turn a lesbian.
To some extent I'm over-egging this and such an undertone probably would appear in an exploitation-horror film, my problem is more that it's not really acknowledged in the film. Where you've got an element of that 'knowing wink' to everything else, this isn't really even brought up.
And if I'm being totally honest I can sort of understand that, but I also think that in time-honoured critic fashion, slating it seems to miss the point somewhat. LVK is, in essence, an exploitation movie very much in the Hammer Horror vein. The clue to this really is in the title.
What makes it work is that it's a very modern take on this genre. How to put this? It never actually breaks the fourth wall, but when the main characters played by Horne and Corden find themselves in the middle of a Hammer Horror film there's a degree of self awareness to it.
I mean, it's not that they behave unrealistically, it's more like they behave as if they expect the late Jeremy Beadle to suddenly pull off his fake beard and for a cameraman to walk out. It's difficult to explain - it's a tonal thing. It's like all the other characters are living in a Hammer Horror film and a couple of outsiders have wandered into it and they're not quite so sure.
The director makes an interesting point in the commentary that at no point did he think he was making a scary film. He was always making a comedy film that just happened to have a horror setting. But not like the Scary Movie films - this isn't a parody, it's more like a comedy homage to Hammer.
The reason that's particularly interesting is that the film presents itself like a straight horror/exploitation movie just like Hammer used to make, but it isn't - it's full of jokes and by playing it straight I think it works.
I'm kind of working this round to saying something fairly simple: I wasn't expecting to, but I quite liked it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was a work of genius, the comedy bowls almost entirely at the lowest common denominator and it doesn't make any bones about its exploitation shtick - the film is veritably dripping in hot chicks in skimpy clothes kissing each other. But what I'm getting at is that there's a degree of self-awareness to it all.
The only thing I think I'd really criticise is it flirts with a degree of misogyny that it doesn't properly acknowledge.
I mean, the film is about a lesbian queen of vampires who, in stereotypical lesbian fashion hates men and, when biting women not only turns them into vampires, but also turns them into lesbians as well. The only way to defeat her is with a special sword. A sword that, if you didn't already pick up the on penis/sword thing, has a cock for a handle.
So the only way to beat a lesbian is with the power of a man. Or, the insinuation is that penis is the only thing that can turn a lesbian.
To some extent I'm over-egging this and such an undertone probably would appear in an exploitation-horror film, my problem is more that it's not really acknowledged in the film. Where you've got an element of that 'knowing wink' to everything else, this isn't really even brought up.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
monaco
So last weekend it was the Monaco Grand Prix.
It was a reasonable race by Monaco standards that was probably helped out by Fernando Alonso crashing in Saturday practice. This meant he had no car for the Qualifying, so had to start from the pits, putting him stone-dead last.
This therefore meant he could take his mandatory pit stop very early and then blast his way up the pack. In Monaco tyre wear is normally quite slight and so this didn't hamper him, but also meant when others eventually took their stops they would have ended up behind him. although many of the teams realised and so brought their guys in early.
It also meant Alonso had to do lots of overtaking (very difficult in Monaco's narrow streets), giving the cameras something to watch.
Anyway, the main thing I wanted to mention about it was that last year I was at the Monaco GP. This gave the viewing experience a little extra something I think - seeing on telly the bits I actually saw myself a year ago.
One of the things you really don't grasp on telly is the elevation changes of the circuit. At one part of the race they're driving past the harbour so are literally at sea level, but the famous Casino Square is actually at the top of a small mountain. There's therefore a long section where they drive up this steep incline that you just can't appreciate on telly - it has to be a 45% angle they go up.
Something that also occurred to me is that the Monaco GP is probably best watched from the in car shots. I mean, there's still no more overtaking, but you get a better appreciation of what it's like driving through the narrow streets with solid barriers just inches away.
I think this year the temperatures were a lot milder than when we were there. If I'm honest the stifling heat and humidity was the only real dampener to last year's trip.
My dad is actually going to the Canadian Grand Prix this year. Well, he's booked the trip, but it coincides with one of the BA strikes (I don't know if it's a BA flight, but I would imagine so) and there's the ever-looming threat of the volcanic ash.
Apparently the last time that volcano went up it was erupting continuously for 2 solid years or something, so it could become a permanent feature of air travel for quite a while.
And speaking of cars and... dust (yeah, okay, world's most tenuous segue ever) I cleaned my car this last weekend.
Well, I say cleaned, it was more like a very quick wipe down. It's been ages since I cleaned my car and it was getting to the stage where you couldn't tell if it was grey or brown. Also there were quite a few bird droppings on it and it's not good to leave those on for long as they damage the paint.
It still really needs a good, thorough clean, though.
My landlord was actually supposed to have gone on holiday this week and last and it was my original plan to give it a good clean during that time. However, in the end he wasn't well so has postponed it and I think this is good as in reality I don't think I'd have had the time - as I say, I only really found time to give it a quick wipe down on Sunday, so Id' never have fit in a full clean.
It was a reasonable race by Monaco standards that was probably helped out by Fernando Alonso crashing in Saturday practice. This meant he had no car for the Qualifying, so had to start from the pits, putting him stone-dead last.
This therefore meant he could take his mandatory pit stop very early and then blast his way up the pack. In Monaco tyre wear is normally quite slight and so this didn't hamper him, but also meant when others eventually took their stops they would have ended up behind him. although many of the teams realised and so brought their guys in early.
It also meant Alonso had to do lots of overtaking (very difficult in Monaco's narrow streets), giving the cameras something to watch.
Anyway, the main thing I wanted to mention about it was that last year I was at the Monaco GP. This gave the viewing experience a little extra something I think - seeing on telly the bits I actually saw myself a year ago.
One of the things you really don't grasp on telly is the elevation changes of the circuit. At one part of the race they're driving past the harbour so are literally at sea level, but the famous Casino Square is actually at the top of a small mountain. There's therefore a long section where they drive up this steep incline that you just can't appreciate on telly - it has to be a 45% angle they go up.
Something that also occurred to me is that the Monaco GP is probably best watched from the in car shots. I mean, there's still no more overtaking, but you get a better appreciation of what it's like driving through the narrow streets with solid barriers just inches away.
I think this year the temperatures were a lot milder than when we were there. If I'm honest the stifling heat and humidity was the only real dampener to last year's trip.
My dad is actually going to the Canadian Grand Prix this year. Well, he's booked the trip, but it coincides with one of the BA strikes (I don't know if it's a BA flight, but I would imagine so) and there's the ever-looming threat of the volcanic ash.
Apparently the last time that volcano went up it was erupting continuously for 2 solid years or something, so it could become a permanent feature of air travel for quite a while.
And speaking of cars and... dust (yeah, okay, world's most tenuous segue ever) I cleaned my car this last weekend.
Well, I say cleaned, it was more like a very quick wipe down. It's been ages since I cleaned my car and it was getting to the stage where you couldn't tell if it was grey or brown. Also there were quite a few bird droppings on it and it's not good to leave those on for long as they damage the paint.
It still really needs a good, thorough clean, though.
My landlord was actually supposed to have gone on holiday this week and last and it was my original plan to give it a good clean during that time. However, in the end he wasn't well so has postponed it and I think this is good as in reality I don't think I'd have had the time - as I say, I only really found time to give it a quick wipe down on Sunday, so Id' never have fit in a full clean.
Monday, 17 May 2010
still a bit rubbish
Guess what I did on Saturday?
No, not that, you filthy degenerate...
Having read through my own pathetic dribblings on Friday after posting them I got a grip and took some rubbish down the recycling place.
You may recall that I'd investigated the Alton recycling centre as a possible option given I work just down the road from it and as part of my investigations I'd discovered it actually opens at 8am on Saturday as well.
My local one in Farnham doesn't open until 9am at weekends, which is just getting into that zone where most people are becoming active. One of the advantages of my body-clock being fixated on an early start is that it gives me the perfect opportunity to go and do stuff like shopping really early at the weekend.
So what I did was load the car up on Saturday and take it all to Alton recycling centre. This turned out to be slightly scarier than I'd thought it would be, because it seemed the police where doing a speeding check thing on the A31 in Farnham. That meant I had to drive past a load of coppers with my car dodgily full of boxes and stuff.
I'm never sure if loading your car in this was is quite legal. I think it probably comes down to one of those it should be "safe" things, which essentially means a judgement call. Anyway, they didn't stop me so I pootled on down there and unloaded my stuff.
The Alton place is a lot better designed than the Farnham one. At Farnham you have to climb stairs to be able to throw your stuff in the big containers (which if I'm honest didn't help with my laziness problem) but at Alton the containers are lower down so you're at the right level to just chuck your stuff in.
As it turned out, and kinda as I'd been expecting, a good chunk of my rubbish went into the 'domestic waste' bin, which basically means it was landfill and not recycling as I'd expected.
The other thing Id' suspected was that the old electrical bits and bobs don't actually go in a container at all. Instead, you basically dump them in an area close to the workers hut thing. My guess is that they go through this stuff to see what it's made of and if it still works and stuff.
And to give you some idea of just how much crap I've accumulated, even though I packed my car as full as was sensible and I've still got loads of crap to chuck. Now admittedly my car is only a micra, but that's a lot of rubbish given the size of my bedsit. And on top of that, I've still got loads of sorting out to do and there's therefore bound to be loads more of crap to chuck.
No, not that, you filthy degenerate...
Having read through my own pathetic dribblings on Friday after posting them I got a grip and took some rubbish down the recycling place.
You may recall that I'd investigated the Alton recycling centre as a possible option given I work just down the road from it and as part of my investigations I'd discovered it actually opens at 8am on Saturday as well.
My local one in Farnham doesn't open until 9am at weekends, which is just getting into that zone where most people are becoming active. One of the advantages of my body-clock being fixated on an early start is that it gives me the perfect opportunity to go and do stuff like shopping really early at the weekend.
So what I did was load the car up on Saturday and take it all to Alton recycling centre. This turned out to be slightly scarier than I'd thought it would be, because it seemed the police where doing a speeding check thing on the A31 in Farnham. That meant I had to drive past a load of coppers with my car dodgily full of boxes and stuff.
I'm never sure if loading your car in this was is quite legal. I think it probably comes down to one of those it should be "safe" things, which essentially means a judgement call. Anyway, they didn't stop me so I pootled on down there and unloaded my stuff.
