This last weekend's weigh in was a little disappointing.
Well, I say that. Basically, I'd lost 1 pound.
The upside of this is of course that I've lost more weight and in my current situation all weight loss is good. The downside is that it's only 1 pound. And if I'm going to hit my target I need to be loosing more than 1 pound a week. Indeed, I need to be loosing about 2 or 3 pounds a week.
Now to be totally fair when we get to Christmas the possibility of doing plenty of walking opens up, although of course that may be offset by the excess consumption that Chrimbo gives rise to. I could take a stern view and not give in to that excess, but I have to be sensible here.
If I completely avoid eating and drinking and having fun, that will likely make me feel a bit miserable and could easily trigger a negative effect. The worst thing would be to go off the diet completely, so I think it's far better to have a few days where I enjoy the excess (Chrimbo weekend with the family and New Year's eve are the most obvious) and then I can do normal diet on the other days.
Not sure I've got any spectacular plans this weekend coming.
I'm kind of thinking of having a normal quiet weekend. The last few weekends have been rather busy, so I think having a more normal, boring one will be good. That includes ignoring the whole PC thing.
Friday, 19 November 2010
Thursday, 18 November 2010
more on the PC
So yes, I was getting loads of error messages which suggested RAM, but running Memtest 86 showed up no problems.
There's another testing tool called Prime 95. This can be run in what's called a torture test and it's a way of testing a mix of things. You can do three test, which test the CPU and RAM to a greater or lesser extent.
Running this the machine completely flaked out on all three tests. This actually suggested there might be a power problem, as in the system wasn't getting enough juice. A quick trip to the BIOS revealed that something called Intel Turbo Boost was turned on by default.
This is meant to increase the clock speed of your CPU with no effort, but often overclocking requires more power, so I thought maybe that was the problem and I turned it off. Doing so meant that Prime95 now passed two of the tests, but the third still failed. This third test was one that mainly tested RAM.
But given Memtest 86 had passed I was now thinking that the mobo/PSU combo couldn't supply enough juice to run all four sticks of RAM. So last week I took the brave decision of buying a new mobo (it's actually about the most expensive you can buy) and a new, high quality 1,000W PSU.
This last weekend I rebuilt the system with this new mobo and PSU and the initial results were good. I spent most all of Saturday building the system, installing Windows 7 and all the updates (this was the bit on the previous system that was a crash-fest of epic proportions) and then playing Anno 1404 and CoD: Black Ops with not a single crash.
But then on Sunday, it wasn't happy. However, I checked the RAM modules and one of them was definitely slightly loose (I'd touched them the day before after I'd shut down to see how hot they'd got). So, I pushed it back in and the machine ran fine all day.
But then I switched it on this last Monday evening and last night and it initially seemed to be having the same problems.
Actually, I should note I'm skipping a point here. See, the weird thing about the BSODs is that they really only occurred from what's known as cold boot - literally booting up after the machine has been switched off for a good while and has gone cold.
And that was one of the problems I've been having working out what's wrong. See, I'd boot it up, it'd crash and then I'd start investigating. However, as I'd do more testing (swapping the RAM modules, for example) the system would no longer be booting from cold, so the BSODs would clear up.
But also there's another aspect there I mentioned - swapping out the RAM modules. See, the weirdest thing is that the problems on Monday and last night were simply solved by me pushing on the RAM modules. Now they weren't loose that I could tell, but I applied some pressure to them and the machine was totally fine after that.
It's almost like as one or more of the RAM modules cool down they become slightly loose in the slots and so as they warm up from use they expand a little and then when I reseat them ever so slightly by applying pressure they then run fine.
To me, this seems like a bonkers explanation, but it's the best I've got. It also suggest I've spent a lot of additional cash on a mobo and PSU when perhaps the RAM really is the culprit. Problem is, I'm still not sure. See, a complicating factor is that the memory controller is actually located on the CPU.
So it could be the processor and my bizarre conclusion above is simple coincidence.
There's another testing tool called Prime 95. This can be run in what's called a torture test and it's a way of testing a mix of things. You can do three test, which test the CPU and RAM to a greater or lesser extent.
Running this the machine completely flaked out on all three tests. This actually suggested there might be a power problem, as in the system wasn't getting enough juice. A quick trip to the BIOS revealed that something called Intel Turbo Boost was turned on by default.
This is meant to increase the clock speed of your CPU with no effort, but often overclocking requires more power, so I thought maybe that was the problem and I turned it off. Doing so meant that Prime95 now passed two of the tests, but the third still failed. This third test was one that mainly tested RAM.
But given Memtest 86 had passed I was now thinking that the mobo/PSU combo couldn't supply enough juice to run all four sticks of RAM. So last week I took the brave decision of buying a new mobo (it's actually about the most expensive you can buy) and a new, high quality 1,000W PSU.
This last weekend I rebuilt the system with this new mobo and PSU and the initial results were good. I spent most all of Saturday building the system, installing Windows 7 and all the updates (this was the bit on the previous system that was a crash-fest of epic proportions) and then playing Anno 1404 and CoD: Black Ops with not a single crash.
But then on Sunday, it wasn't happy. However, I checked the RAM modules and one of them was definitely slightly loose (I'd touched them the day before after I'd shut down to see how hot they'd got). So, I pushed it back in and the machine ran fine all day.