The Alton place is a lot better designed than the Farnham one. At Farnham you have to climb stairs to be able to throw your stuff in the big containers (which if I'm honest didn't help with my laziness problem) but at Alton the containers are lower down so you're at the right level to just chuck your stuff in.
As it turned out, and kinda as I'd been expecting, a good chunk of my rubbish went into the 'domestic waste' bin, which basically means it was landfill and not recycling as I'd expected.
The other thing Id' suspected was that the old electrical bits and bobs don't actually go in a container at all. Instead, you basically dump them in an area close to the workers hut thing. My guess is that they go through this stuff to see what it's made of and if it still works and stuff.
And to give you some idea of just how much crap I've accumulated, even though I packed my car as full as was sensible and I've still got loads of crap to chuck. Now admittedly my car is only a micra, but that's a lot of rubbish given the size of my bedsit. And on top of that, I've still got loads of sorting out to do and there's therefore bound to be loads more of crap to chuck.
Friday, 14 May 2010
why i'm rubbish
This morning was the perfect example of one of the many ways in which I'm rubbish.
I tend to get in to work very early. Officially my work day doesn't start until 9, but I'm usually in just after 8. Well this morning I used that earliness in order to pop over to Sainsbury's and drop off some recycling at their recycling place.
This is fair enough, you may think. I mentioned how over my holiday I was furiously sorting through boxes and had identified loads of stuff to chuck away or send to recycling.
But what makes me rubbish is that I've been carrying around the bits and bobs I recycled this morning with me all week.
Now the reason I've had them in there all week are as follows:
I put them in my boot on Monday morning. My thought was I'd put them in the recycling bins at Tesco that lunch time when I went shopping. I didn't do that because there just wasn't the time. By the time I'd got my bits and eaten my lunch it was time to head to work again.
On Tuesday I went to Homebase to buy some more crates to hold stuff in, and that's not near Sainsbury's. Of course I could have gone to Sainsbury's as well, but I couldn't be arsed.
Wednesday there is literally no excuse - I could easily have gone to Sainsbury's and dropped it off, but I just couldn't be arsed.
Thursday is washing and shopping day. I drop my washing off at the laundrette and pick up last weeks load and then I go and buy a few bits of shopping. Guess where I buy these? Yup - Sainsbury's. Did I drop the recycling off? Nope.
I did go and have a look at the recycling place, but the door was closed and I couldn't see a way to open it. However, after I'd bought my bits I happened to see someone else open it (bizarrely the opening push-thing is on the inside, so you have to reach your hand in through the bars :/). However, by that time I had to go back to work.
Also, it had actually occurred to me that what I had thought was simply a tip down the road from where I work was actually a proper recycling centre. A quick Google also revealed that its opening time was 8am. Perhaps therefore I should just drop it off as I come in to work?
Well then this morning I had two options and in the end I went for Sainsbury's. So all that fannying around and I did what I should have done earlier in the week anyway.
You see when you think about it, even though I'd gone to Tesco on Monday I could easily have dropped the recycling off after work. Or before work like I did this morning. But I didn't, because I'm rubbish.
See mainly this was because I'm very lazy, but the other part of the problem I think is an issue I have over being embarrassed. I absolutely hate being embarrassed and of course if you've never done something before then the possibilities for getting it wrong and therefore being embarrassed are endless.
I mean, what if I went to this community recycling centre and they told me actually they won't take the things I had? Or if I put them in the wrong bins? Or if something is really heavy and I drop it? These would become excruciatingly embarrassing if one of the people that work there had to somehow fix my mistake or tell me off or something like that.
This is the thing that really tends to hold me back - my mind gets stuck thinking of all the things that could go wrong and that will therefore lead to me being embarrassed and so it's far easier for me to keep being too lazy. And so my entire bed-sit ends up so full of stuff that needs throwing away I can't see the carpet any more :/.
I tend to get in to work very early. Officially my work day doesn't start until 9, but I'm usually in just after 8. Well this morning I used that earliness in order to pop over to Sainsbury's and drop off some recycling at their recycling place.
This is fair enough, you may think. I mentioned how over my holiday I was furiously sorting through boxes and had identified loads of stuff to chuck away or send to recycling.
But what makes me rubbish is that I've been carrying around the bits and bobs I recycled this morning with me all week.
Now the reason I've had them in there all week are as follows:
I put them in my boot on Monday morning. My thought was I'd put them in the recycling bins at Tesco that lunch time when I went shopping. I didn't do that because there just wasn't the time. By the time I'd got my bits and eaten my lunch it was time to head to work again.
On Tuesday I went to Homebase to buy some more crates to hold stuff in, and that's not near Sainsbury's. Of course I could have gone to Sainsbury's as well, but I couldn't be arsed.
Wednesday there is literally no excuse - I could easily have gone to Sainsbury's and dropped it off, but I just couldn't be arsed.
Thursday is washing and shopping day. I drop my washing off at the laundrette and pick up last weeks load and then I go and buy a few bits of shopping. Guess where I buy these? Yup - Sainsbury's. Did I drop the recycling off? Nope.
I did go and have a look at the recycling place, but the door was closed and I couldn't see a way to open it. However, after I'd bought my bits I happened to see someone else open it (bizarrely the opening push-thing is on the inside, so you have to reach your hand in through the bars :/). However, by that time I had to go back to work.
Also, it had actually occurred to me that what I had thought was simply a tip down the road from where I work was actually a proper recycling centre. A quick Google also revealed that its opening time was 8am. Perhaps therefore I should just drop it off as I come in to work?
Well then this morning I had two options and in the end I went for Sainsbury's. So all that fannying around and I did what I should have done earlier in the week anyway.
You see when you think about it, even though I'd gone to Tesco on Monday I could easily have dropped the recycling off after work. Or before work like I did this morning. But I didn't, because I'm rubbish.
See mainly this was because I'm very lazy, but the other part of the problem I think is an issue I have over being embarrassed. I absolutely hate being embarrassed and of course if you've never done something before then the possibilities for getting it wrong and therefore being embarrassed are endless.
I mean, what if I went to this community recycling centre and they told me actually they won't take the things I had? Or if I put them in the wrong bins? Or if something is really heavy and I drop it? These would become excruciatingly embarrassing if one of the people that work there had to somehow fix my mistake or tell me off or something like that.
This is the thing that really tends to hold me back - my mind gets stuck thinking of all the things that could go wrong and that will therefore lead to me being embarrassed and so it's far easier for me to keep being too lazy. And so my entire bed-sit ends up so full of stuff that needs throwing away I can't see the carpet any more :/.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
so it's dodgy dave then
I know politics is boring, but it looks like we finally have a government.
I can't claim to be happy about the result, but it's actually been quite fascinating watching it all unfold over the last week or so.
I think the most important thing that's come out of the hung parliament and the wrangling is that finally more people are starting to realise that our current system does not produce results that are fair on the people doing the voting.
There's actually an interesting summary of the different electoral options on the BBC news site. The system they're going to have the referendum on is the Alternative Vote System.
While this is a very mild version of PR, it would certainly address one of the biggest problems of the current system. If you look at last Thursdays vote, nearly a quarter (23%) of all the people that voted voted for the Liberal Democrats. And yet they ended up with just 57 seats, which is only 9%.
How can that possibly reflect the true feelings of the electorate?
I know there are lots of arguments for the 'strong' governments that tend to be formed under 1st past the post, but lets face it - giving total power to one party just gives them a mandate to ride rough-shod across the feelings of the majority of the UK population. How can that possibly be considered fair?
And isn't the whole point of democracy that it's fair - that it reflects the balance of opinion of the entire population?
I mean look at the Lib-Con coalition. The Lib Dems are, generally speaking, a centre-left party. The current incarnation of the Labour party is also broadly centre-left. A total of 52% of the electorate voted for these centre-left parties, and yet even combined they fell a long way short of %0% of the MPs.
It gets even worse if you look at the other party votes - many of these other parties are also either leftist or centre-left, so when you start adding their votes in, the proportion of left-leaning votes gets close to 60% and yet we've end up with a right wing government!
If you look at AV then while it still wouldn't even things up properly, it would likely have gone some way to redressing the balance. And yes this still would have produced a coalition government, but at least that represents the balance of the electorates feelings.
And at the very least it would stop this tendency we have to veer from one set of extreme policies to the complete opposite, which in my opinion can be more damaging than what the actual policies are.
I've actually felt this way for a long time, but I think finally people are starting to really get the point that the current electoral system does not produce results that truly representative of the British electorate.
Of course the irony is that, even with all the complaining people have done, given the innate conservative-ness of the British people the referendum will probably fail and we'll end up with the same old first past the post bollocks we've always had.
I mean look at al those opinion polls that said the Lib Dems were doing to do better than ever and what actually happened? People voted for the Tories :/. I actually remember the same thing happening in 1992 - all the opinion polls said labour would win, but people lied to the pollsters because they were embarrassed about voting Tory. Bizarre.
I can't claim to be happy about the result, but it's actually been quite fascinating watching it all unfold over the last week or so.
I think the most important thing that's come out of the hung parliament and the wrangling is that finally more people are starting to realise that our current system does not produce results that are fair on the people doing the voting.
There's actually an interesting summary of the different electoral options on the BBC news site. The system they're going to have the referendum on is the Alternative Vote System.
While this is a very mild version of PR, it would certainly address one of the biggest problems of the current system. If you look at last Thursdays vote, nearly a quarter (23%) of all the people that voted voted for the Liberal Democrats. And yet they ended up with just 57 seats, which is only 9%.
How can that possibly reflect the true feelings of the electorate?
I know there are lots of arguments for the 'strong' governments that tend to be formed under 1st past the post, but lets face it - giving total power to one party just gives them a mandate to ride rough-shod across the feelings of the majority of the UK population. How can that possibly be considered fair?
And isn't the whole point of democracy that it's fair - that it reflects the balance of opinion of the entire population?
I mean look at the Lib-Con coalition. The Lib Dems are, generally speaking, a centre-left party. The current incarnation of the Labour party is also broadly centre-left. A total of 52% of the electorate voted for these centre-left parties, and yet even combined they fell a long way short of %0% of the MPs.
It gets even worse if you look at the other party votes - many of these other parties are also either leftist or centre-left, so when you start adding their votes in, the proportion of left-leaning votes gets close to 60% and yet we've end up with a right wing government!
If you look at AV then while it still wouldn't even things up properly, it would likely have gone some way to redressing the balance. And yes this still would have produced a coalition government, but at least that represents the balance of the electorates feelings.
And at the very least it would stop this tendency we have to veer from one set of extreme policies to the complete opposite, which in my opinion can be more damaging than what the actual policies are.
I've actually felt this way for a long time, but I think finally people are starting to really get the point that the current electoral system does not produce results that truly representative of the British electorate.
Of course the irony is that, even with all the complaining people have done, given the innate conservative-ness of the British people the referendum will probably fail and we'll end up with the same old first past the post bollocks we've always had.
I mean look at al those opinion polls that said the Lib Dems were doing to do better than ever and what actually happened? People voted for the Tories :/. I actually remember the same thing happening in 1992 - all the opinion polls said labour would win, but people lied to the pollsters because they were embarrassed about voting Tory. Bizarre.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
twilight
DVD rentalage got a bit confusing while I was on holiday, but one of the things I watched was twilight.
Obviously I, like everyone else, have heard all sorts about twilight. This has ranged from it being the worst abomination ever to the best thing since sliced bread. As you might expect, the reality is somewhere in between.
The film is an adaptation of a book that I understand is immensely popular with young women. I knew it was essentially about a young human girl and a vampire falling in love and that there has been a lot of talk that the whole thing is a gigantic allegory/metaphor for pre-marital chastity.
Clearly I'm not reviewing the book, so I can't really comment on that, but I would say those sentences pretty much sum up the film version. Girl meets vampire. Girl falls for vampire while vampire tries to reject her. Vampire caves, admitting the rejection was to protect her. Vampire has to save girl from other vampires.
I guess from that point of view the film works - you don't really ever doubt the characters motivations and their feelings are tangible and on the whole understandable and relatable.
I have to say though that from my point of view the whole thing did seem a bit daft. It also felt very long - the film has a two hour running time, but dawdles through most of it. It actually reminded me of a gawky teenager, shuffling its feet in the corner of the room at a family do, not quite knowing what to do with itself.
Also, if that teenage is dressed as a Goth - pale white skin, dyed black hair, black, ill-fitting clothes, then weirdly, that would match the film too. There's an odd artificiality to the look of the film - the images seem artificially de-saturated in an overly obvious way and while lots of the characters are perfectly normal people, they don't quite fit in the film.
It's almost like an exploration of a psychosis. The heroine Bella inhabits the real world, but she's also experiencing a series of fantasy-fulfilling delusions and visions involving Sebastian and his vampiric family. I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if it had been revealed at the end that Bella was experiencing some sort of breakdown.
And in a way that stylistic stuff and fantasy world thing worked better for me than the story itself, which I have to admit I found a little turgid and predictable.
As for the whole chastity allegory, it's certainly got a strong feel of that. I mean, vampires have always been wrapped up in sex, and so you can sort of understand it, but in a way it means they're like anti-vampires in twilight. To be frank, I personally don't think it works. Certainly there's absolutely no back-story or explanation as to why they're like that - introducing something like Angel from Buffy's soul would have helped no end.
Obviously I, like everyone else, have heard all sorts about twilight. This has ranged from it being the worst abomination ever to the best thing since sliced bread. As you might expect, the reality is somewhere in between.
The film is an adaptation of a book that I understand is immensely popular with young women. I knew it was essentially about a young human girl and a vampire falling in love and that there has been a lot of talk that the whole thing is a gigantic allegory/metaphor for pre-marital chastity.
Clearly I'm not reviewing the book, so I can't really comment on that, but I would say those sentences pretty much sum up the film version. Girl meets vampire. Girl falls for vampire while vampire tries to reject her. Vampire caves, admitting the rejection was to protect her. Vampire has to save girl from other vampires.
I guess from that point of view the film works - you don't really ever doubt the characters motivations and their feelings are tangible and on the whole understandable and relatable.
I have to say though that from my point of view the whole thing did seem a bit daft. It also felt very long - the film has a two hour running time, but dawdles through most of it. It actually reminded me of a gawky teenager, shuffling its feet in the corner of the room at a family do, not quite knowing what to do with itself.
Also, if that teenage is dressed as a Goth - pale white skin, dyed black hair, black, ill-fitting clothes, then weirdly, that would match the film too. There's an odd artificiality to the look of the film - the images seem artificially de-saturated in an overly obvious way and while lots of the characters are perfectly normal people, they don't quite fit in the film.
It's almost like an exploration of a psychosis. The heroine Bella inhabits the real world, but she's also experiencing a series of fantasy-fulfilling delusions and visions involving Sebastian and his vampiric family. I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if it had been revealed at the end that Bella was experiencing some sort of breakdown.
And in a way that stylistic stuff and fantasy world thing worked better for me than the story itself, which I have to admit I found a little turgid and predictable.
As for the whole chastity allegory, it's certainly got a strong feel of that. I mean, vampires have always been wrapped up in sex, and so you can sort of understand it, but in a way it means they're like anti-vampires in twilight. To be frank, I personally don't think it works. Certainly there's absolutely no back-story or explanation as to why they're like that - introducing something like Angel from Buffy's soul would have helped no end.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
failed
Continuing on from yesterday, the big disappointment area of the holiday was getting stuff done.
Where I made fairly good inroads into the sorting out of boxes, it took far longer than I'd thought it would and so I didn't even look at doing half the stuff I'd hoped I could.
One of the main things was I'd hoped I could do a bit of scanning, but I didn't do any at all. I therefore didn't watch any anime fansubs, as I generally do that so I'm way behind on that too.
Well, I say that - just before my holiday I did sample a couple of new shows:
Kimi Ni Todoke
Well this was a surprise.
I had absolutely no expectations when starting this and what I found was a sweet and charming romantic show.
The basic gist seems to be something along the lines of a misfit finds her place type of show. This is a theme I've always had a soft spot for, probably because I am a total misfit.
If I was being brutally honest, the show does have a slightly benevolent inevitability to it. By that I mean that, despite the main character basically being picked on (bullied is probably going to far), she isn't too badly affected by it and the whole show has an air that things aren't ever going to get worse for her.
I suppose you could say that the story starts with her at the low point and charts her breaking through that, but it's more that you get the feeling the writer wants to tell a warm, affirming story, rather than a dark one.
Kiddy Girl-and
One of the big problems with the original Kiddy Grade was its structure. The first half of the series was very light and fluffy - sort of like a more modern Dirty Pair. However, about half way through it suddenly developed a proper plot. And I don't mean it was one of those shows were you realised there was a plot underpinning the early episodes - you could easily have started watching half way through and missed almost nothing.
The difficulty with Kiddy Girl-and then is that this sort-of sequel, sort-of spin-off also starts in a very light and fluffy way. Indeed, it' possibly more light and fluffy than the original. My problem then is that because I only sample the first few eps on fansub, I've no idea whether it will also develop a substantial plot.
There are hints given in the prologue, but they're not very useful hints. My default position is that if it were ever licensed I'd probably pick it up, but it would be more due to the fact that I quite enjoyed the original than because the eps I watched blew me away.
But those are from a while ago and I was simply to lazy write them up for the blog before now.
I also didn't read any manga until Sunday, when I was basically taking the day to rest and recuperate. The manga I read was the latest volume of Ikki Tousen, so nothing interesting. I did read a lot of manga before the holiday - I'm now totally caught up with Oh My Goddess, but I've talked about that before
I also didn't get the chance to do any sorting out of files or backing up, which are things I usually take the opportunity to do when I'm on holiday.
So yeah, in terms of getting the usual stuff done, it was a bit of a failure. The consolation is I did make a lot of progress with non-usual stuff.
Where I made fairly good inroads into the sorting out of boxes, it took far longer than I'd thought it would and so I didn't even look at doing half the stuff I'd hoped I could.
One of the main things was I'd hoped I could do a bit of scanning, but I didn't do any at all. I therefore didn't watch any anime fansubs, as I generally do that so I'm way behind on that too.
Well, I say that - just before my holiday I did sample a couple of new shows:
Kimi Ni Todoke
Well this was a surprise.
I had absolutely no expectations when starting this and what I found was a sweet and charming romantic show.
The basic gist seems to be something along the lines of a misfit finds her place type of show. This is a theme I've always had a soft spot for, probably because I am a total misfit.
If I was being brutally honest, the show does have a slightly benevolent inevitability to it. By that I mean that, despite the main character basically being picked on (bullied is probably going to far), she isn't too badly affected by it and the whole show has an air that things aren't ever going to get worse for her.
I suppose you could say that the story starts with her at the low point and charts her breaking through that, but it's more that you get the feeling the writer wants to tell a warm, affirming story, rather than a dark one.
Kiddy Girl-and
One of the big problems with the original Kiddy Grade was its structure. The first half of the series was very light and fluffy - sort of like a more modern Dirty Pair. However, about half way through it suddenly developed a proper plot. And I don't mean it was one of those shows were you realised there was a plot underpinning the early episodes - you could easily have started watching half way through and missed almost nothing.
The difficulty with Kiddy Girl-and then is that this sort-of sequel, sort-of spin-off also starts in a very light and fluffy way. Indeed, it' possibly more light and fluffy than the original. My problem then is that because I only sample the first few eps on fansub, I've no idea whether it will also develop a substantial plot.
There are hints given in the prologue, but they're not very useful hints. My default position is that if it were ever licensed I'd probably pick it up, but it would be more due to the fact that I quite enjoyed the original than because the eps I watched blew me away.
But those are from a while ago and I was simply to lazy write them up for the blog before now.
I also didn't read any manga until Sunday, when I was basically taking the day to rest and recuperate. The manga I read was the latest volume of Ikki Tousen, so nothing interesting. I did read a lot of manga before the holiday - I'm now totally caught up with Oh My Goddess, but I've talked about that before
I also didn't get the chance to do any sorting out of files or backing up, which are things I usually take the opportunity to do when I'm on holiday.
So yeah, in terms of getting the usual stuff done, it was a bit of a failure. The consolation is I did make a lot of progress with non-usual stuff.
Monday, 10 May 2010
return
Well that would be my holiday over.
As is so often the way I achieved some things, but generally fell short of what I'd hoped to get through.
At the beginning of the holiday I popped down to see my Dad. It was my birthday and the bank holiday too and I'd not seen him since Christmas, so it seemed like a good opportunity.
It was good to see him, but it obviously absorbed three of the days.
When I got back my big plan was to go though the plethora of boxes I have and sort things out. The stuff in the boxes falls into three basic categories:
1) Junk I need to throw away, but through a combination of laziness and my pack-rat instincts I end up just sticking in a box.
2) Stuff I need to get rid of, but the bin isn't the way. This includes old electrical bits and bobs which are too big to chuck (and you're not supposed to throw away of course), and other stuff that I should take down the recycling place for example. Or there's tonnes of stuff that should go on e-bay.
3) Stuff I either need to or want to hang on to.
The idea was that I'd identify all the stuff that that fell into 1 and dispose of it in the rubbish. This I basically did, although because I didn't tackle every single box, I'm sure there's a bit more stuff.
The idea with 2 was that I'd identify it, and then take the stuff that needed recycling down the recycling place, which would free up a huge amount of space (there's a lot of it). This would then allow me more room to sort stuff that I could e-bay or whatever.
This was a partial success, in that I identified quite a lot of stuff to go down the recycling centre. But the problem was this too so long (Tuesday I did domestic stuff, and I was still sorting stuff on Saturday, and I didn't even finish then) that I just didn't have the time or energy to haul it all away.
The third group are more tricky.
My ultimate aim is to basically just be left hanging onto a handful of manga, anime and other stuff that kinda represent the 'cream of the crop'. In other words, they either quintessentially define my taste or are things I could watch/read over and over. The problem is really pinning down what these are.
The other problem is the stuff I need to hang onto. See, I seem to have ended up in a situation with manga especially where I'm collecting about 20-odd series.
The real problem with this is that the western companies tend to dawdle quite a bit when putting stuff out. There can be twenty or thirty volumes already out in Japan, but they only release three or four a year.
And on top of that, only a handful of the series I'm collecting have actually finished in Japan. This means I have a huge number of volumes of manga, many of which don't fall into the 'keep forever' pile, but it's not really going to be worth my while to sell them.
I mean, because I'm up to date, they will sell quite well - "all so far released" collections tend to do about as well as complete collection - but the problem is I don't really want to stop buying the new volumes. That means I'll end up with lots of random volumes, and those really don't sell well.
For example, I ended up with 3 random Bleach volumes, and to confirm my suspicions I put them on e-bay. I believe they finally sold for 5p each. That makes them total money sinks - it costs me money to auction them.
But the problem is there are loads of volumes now and they really take up a hell of a lot of room :/.
As is so often the way I achieved some things, but generally fell short of what I'd hoped to get through.
At the beginning of the holiday I popped down to see my Dad. It was my birthday and the bank holiday too and I'd not seen him since Christmas, so it seemed like a good opportunity.
It was good to see him, but it obviously absorbed three of the days.
When I got back my big plan was to go though the plethora of boxes I have and sort things out. The stuff in the boxes falls into three basic categories:
1) Junk I need to throw away, but through a combination of laziness and my pack-rat instincts I end up just sticking in a box.
2) Stuff I need to get rid of, but the bin isn't the way. This includes old electrical bits and bobs which are too big to chuck (and you're not supposed to throw away of course), and other stuff that I should take down the recycling place for example. Or there's tonnes of stuff that should go on e-bay.
3) Stuff I either need to or want to hang on to.
The idea was that I'd identify all the stuff that that fell into 1 and dispose of it in the rubbish. This I basically did, although because I didn't tackle every single box, I'm sure there's a bit more stuff.
The idea with 2 was that I'd identify it, and then take the stuff that needed recycling down the recycling place, which would free up a huge amount of space (there's a lot of it). This would then allow me more room to sort stuff that I could e-bay or whatever.
This was a partial success, in that I identified quite a lot of stuff to go down the recycling centre. But the problem was this too so long (Tuesday I did domestic stuff, and I was still sorting stuff on Saturday, and I didn't even finish then) that I just didn't have the time or energy to haul it all away.
The third group are more tricky.
My ultimate aim is to basically just be left hanging onto a handful of manga, anime and other stuff that kinda represent the 'cream of the crop'. In other words, they either quintessentially define my taste or are things I could watch/read over and over. The problem is really pinning down what these are.
The other problem is the stuff I need to hang onto. See, I seem to have ended up in a situation with manga especially where I'm collecting about 20-odd series.
The real problem with this is that the western companies tend to dawdle quite a bit when putting stuff out. There can be twenty or thirty volumes already out in Japan, but they only release three or four a year.
And on top of that, only a handful of the series I'm collecting have actually finished in Japan. This means I have a huge number of volumes of manga, many of which don't fall into the 'keep forever' pile, but it's not really going to be worth my while to sell them.
I mean, because I'm up to date, they will sell quite well - "all so far released" collections tend to do about as well as complete collection - but the problem is I don't really want to stop buying the new volumes. That means I'll end up with lots of random volumes, and those really don't sell well.
For example, I ended up with 3 random Bleach volumes, and to confirm my suspicions I put them on e-bay. I believe they finally sold for 5p each. That makes them total money sinks - it costs me money to auction them.
But the problem is there are loads of volumes now and they really take up a hell of a lot of room :/.
Friday, 30 April 2010
week away
Well, next week I'm on holiday, so I won't be doing any more blogging until after that.
I've decided the main job for the holiday is to try to clear out my room a bit. I discovered where the local recycling centre is and it's just down the road, so I'm planning to basically take a load of junk down there. Indeed, I'm planning to take several loads of junk, in order to clear out some crap.
I'll also be sorting through stuff generally, trying to decide what to either throw away, take down the recycling place or put on e-bay.
One of the biggest space consumers are my large collections of comics. I've had these kicking about for years with the intention of seeing if I can e-bay some of them. Problem is quite a lot of my comics are either very niche or very old and I really doubt they'll sell.
I'm also not at all sure whether it's best to whack them on as collections - issues x through y - or as single issues. If single issues, it could become a logistically nightmare to say the least. That's why I'm kinda tempted just to chuck them all out.
Next week also features the day of the general election.
The only thing I'm certain about is I won't be voting Conservative. Generally speaking, Tory ideas and views don't tend to mesh with mine, but there's also a specific reason for me not voting that way this time - the BBC.
If Cameron's mob gets in, I'm pretty sure one of the things they'll do is start the break-up and privatisation (that is to say, destruction) of the BBC. And to me, that's just not right. The BBC is one of the greatest things about this country, and I'd hate to see it go.
Imagine a world where all terrestrial TV is like ITV. It just doesn't bare thinking about.
I've decided the main job for the holiday is to try to clear out my room a bit. I discovered where the local recycling centre is and it's just down the road, so I'm planning to basically take a load of junk down there. Indeed, I'm planning to take several loads of junk, in order to clear out some crap.
I'll also be sorting through stuff generally, trying to decide what to either throw away, take down the recycling place or put on e-bay.
One of the biggest space consumers are my large collections of comics. I've had these kicking about for years with the intention of seeing if I can e-bay some of them. Problem is quite a lot of my comics are either very niche or very old and I really doubt they'll sell.
I'm also not at all sure whether it's best to whack them on as collections - issues x through y - or as single issues. If single issues, it could become a logistically nightmare to say the least. That's why I'm kinda tempted just to chuck them all out.
Next week also features the day of the general election.
The only thing I'm certain about is I won't be voting Conservative. Generally speaking, Tory ideas and views don't tend to mesh with mine, but there's also a specific reason for me not voting that way this time - the BBC.
If Cameron's mob gets in, I'm pretty sure one of the things they'll do is start the break-up and privatisation (that is to say, destruction) of the BBC. And to me, that's just not right. The BBC is one of the greatest things about this country, and I'd hate to see it go.
Imagine a world where all terrestrial TV is like ITV. It just doesn't bare thinking about.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
phew!
Really hectic day at work yesterday.
A work colleague had asked me to recreate a picture he needs for a job, but he wasn't there on Monday or Tuesday to explain it to me, and the notes he'd left me didn't really make a lot of sense. He therefore left me a note saying he would call to explain, but then failed to do so.
Also, bits of it needed decoding from acronyms, and I didn't know what they were. Plus I had loads of other work to do.
Anyway, the upshot was that I didn't do anything about it. And then yesterday it turned out it was fairly urgent. But he didn't say that at all.
So I spent all day, scrabbling around for stuff to use in the picture and drawing it and stuff. Now don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy doing that sort of stuff, but it's always more time consuming than you think. So doing it quickly is very draining.
And it didn't help that what I think he really wanted was way too ambitious. I mean, I could have done it, but it would have taken about a week, which was more time than I would have had even if I had worked on it since the start of the week.
So yeah, I'm pretty knackered today, and I'm not really even sure if what I've produced is what he's after :/.
A work colleague had asked me to recreate a picture he needs for a job, but he wasn't there on Monday or Tuesday to explain it to me, and the notes he'd left me didn't really make a lot of sense. He therefore left me a note saying he would call to explain, but then failed to do so.
Also, bits of it needed decoding from acronyms, and I didn't know what they were. Plus I had loads of other work to do.
Anyway, the upshot was that I didn't do anything about it. And then yesterday it turned out it was fairly urgent. But he didn't say that at all.
So I spent all day, scrabbling around for stuff to use in the picture and drawing it and stuff. Now don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy doing that sort of stuff, but it's always more time consuming than you think. So doing it quickly is very draining.
And it didn't help that what I think he really wanted was way too ambitious. I mean, I could have done it, but it would have taken about a week, which was more time than I would have had even if I had worked on it since the start of the week.
So yeah, I'm pretty knackered today, and I'm not really even sure if what I've produced is what he's after :/.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
terminator: salvation
Time travel can be confusing stuff.
In the original Terminator film, the terminator in question was sent back in time to try to kill Sarah Connor. The basic jist for anyone that doesn't know (is there anyone?) is that in the future, Skynet, a military computer, had started a nuclear apocalypse, in order to wipe out humanity.
Humanity had been nearly wiped out, but the survivors were rallied into a resistance that, led by one John Connor, had turned the tide and were winning. On the very eve of their victory, Skynet had therefore sent back the terminator - an 'infiltrator' unit that was a humanoid machine clad in real human tissue - to try to kill Sarah, the mother of John and thereby prevent its defeat.
The problem with this of course is it could potentially create a paradox. Paradox's are the big problem with time travel. I mean, if Skynet only sent the terminator back in time because it was about to be defeated by John Connor, then if it succeeds, John Connor doesn't exist and it doesn't loose, so it doesn't have any reason to send back the terminator.
But there was an ace in the hole - it was a James Cameron film. So he did two things. First off, he focused the film on the relationship between Connor and Kyle Reese, who was the guy Connor sent back to protect his mother. So despite being a science fiction, action-heavy chase movie, it was also pretty much a love story.
Second, he made it so that the terminator was actually part of the original past. So, for example, it turned out that Kyle Reese was actually John Connor's father. Now really this is still paradoxical, but it's sufficiently plausible that you don't mind.
And then, in a sense, the problems started. The terminator was a hit and so a sequel was made.
Luckily, the sequel was again made by Cameron, so it worked, but the problem was, the first film wrapped itself up so well that they effectively had to tweak the story of the first in order to fit the second in.
The best example of this is that we're told at the beginning that oh, no, actually Skynet sent back two terminators - one to try to kill Sarah, the other to try to kill the young John Connor. And so the paradoxes start to eat your brain. I mean, why didn't Skynet send back a veritable army or terminators, or both terminators to kill Sarah Connor, if it could send 2 back?
But those aren't the bigger questions, the bigger question is that now, where the first film wrapped itself up by saying that the events of the film were integral to the events of the future, the second changes that. It's revealed, for example, that Cyberdyne systems got hold of the remains of the first terminator and, by retro-engineering it, they've gotten much further ahead than they were before.
Similarly, you get a weird contradiction that John Connor sends back a T800 to protect his younger self, because that's what he as an adult remembers happening. And yet, at the same time, things are being changed. Indeed, the whole end of the movie depicts them properly changing things in order to prevent the whole holocaust.
And yet it works because again you've got Cameron helming it, and there's a deft focus on the relationships of the characters as well as the action and the chase.
But T2 was an even bigger hit that the first and there was therefore a desire to make a third film. And Cameron wasn't to be involved because, quite rightly, his take was that he'd wrapped up the story he wanted to tell in the first two films.
So what to do?
Well, what they ended up doing was a kinda "re-instate the original future" film. And things get very confused, to say the least. One of the big problems of course is that the sequels are often trying to either retro-fit the preceding films or twist the story so that they can exist. But in doing so they break both the previous films and themselves.
So now, for example, even though the future was changed, the Skynet of this, presumably alternate future, must still send back the original two terminators, even though it presumably has access to information that proves these two attempts failed. But it also sends back a new terminator to try to wipe out the heads of the resistance.
I mean, when you really sit down and think about the plotting, it's really messed up, and yet I actually thought the third film worked on some levels. It maintained the central ideas of time travel, terminators, chase films and also, crucially, the focus on the relationships between the characters. So, although it doesn't make sense, it still basically works.
Wow, that's a hell of a lot of words already, isn't it? And I've not even mentioned the fourth film yet :/.
So, what did I think about the fourth film?
Well, it was okay.
One of the problems of course was that at the end of the third film, they left it so that judgement day was happening. In other words, the franchise had now effectively caught up to its own future. So one of the basic plot mechanisms of the previous films - time travel - wouldn't really make any sense in the fourth one.
Also, it's a little difficult to introduce new relationships, because they've already fixed John Connor's and Kyle Reese's relationships. As such, they introduce a new character, and, indeed, it's really this new character who is the central character in the film. And unfortunately, while they do give him a sort of romantic relationship and a sort of person to protect, it's just plain not as well done in the previous films. For one thing, of course, they're separate people, so it's diluted.
Well, kinda, there's also a lot of focus on Connor, but in a bit of a weird way. I mean, there's a suggestion from some of the taglines and plot summaries that some people don't believe he's really going to be this great leader. However, no one during the film actually says that to him.
At one point he meets the heads of the resistance, but although they're pissed off at him, it's for a perfectly sensible reason, not because he's some supposedly Christ-like saviour and they don't believe it. Indeed, they actually end up trusting him with a really important mission.
And that kind of oddness pervades the movie generally. Towards the end, Connor ends up going toe-to-toe with the
There are plenty of plotholes too. At one point the machines capture the younger Kyle Reese and put him in a prison cell. Why they simply put him in a prison cell and don't just kill him is not explained.
I mean, okay, they need Connor to think he's captive, but they don't really need him to be alive, do they? Or at least, once Reece's presence has lured Connor in, they could kill him straight away. But they don't - they wait until much later.
And it's not even clear why they're collecting humans. They effectively capture Reese by accident, because they're collecting humans, but there's no explanation as to what they're doing with them.
But despite that it's still okay as a film. There's some really good action stuff, the effects are good and it has a frenetic pace that pulls you along despite all the stuff that doesn't make sense on further inspection.
That really is a lot of words just to come to the point that it's "okay", isn't it?
In the original Terminator film, the terminator in question was sent back in time to try to kill Sarah Connor. The basic jist for anyone that doesn't know (is there anyone?) is that in the future, Skynet, a military computer, had started a nuclear apocalypse, in order to wipe out humanity.
Humanity had been nearly wiped out, but the survivors were rallied into a resistance that, led by one John Connor, had turned the tide and were winning. On the very eve of their victory, Skynet had therefore sent back the terminator - an 'infiltrator' unit that was a humanoid machine clad in real human tissue - to try to kill Sarah, the mother of John and thereby prevent its defeat.
The problem with this of course is it could potentially create a paradox. Paradox's are the big problem with time travel. I mean, if Skynet only sent the terminator back in time because it was about to be defeated by John Connor, then if it succeeds, John Connor doesn't exist and it doesn't loose, so it doesn't have any reason to send back the terminator.
But there was an ace in the hole - it was a James Cameron film. So he did two things. First off, he focused the film on the relationship between Connor and Kyle Reese, who was the guy Connor sent back to protect his mother. So despite being a science fiction, action-heavy chase movie, it was also pretty much a love story.
Second, he made it so that the terminator was actually part of the original past. So, for example, it turned out that Kyle Reese was actually John Connor's father. Now really this is still paradoxical, but it's sufficiently plausible that you don't mind.
And then, in a sense, the problems started. The terminator was a hit and so a sequel was made.
Luckily, the sequel was again made by Cameron, so it worked, but the problem was, the first film wrapped itself up so well that they effectively had to tweak the story of the first in order to fit the second in.
The best example of this is that we're told at the beginning that oh, no, actually Skynet sent back two terminators - one to try to kill Sarah, the other to try to kill the young John Connor. And so the paradoxes start to eat your brain. I mean, why didn't Skynet send back a veritable army or terminators, or both terminators to kill Sarah Connor, if it could send 2 back?
But those aren't the bigger questions, the bigger question is that now, where the first film wrapped itself up by saying that the events of the film were integral to the events of the future, the second changes that. It's revealed, for example, that Cyberdyne systems got hold of the remains of the first terminator and, by retro-engineering it, they've gotten much further ahead than they were before.
Similarly, you get a weird contradiction that John Connor sends back a T800 to protect his younger self, because that's what he as an adult remembers happening. And yet, at the same time, things are being changed. Indeed, the whole end of the movie depicts them properly changing things in order to prevent the whole holocaust.
And yet it works because again you've got Cameron helming it, and there's a deft focus on the relationships of the characters as well as the action and the chase.
But T2 was an even bigger hit that the first and there was therefore a desire to make a third film. And Cameron wasn't to be involved because, quite rightly, his take was that he'd wrapped up the story he wanted to tell in the first two films.
So what to do?
Well, what they ended up doing was a kinda "re-instate the original future" film. And things get very confused, to say the least. One of the big problems of course is that the sequels are often trying to either retro-fit the preceding films or twist the story so that they can exist. But in doing so they break both the previous films and themselves.
So now, for example, even though the future was changed, the Skynet of this, presumably alternate future, must still send back the original two terminators, even though it presumably has access to information that proves these two attempts failed. But it also sends back a new terminator to try to wipe out the heads of the resistance.
I mean, when you really sit down and think about the plotting, it's really messed up, and yet I actually thought the third film worked on some levels. It maintained the central ideas of time travel, terminators, chase films and also, crucially, the focus on the relationships between the characters. So, although it doesn't make sense, it still basically works.
Wow, that's a hell of a lot of words already, isn't it? And I've not even mentioned the fourth film yet :/.
So, what did I think about the fourth film?
Well, it was okay.
One of the problems of course was that at the end of the third film, they left it so that judgement day was happening. In other words, the franchise had now effectively caught up to its own future. So one of the basic plot mechanisms of the previous films - time travel - wouldn't really make any sense in the fourth one.
Also, it's a little difficult to introduce new relationships, because they've already fixed John Connor's and Kyle Reese's relationships. As such, they introduce a new character, and, indeed, it's really this new character who is the central character in the film. And unfortunately, while they do give him a sort of romantic relationship and a sort of person to protect, it's just plain not as well done in the previous films. For one thing, of course, they're separate people, so it's diluted.
Well, kinda, there's also a lot of focus on Connor, but in a bit of a weird way. I mean, there's a suggestion from some of the taglines and plot summaries that some people don't believe he's really going to be this great leader. However, no one during the film actually says that to him.
At one point he meets the heads of the resistance, but although they're pissed off at him, it's for a perfectly sensible reason, not because he's some supposedly Christ-like saviour and they don't believe it. Indeed, they actually end up trusting him with a really important mission.
And that kind of oddness pervades the movie generally. Towards the end, Connor ends up going toe-to-toe with the
There are plenty of plotholes too. At one point the machines capture the younger Kyle Reese and put him in a prison cell. Why they simply put him in a prison cell and don't just kill him is not explained.
I mean, okay, they need Connor to think he's captive, but they don't really need him to be alive, do they? Or at least, once Reece's presence has lured Connor in, they could kill him straight away. But they don't - they wait until much later.
And it's not even clear why they're collecting humans. They effectively capture Reese by accident, because they're collecting humans, but there's no explanation as to what they're doing with them.
But despite that it's still okay as a film. There's some really good action stuff, the effects are good and it has a frenetic pace that pulls you along despite all the stuff that doesn't make sense on further inspection.
That really is a lot of words just to come to the point that it's "okay", isn't it?
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
settlers 7
Across the last couple of weeks I've been playing settlers 7.
I've discussed it a bit before. It's basically an economic/resource management game like Anno, meets an RTS like C&C.
Well, over the weekend I played the final mission in the campaign and also had a bit of a go on the skirmish mode. I have to say I did enjoy the campaign. The story was quite interesting, and things like the cut-scenes were well done. Also, the tip system worked very well and it introduced you tot eh concepts of the game quite well. Also, the game is very pretty, with lovely graphics.
On the downside, the system of copy protection they've put in is a total pain. And I think something in the game causes my computer to crash - it was totally fine before I installed it, but then it started giving me BSODs all over the place. These reduced dramatically once I discovered you didn't need to keep the DVD in the drive, although they still happen occasionally.
Also, I'm not really the biggest fan of the Victory Point system they've put in. The suggestion from the way they're marketing it is that you can choose how to win the game, using science, trade or the military. As such, you would expect that the number of victory points available to each of the routes is the same and that earning them is of about the same difficulty for each route.
But in reality, this is not the case - some routes let you get the victory points easier than the others. Additionally, it's not true that you can focus entirely on the one victory route.
For example, say you pick science. Slightly oddly, this actually means building up your religion. To do that you need various resources and that means expanding. Now, you can actually take over Neutral sectors using your monks, so initially that's fine and good.
But how do you take over a sector controlled by another player? Or what if another player wants your sector? Well those can only be done by military force.
So that means you need to build up at an okay military force, even if just for defence. But doing that is complicated, because if another player is doing military he'll have better units, so you need those better units too. Also, it can be expensive, and one of the best ways to get cash is via the trade route.
So in other words, it's actually nearly impossible to win without having at least a bit of all three routes.
And so here's the thing - now that I've finished the campaign, I'm probably going to uninstall it.
As I mentioned, I've had a couple of cracks at the skirmish mode, and it's okay, but it's like any other skirmish mode in an RTS. Basically, you're not playing for any real objective other than to win.
I've also no real interest in multiplayer, so basically, unless I replay the campaign, there's nothing left for me to do. Which is why I love about Anno 1404 - crucially, it has a Sandbox mode.
If you're not familiar with that term, it's where you can just play the game without objectives in a 'free creation' mode. So it's a bit like an RTS skirmish mode, except with one crucial difference - it's not about "winning" (well, unless you set a particular goal when you set it up). It's difficult to explain, but it gives huge longevity and continuing interest.
I've discussed it a bit before. It's basically an economic/resource management game like Anno, meets an RTS like C&C.
Well, over the weekend I played the final mission in the campaign and also had a bit of a go on the skirmish mode. I have to say I did enjoy the campaign. The story was quite interesting, and things like the cut-scenes were well done. Also, the tip system worked very well and it introduced you tot eh concepts of the game quite well. Also, the game is very pretty, with lovely graphics.
On the downside, the system of copy protection they've put in is a total pain. And I think something in the game causes my computer to crash - it was totally fine before I installed it, but then it started giving me BSODs all over the place. These reduced dramatically once I discovered you didn't need to keep the DVD in the drive, although they still happen occasionally.
Also, I'm not really the biggest fan of the Victory Point system they've put in. The suggestion from the way they're marketing it is that you can choose how to win the game, using science, trade or the military. As such, you would expect that the number of victory points available to each of the routes is the same and that earning them is of about the same difficulty for each route.
But in reality, this is not the case - some routes let you get the victory points easier than the others. Additionally, it's not true that you can focus entirely on the one victory route.
For example, say you pick science. Slightly oddly, this actually means building up your religion. To do that you need various resources and that means expanding. Now, you can actually take over Neutral sectors using your monks, so initially that's fine and good.
But how do you take over a sector controlled by another player? Or what if another player wants your sector? Well those can only be done by military force.
So that means you need to build up at an okay military force, even if just for defence. But doing that is complicated, because if another player is doing military he'll have better units, so you need those better units too. Also, it can be expensive, and one of the best ways to get cash is via the trade route.
So in other words, it's actually nearly impossible to win without having at least a bit of all three routes.
And so here's the thing - now that I've finished the campaign, I'm probably going to uninstall it.
As I mentioned, I've had a couple of cracks at the skirmish mode, and it's okay, but it's like any other skirmish mode in an RTS. Basically, you're not playing for any real objective other than to win.
I've also no real interest in multiplayer, so basically, unless I replay the campaign, there's nothing left for me to do. Which is why I love about Anno 1404 - crucially, it has a Sandbox mode.
If you're not familiar with that term, it's where you can just play the game without objectives in a 'free creation' mode. So it's a bit like an RTS skirmish mode, except with one crucial difference - it's not about "winning" (well, unless you set a particular goal when you set it up). It's difficult to explain, but it gives huge longevity and continuing interest.
Monday, 26 April 2010
wherever i may roam
So I went for another walk yesterday.
The weather was a bit weird, as it kept looking like it was going to rain, so I put my coat on, but then when the sun popped out it was really warm. It was also weirdly muggy, even though there seemed to be quite a strong breeze blowing at times.
I've come up with a nice little route for my walks where I basically head off down the hill I'm on, then cut through a minor road past some fields that takes me onto the back route in past all the schools. That bit is the longest part of the walk, but it's on the flat. I then have to come up through the 'back way' that goes through the estate.
Obviously, since I came down the hill, that last bit involves climbing back up, but where downhill was fairly gentle, the uphill is very steep. The advantage of that route is that the only other way back is the long way back (which, of course, involves going uphill anyway). Therefore, it forces me to do a good stretch uphill and really get my heart pumping.
All told it's about one and a half miles. I know that for normal people 1.5 miles isn't exactly a long walk, but for me at the moment it's a huge distance. Well, actually, I could easily walk further, what I mean is that with the hill bit it's a good compromise between a long distance, which would take a long time, and good exercise.
It currently takes me about 30 minutes to do the whole walk and I normally have to stop a couple of times. I don't stop for long, but the walk up the hill is pretty steep, so I usually stop to catch my breath and on Sunday with the sun out, take my coat off and wipe my brow.
I've no real ambition regarding doing longer distances or walking it quicker. I'd like to get to a position where I can walk it twice a week - maybe Sunday and Wednesday - and also not feel quite so knackered afterwards.
Otherwise the weekend was a pretty normal one. I cleaned the flat and thought about cleaning the car. My car's been caked in dust this last week or so, which I dunno if it has anything to do with the volcano, but it could have done with a clean.
Trouble was with Sunday being the best opportunity and with it constantly looking like it was going to rain but then not actually raining, I ended up not bothering. Besides I'm on holiday next week and my landlord goes on holiday the week after, so I should get ample opportunity to give the old girl a good clean in the next couple of weeks.
The weather was a bit weird, as it kept looking like it was going to rain, so I put my coat on, but then when the sun popped out it was really warm. It was also weirdly muggy, even though there seemed to be quite a strong breeze blowing at times.
I've come up with a nice little route for my walks where I basically head off down the hill I'm on, then cut through a minor road past some fields that takes me onto the back route in past all the schools. That bit is the longest part of the walk, but it's on the flat. I then have to come up through the 'back way' that goes through the estate.
Obviously, since I came down the hill, that last bit involves climbing back up, but where downhill was fairly gentle, the uphill is very steep. The advantage of that route is that the only other way back is the long way back (which, of course, involves going uphill anyway). Therefore, it forces me to do a good stretch uphill and really get my heart pumping.
All told it's about one and a half miles. I know that for normal people 1.5 miles isn't exactly a long walk, but for me at the moment it's a huge distance. Well, actually, I could easily walk further, what I mean is that with the hill bit it's a good compromise between a long distance, which would take a long time, and good exercise.
It currently takes me about 30 minutes to do the whole walk and I normally have to stop a couple of times. I don't stop for long, but the walk up the hill is pretty steep, so I usually stop to catch my breath and on Sunday with the sun out, take my coat off and wipe my brow.
I've no real ambition regarding doing longer distances or walking it quicker. I'd like to get to a position where I can walk it twice a week - maybe Sunday and Wednesday - and also not feel quite so knackered afterwards.
Otherwise the weekend was a pretty normal one. I cleaned the flat and thought about cleaning the car. My car's been caked in dust this last week or so, which I dunno if it has anything to do with the volcano, but it could have done with a clean.
Trouble was with Sunday being the best opportunity and with it constantly looking like it was going to rain but then not actually raining, I ended up not bothering. Besides I'm on holiday next week and my landlord goes on holiday the week after, so I should get ample opportunity to give the old girl a good clean in the next couple of weeks.
Friday, 23 April 2010
omg!
I've been reading more manga this week.
Both of my renaissances of anime and scanning seem to have fallen by the wayside for some reason. It's not a conscious decision, I've just found myself constantly in the situation where I just haven't had the time.
Next week is my last week before I take a weeks holiday and I'm hoping I'll get a bit of anime watching and scanning done then. However, I was compiling one of my 'to do' list and it's got a hell of a lot of stuff on it. See, the problem is I really want to get rid of a load of crap.
I've discovered there's a council recycling place just down the road and I believe they'll take loads of the big stuff I've been reticent to throw away because it would just end up in landfill. The council collections are shot where I am - they take virtually nothing and you get nasty notes and threats of fines if you get it wrong.
So yeah, I'm hoping to clear that stuff, plus I want to finally get a load of stuff from my childhood on e-bay. I'm pretty certain it won't sell, but at least I'll have put it on there and then I'll know for definite it can go in the bin.
Trouble is of course both of those things will just eat my time and on top of that I'm going to visit my Dad and there's all the regular crap I do.
Anyway, the point today is I have been reading some new manga. Specifically I've started back reading Oh My Goddess.
OMG was one of the first manga I ever read. Indeed, I think it was one of the first manga ever released in America. Back in those days it was 'flopped' - printed back to front, which probably seems a bizarre thing to do in the modern era.
Anyway, the point is because it's such a long series (it's still ongoing in Japan!) there came a point with OMG where the fashion had very much shifted to printing manga in the original right-to-left way and Dark Horse where still playing catch up. That meant they decided with volume 21 to revert to the original format.
But also, it turned out Dark Horse had played silly buggers with the earlier volumes, skipping out and reordering some chapters. So they therefore released several of the earlier volumes in with the correct chapter order. But then they also announced that they would re-issue all of the already released volumes in unflopped format.
And that's why I think I stopped reading - I got very, very confused.
But now, many years later, I thought it was about time I caught up, so I bought loads of volumes and have started ploughing my way through.
I've gotta say I still like OMG. I was a little worried my tastes might have changed, but it still pretty much works. I will say I'm still a little frustrated with it - Keichi and Bell's relationship still remains weirdly non-intimate and stagnant, but the stories are sufficiently full of other goings on that it kinda gets around that issue.
Still, it would be nice for it to at least start to explore the implications of a man and goddess pairing, and who knows maybe it does in the volumes I need to catch up, but I kinda doubt it.
Both of my renaissances of anime and scanning seem to have fallen by the wayside for some reason. It's not a conscious decision, I've just found myself constantly in the situation where I just haven't had the time.
Next week is my last week before I take a weeks holiday and I'm hoping I'll get a bit of anime watching and scanning done then. However, I was compiling one of my 'to do' list and it's got a hell of a lot of stuff on it. See, the problem is I really want to get rid of a load of crap.
I've discovered there's a council recycling place just down the road and I believe they'll take loads of the big stuff I've been reticent to throw away because it would just end up in landfill. The council collections are shot where I am - they take virtually nothing and you get nasty notes and threats of fines if you get it wrong.
So yeah, I'm hoping to clear that stuff, plus I want to finally get a load of stuff from my childhood on e-bay. I'm pretty certain it won't sell, but at least I'll have put it on there and then I'll know for definite it can go in the bin.
Trouble is of course both of those things will just eat my time and on top of that I'm going to visit my Dad and there's all the regular crap I do.
Anyway, the point today is I have been reading some new manga. Specifically I've started back reading Oh My Goddess.
OMG was one of the first manga I ever read. Indeed, I think it was one of the first manga ever released in America. Back in those days it was 'flopped' - printed back to front, which probably seems a bizarre thing to do in the modern era.
Anyway, the point is because it's such a long series (it's still ongoing in Japan!) there came a point with OMG where the fashion had very much shifted to printing manga in the original right-to-left way and Dark Horse where still playing catch up. That meant they decided with volume 21 to revert to the original format.
But also, it turned out Dark Horse had played silly buggers with the earlier volumes, skipping out and reordering some chapters. So they therefore released several of the earlier volumes in with the correct chapter order. But then they also announced that they would re-issue all of the already released volumes in unflopped format.
And that's why I think I stopped reading - I got very, very confused.
But now, many years later, I thought it was about time I caught up, so I bought loads of volumes and have started ploughing my way through.
I've gotta say I still like OMG. I was a little worried my tastes might have changed, but it still pretty much works. I will say I'm still a little frustrated with it - Keichi and Bell's relationship still remains weirdly non-intimate and stagnant, but the stories are sufficiently full of other goings on that it kinda gets around that issue.
Still, it would be nice for it to at least start to explore the implications of a man and goddess pairing, and who knows maybe it does in the volumes I need to catch up, but I kinda doubt it.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
expenses
The other day my polling card turned up.
It's not long until polling day - the 6th of May. Weirdly, I'm actually on holiday that week. I'm not going anywhere exotic or anything, so I've not really got much of an excuse to avoid voting.
The media seems to be quite interested in the election this year. It's probably because this is the first time in a good while that it's not been guaranteed that Labour will get in. I'm not entirely sure that the general public is quite as interested.
Indeed, I think the whole expenses scandal could lead to lower numbers of voters than in most years. Well, I did think that until the whole TV debate thing. I didn't personally watch the debate myself, but obviously I've heard all about how Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems have had a surge in popularity since.
I'm not sure that will translate into an increase in their share of the votes. Certainly I doubt it would result in a sufficient change to give them power. Instead, it makes a coalition government more likely.
Traditionally coalition governments are inherently weak affairs, which sometimes pull in different directions to such an extent that they collapse. And there's always the risk of effectively giving power to a minority. Also it's always assumed that the Lib Dems would form a coalition with Labour as they tend to have similar views on things.
Anyway - the upswing of interest by the media means that there's been a lot more talk from the political parties getting air time. Which has also mean there's been quite a lot of things with the public questioning MPs, especially the heads of the parties.
One of the things these people naturally want to talk about is the expenses 'scandal' and I've found it fascinating.
Not for interest in the scandal itself, but because it's clear that people are angry, but many of them don't really know what they're angry about.
I mean, the impression I've been getting from some of the questions is that many people seem to be fundamentally opposed to MPs claiming any sort of expenses at all. Also, they don't seem to grasp that the vast majority of them were simply acting within the rules that had been established.
The first of those is bizarre. Part of my job often involves me travelling to places and therefore I claim that money back as expenses. Also, sometimes I need lunch or have to stay overnight or whatever, so I claim that as well.
That's what expenses mean - they're an expense you incurred in order to do your job. So when an MP does similar, in my opinion there's fundamentally no problem with them claiming the same. And yet people just seem to be angry that they claimed anything, which is bizarre.
The aspect that represents the real area of controversy is this issue of being able to claim for a second home and the costs of upkeeping said home. This is where things get a bit tricky, because an MP's job has a split personality.
All MPs obviously need to attend Parliament, which is in London. But an MP's job is also in his constituency, which could literally be anywhere in the country. Most people don't have a job where half the time you need to be in London and the other half you need to be somewhere else.
And the point is that your job requires this - it's not simply a lifestyle choice. And for some MPs we're talking hundreds of miles of separation - Cornwall or Scotland spring to mind as being rather distant locations.
The problem I guess is while I think rationally you could therefore justify the claiming of the travel costs, being able to claim for your second home is a might trickier. Especially when you add in all the dodginess of nominating which is your second home and that it's a house they're buying for themselves - once they stop being an MP they could sell it keep the money.
Plus on top of that they were able to claim for the upkeep costs, which is where you got all the stuff about duck ponds about. And of course it's a blanket system - MPs in London and close by were able to claim in the same way as MPs up north, or wherever.
But as I say, it's a trickier problem for me - on some level I don't totally disagree with them being able to claim for something to compensate for this issue of having to work in two places, it's just they set up a system where tacking the piss was the norm. I mean, if your job required that of you, you'd want some way of it not affecting your standard of living, right?
And it's that I don't think people have really grasped. The only thing they really did wrong was set themselves up with a bad system. It's a little unfair to judge them for what they actually claimed within that system.
And let's be frank - the amount of money we're talking about was actually pretty small. And only a tiny minority have been accused of anything like embezzling it.
Anyway, my real point here is that people just don't understand things. It's scary sometimes how they grasp the wrong end of the stick. And then they get to vote.
It's not long until polling day - the 6th of May. Weirdly, I'm actually on holiday that week. I'm not going anywhere exotic or anything, so I've not really got much of an excuse to avoid voting.
The media seems to be quite interested in the election this year. It's probably because this is the first time in a good while that it's not been guaranteed that Labour will get in. I'm not entirely sure that the general public is quite as interested.
Indeed, I think the whole expenses scandal could lead to lower numbers of voters than in most years. Well, I did think that until the whole TV debate thing. I didn't personally watch the debate myself, but obviously I've heard all about how Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems have had a surge in popularity since.
I'm not sure that will translate into an increase in their share of the votes. Certainly I doubt it would result in a sufficient change to give them power. Instead, it makes a coalition government more likely.
Traditionally coalition governments are inherently weak affairs, which sometimes pull in different directions to such an extent that they collapse. And there's always the risk of effectively giving power to a minority. Also it's always assumed that the Lib Dems would form a coalition with Labour as they tend to have similar views on things.
Anyway - the upswing of interest by the media means that there's been a lot more talk from the political parties getting air time. Which has also mean there's been quite a lot of things with the public questioning MPs, especially the heads of the parties.
One of the things these people naturally want to talk about is the expenses 'scandal' and I've found it fascinating.
Not for interest in the scandal itself, but because it's clear that people are angry, but many of them don't really know what they're angry about.
I mean, the impression I've been getting from some of the questions is that many people seem to be fundamentally opposed to MPs claiming any sort of expenses at all. Also, they don't seem to grasp that the vast majority of them were simply acting within the rules that had been established.
The first of those is bizarre. Part of my job often involves me travelling to places and therefore I claim that money back as expenses. Also, sometimes I need lunch or have to stay overnight or whatever, so I claim that as well.
That's what expenses mean - they're an expense you incurred in order to do your job. So when an MP does similar, in my opinion there's fundamentally no problem with them claiming the same. And yet people just seem to be angry that they claimed anything, which is bizarre.
The aspect that represents the real area of controversy is this issue of being able to claim for a second home and the costs of upkeeping said home. This is where things get a bit tricky, because an MP's job has a split personality.
All MPs obviously need to attend Parliament, which is in London. But an MP's job is also in his constituency, which could literally be anywhere in the country. Most people don't have a job where half the time you need to be in London and the other half you need to be somewhere else.
And the point is that your job requires this - it's not simply a lifestyle choice. And for some MPs we're talking hundreds of miles of separation - Cornwall or Scotland spring to mind as being rather distant locations.
The problem I guess is while I think rationally you could therefore justify the claiming of the travel costs, being able to claim for your second home is a might trickier. Especially when you add in all the dodginess of nominating which is your second home and that it's a house they're buying for themselves - once they stop being an MP they could sell it keep the money.
Plus on top of that they were able to claim for the upkeep costs, which is where you got all the stuff about duck ponds about. And of course it's a blanket system - MPs in London and close by were able to claim in the same way as MPs up north, or wherever.
But as I say, it's a trickier problem for me - on some level I don't totally disagree with them being able to claim for something to compensate for this issue of having to work in two places, it's just they set up a system where tacking the piss was the norm. I mean, if your job required that of you, you'd want some way of it not affecting your standard of living, right?
And it's that I don't think people have really grasped. The only thing they really did wrong was set themselves up with a bad system. It's a little unfair to judge them for what they actually claimed within that system.
And let's be frank - the amount of money we're talking about was actually pretty small. And only a tiny minority have been accused of anything like embezzling it.
Anyway, my real point here is that people just don't understand things. It's scary sometimes how they grasp the wrong end of the stick. And then they get to vote.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
transporter 3
Oh dear.
If ever there was a franchise that epitomised the 'law of diminishing returns' then it's transporter.
I quite liked the first one. It was a bit silly, but it was also very Luc Besson and the plot pretty much worked.
The second one was not quite as good. There was a confusing angle in terms of the mother and her not being a love interest, but being presented in that way, and the silliness got a bit sillier, but again, the plot basically worked. I mean, there were a few clunky bits and oddities, but it basically hung together.
The third one doesn't even manage to get have a plot that makes sense.
The basic idea seems to be that some Ukrainian politician's daughter is being held hostage in order that he'll sign a contract with a big nasty corporation. The big nasty corporation (boo, hiss) wants to use his country as a dumping ground for toxic waste.
I mean, that doesn't even make sense as a summary. Okay, evil corporations are nothing new, but evil corporations with utterly dumb plans is pretty... unique. Why, for example, can't they simply find another country who'll probably jump at the chance for the money? A corrupt third world regime, for example.
Or if they're so big and evil, why not just dump it in the middle of the ocean? Or simply ship it in disguised as something else and then dump it in a big hole in the ground and bugger off?
And what's with that plan? Kidnap the dude's daughter to make him sign? How stupid are they?
If he signs and gets his daughter back, he just has to hold a big press conference and tell everyone what happened. A contract signed under such a situation would never be legally binding.
So what - they kill her instead? Well he just does the same thing. Or they keep her hostage permanently? How does that work?
No - plain truth is it's daft and non-sensicle. Much like the rest of the film.
Where the silliness was kinda endearing in the previous films, especially in terms of the stunts and action, here it just doesn't help.
I mean, there's a bit where there's a car chase and it's clearly been speeded up. Now this is something of a common thing in Besson films, but here it's like the speeding up machine got stuck in some high gear, because they speed it up to such a degree that it just looks like Benny Hill should run across the road halfway through.
Plus, when they aren't taking daftness to a new level, the chases, fights and stunts come across as being a bit uninspired and dull, tbh.
And don't me started on the girl. She's just about the most annoying woman committed to celluloid.
She starts of petulant (no reason is given) and rapidly reveals herself to be selfish, self-centred and stupid. And then she gets really annoying.
But worst of all we're supposed to believe Statham's character falls in love with her? I mean if he'd had a history of falling for women like her, then maybe it'd be okay, but the girls in the other films weren't like her at all.
It was just plain rubbish.
If ever there was a franchise that epitomised the 'law of diminishing returns' then it's transporter.
I quite liked the first one. It was a bit silly, but it was also very Luc Besson and the plot pretty much worked.
The second one was not quite as good. There was a confusing angle in terms of the mother and her not being a love interest, but being presented in that way, and the silliness got a bit sillier, but again, the plot basically worked. I mean, there were a few clunky bits and oddities, but it basically hung together.
The third one doesn't even manage to get have a plot that makes sense.
The basic idea seems to be that some Ukrainian politician's daughter is being held hostage in order that he'll sign a contract with a big nasty corporation. The big nasty corporation (boo, hiss) wants to use his country as a dumping ground for toxic waste.
I mean, that doesn't even make sense as a summary. Okay, evil corporations are nothing new, but evil corporations with utterly dumb plans is pretty... unique. Why, for example, can't they simply find another country who'll probably jump at the chance for the money? A corrupt third world regime, for example.
Or if they're so big and evil, why not just dump it in the middle of the ocean? Or simply ship it in disguised as something else and then dump it in a big hole in the ground and bugger off?
And what's with that plan? Kidnap the dude's daughter to make him sign? How stupid are they?
If he signs and gets his daughter back, he just has to hold a big press conference and tell everyone what happened. A contract signed under such a situation would never be legally binding.
So what - they kill her instead? Well he just does the same thing. Or they keep her hostage permanently? How does that work?
No - plain truth is it's daft and non-sensicle. Much like the rest of the film.
Where the silliness was kinda endearing in the previous films, especially in terms of the stunts and action, here it just doesn't help.
I mean, there's a bit where there's a car chase and it's clearly been speeded up. Now this is something of a common thing in Besson films, but here it's like the speeding up machine got stuck in some high gear, because they speed it up to such a degree that it just looks like Benny Hill should run across the road halfway through.
Plus, when they aren't taking daftness to a new level, the chases, fights and stunts come across as being a bit uninspired and dull, tbh.
And don't me started on the girl. She's just about the most annoying woman committed to celluloid.
She starts of petulant (no reason is given) and rapidly reveals herself to be selfish, self-centred and stupid. And then she gets really annoying.
But worst of all we're supposed to believe Statham's character falls in love with her? I mean if he'd had a history of falling for women like her, then maybe it'd be okay, but the girls in the other films weren't like her at all.
It was just plain rubbish.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
doctorb who
The b is for 'bargain'.
Here's something I haven't blogged about - there's a new Doctor Who. And not only is there a new Doctor Who, there's a new head writer in charge of the show.
At first I was a little unsure about the revamped Who. David Tennant is a pretty hard act to follow and Russell T Davies didn't exactly do a bad job with the whole writing and show running thing.
But then Steven Moffet, the new writer, is responsible for some of the best episodes of the new version of Who. He did the one with the kid in the gas mark and the angels that only move when you aren't watching them, for example.
I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, so I'll skip straight to my verdict. Overall, I like the new Who.
I have to say that the first episode was a bit of a gentle introduction. It didn't really have an epic feel or anything - we weren't instantly into a Daleks destroying the Earth story or anything. But it kinda worked, because it had a lot of new stuff to introduce, and a predominantly character driven story allowed it all to bed in.
The second one was a good one, and even managed to have a bit of a moral dilemma in it. And the third was a story by Mark Gatiss that featured the Daleks and Churchill at the height of World War 2. It also featured the Dalek's being a bit sneaky and clever, which was nice to see.
The Dalek episode also introduced new versions of the Daleks, which were bigger and a bit 'fatter'. I wasn't entirely sure about the new designs, as they had a bit of a plasticy look to them, but the episode itself was good. I especially liked that the Daleks properly escaped at the end.
Normally in the Dalek stories they get utterly destroyed, but then the next time you see them there's always "one ship/Dalek that escaped" or similar. In this one, all the new Daleks escaped intact, so it gives them lots more possibilities.
So yeah, overall I'm liking the new Who.
Here's something I haven't blogged about - there's a new Doctor Who. And not only is there a new Doctor Who, there's a new head writer in charge of the show.
At first I was a little unsure about the revamped Who. David Tennant is a pretty hard act to follow and Russell T Davies didn't exactly do a bad job with the whole writing and show running thing.
But then Steven Moffet, the new writer, is responsible for some of the best episodes of the new version of Who. He did the one with the kid in the gas mark and the angels that only move when you aren't watching them, for example.
I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, so I'll skip straight to my verdict. Overall, I like the new Who.
I have to say that the first episode was a bit of a gentle introduction. It didn't really have an epic feel or anything - we weren't instantly into a Daleks destroying the Earth story or anything. But it kinda worked, because it had a lot of new stuff to introduce, and a predominantly character driven story allowed it all to bed in.
The second one was a good one, and even managed to have a bit of a moral dilemma in it. And the third was a story by Mark Gatiss that featured the Daleks and Churchill at the height of World War 2. It also featured the Dalek's being a bit sneaky and clever, which was nice to see.
The Dalek episode also introduced new versions of the Daleks, which were bigger and a bit 'fatter'. I wasn't entirely sure about the new designs, as they had a bit of a plasticy look to them, but the episode itself was good. I especially liked that the Daleks properly escaped at the end.
Normally in the Dalek stories they get utterly destroyed, but then the next time you see them there's always "one ship/Dalek that escaped" or similar. In this one, all the new Daleks escaped intact, so it gives them lots more possibilities.
So yeah, overall I'm liking the new Who.
Monday, 19 April 2010
oh look, there's some more telly to watch
It was on some levels a slightly depressing weekend.
I've ended up the situation where I've got tonnes of stuff recorded on my PVR and this last weekend was the first time I've had to actually knuckle down and watch some of it. The PVR had got so full that it was almost a case of watching stuff to make room for new stuff. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but I could imagine it getting that way fairly soon.
The problem was, this weekend was the Chinese Grand Prix and I also had a few bits and pieces to do. The BBC's coverage of the Grand Prix is, to be frank, excellent. They show all of the practice sessions, as well as the qualifying and the race itself. Plus there's lots of punditry and other stuff to. I'd say all in all I end up watching about 8 hours of stuff on a grand Prix weekend.
So you can see the problem - the only way for me to watch all the GP stuff and make a dent in my recorded stuff was for me basically to watch television constantly. And to be frank, it got a bit depressing. Especially given that this was the firs really good spring weekend we've had.
For example, I would have really like to keep going with my new walking habit on Sunday, but guess what? I had yet more television to watch. (Well, also, my right foot has been giving me some gyp after the huge walk into Farnham for the wedding, so I though maybe resting it wouldn't be a bad idea anyway.)
I also would have loved to give my car a bit of a wash. I dunno if it's the whole volcanic ash thing, but my car is filthy. But no, I had telly to watch.
Not that I didn't enjoy the telly watching, it's just you know - it would have been nice if it wasn't so necessary and I could have done some other stuff.
Anyway, it was a good Grand Prix.
Even the practice had a really dramatic moment with Sebastien Buemi's whole front end basically exploding as the uprights on his suspension failed. I've honestly never seen anything like that before. It was like something out of a film - as if there was a bomb in it or something.
The race itself was very good too. It was a wet one, which always spices up the action. And Button made another wise decision regarding tyres that effectively won him the race, like he did in Malaysia.
I've ended up the situation where I've got tonnes of stuff recorded on my PVR and this last weekend was the first time I've had to actually knuckle down and watch some of it. The PVR had got so full that it was almost a case of watching stuff to make room for new stuff. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but I could imagine it getting that way fairly soon.
The problem was, this weekend was the Chinese Grand Prix and I also had a few bits and pieces to do. The BBC's coverage of the Grand Prix is, to be frank, excellent. They show all of the practice sessions, as well as the qualifying and the race itself. Plus there's lots of punditry and other stuff to. I'd say all in all I end up watching about 8 hours of stuff on a grand Prix weekend.
So you can see the problem - the only way for me to watch all the GP stuff and make a dent in my recorded stuff was for me basically to watch television constantly. And to be frank, it got a bit depressing. Especially given that this was the firs really good spring weekend we've had.
For example, I would have really like to keep going with my new walking habit on Sunday, but guess what? I had yet more television to watch. (Well, also, my right foot has been giving me some gyp after the huge walk into Farnham for the wedding, so I though maybe resting it wouldn't be a bad idea anyway.)
I also would have loved to give my car a bit of a wash. I dunno if it's the whole volcanic ash thing, but my car is filthy. But no, I had telly to watch.
Not that I didn't enjoy the telly watching, it's just you know - it would have been nice if it wasn't so necessary and I could have done some other stuff.
Anyway, it was a good Grand Prix.
Even the practice had a really dramatic moment with Sebastien Buemi's whole front end basically exploding as the uprights on his suspension failed. I've honestly never seen anything like that before. It was like something out of a film - as if there was a bomb in it or something.
The race itself was very good too. It was a wet one, which always spices up the action. And Button made another wise decision regarding tyres that effectively won him the race, like he did in Malaysia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)