But then I switched it on this last Monday evening and last night and it initially seemed to be having the same problems.
Actually, I should note I'm skipping a point here. See, the weird thing about the BSODs is that they really only occurred from what's known as cold boot - literally booting up after the machine has been switched off for a good while and has gone cold.
And that was one of the problems I've been having working out what's wrong. See, I'd boot it up, it'd crash and then I'd start investigating. However, as I'd do more testing (swapping the RAM modules, for example) the system would no longer be booting from cold, so the BSODs would clear up.
But also there's another aspect there I mentioned - swapping out the RAM modules. See, the weirdest thing is that the problems on Monday and last night were simply solved by me pushing on the RAM modules. Now they weren't loose that I could tell, but I applied some pressure to them and the machine was totally fine after that.
It's almost like as one or more of the RAM modules cool down they become slightly loose in the slots and so as they warm up from use they expand a little and then when I reseat them ever so slightly by applying pressure they then run fine.
To me, this seems like a bonkers explanation, but it's the best I've got. It also suggest I've spent a lot of additional cash on a mobo and PSU when perhaps the RAM really is the culprit. Problem is, I'm still not sure. See, a complicating factor is that the memory controller is actually located on the CPU.
So it could be the processor and my bizarre conclusion above is simple coincidence.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
ai
The weekends DVD was AI, which was directed by Steven Spielberg, but was actually pretty much developed by the late, great Stanley Kubrick.
And I have to confess I found it to be a bit of a mixed bag.
The AI of the title is of course Artificial Intelligence. Specifically, he film is set in a future where the Poles melted and bits of the world sunk into the water. This triggered a bit of a global disaster and as a result people in the western world can only have children if they get a license to do so.
However, technology has also advanced dramatically and robots (it's odd that the film never uses the word android, which is the common name for a humanoid robot, but does the Japanese term Mecha) now look and pretty much act like humans. It's never really said, but the feeling I got was that labour is therefore cheap and easy, presumably supporting the reduced human population levels.
Anyway, these humanoid robots are perfect except in one regard - they're not capable of feeling emotion. Except that's where the story really starts - one of the companies is just on the cusp of building an actual feeling robot.
The niche this fits into seems to fit into is that of children - childless couples can buy one f these feeling robots that, a bit like a newborn chick, will implant on the parents and be capable of feeling love and other emotions like a real child would.
This of course opens up a huge minefield of potential problems and issues and it's these that the film explores. In particular, the first child developed is given to a couple whose son is crippled and kept in cryo stasis as they can't heal him. Only of course they do, so now the couple have their robot boy, but also their real boy.
The grand parallel of the film is Pinocchio - the wooden boy who wanted to become real. But there are also a lot of complicated issues that are explore din the film. So you have a section where those who have reacted against the robots destroying them at a 'flesh fayre'. Then you have a support character who is essentially a gigolo robot. And all the while you've got a robot who is exploring and coming to terms with his new emotions and what the implications of those are.
And as far as that film went I thought it was really good. There's a genuine attempt to explore the complex issues and the circumstances and their conclusions.
But then when you get to the last half hour of the film it takes what I can only really describe as a sharp sideways turn.
I won't spoil it in case you haven't seen it, but it really is a little odd.
And I was rather conflicted. The problem was that, logically, it did sort of work, but it also opened up all sorts of other questions that never really get answered. It also doesn't hang together as well from a scientific point of view where the earlier part of the film does.
But what's worse is it gives an ending that I found somewhat touching, but also ultimately unsatisfying.
And I have to confess I found it to be a bit of a mixed bag.
The AI of the title is of course Artificial Intelligence. Specifically, he film is set in a future where the Poles melted and bits of the world sunk into the water. This triggered a bit of a global disaster and as a result people in the western world can only have children if they get a license to do so.
However, technology has also advanced dramatically and robots (it's odd that the film never uses the word android, which is the common name for a humanoid robot, but does the Japanese term Mecha) now look and pretty much act like humans. It's never really said, but the feeling I got was that labour is therefore cheap and easy, presumably supporting the reduced human population levels.
Anyway, these humanoid robots are perfect except in one regard - they're not capable of feeling emotion. Except that's where the story really starts - one of the companies is just on the cusp of building an actual feeling robot.
The niche this fits into seems to fit into is that of children - childless couples can buy one f these feeling robots that, a bit like a newborn chick, will implant on the parents and be capable of feeling love and other emotions like a real child would.
This of course opens up a huge minefield of potential problems and issues and it's these that the film explores. In particular, the first child developed is given to a couple whose son is crippled and kept in cryo stasis as they can't heal him. Only of course they do, so now the couple have their robot boy, but also their real boy.
The grand parallel of the film is Pinocchio - the wooden boy who wanted to become real. But there are also a lot of complicated issues that are explore din the film. So you have a section where those who have reacted against the robots destroying them at a 'flesh fayre'. Then you have a support character who is essentially a gigolo robot. And all the while you've got a robot who is exploring and coming to terms with his new emotions and what the implications of those are.
And as far as that film went I thought it was really good. There's a genuine attempt to explore the complex issues and the circumstances and their conclusions.
But then when you get to the last half hour of the film it takes what I can only really describe as a sharp sideways turn.
I won't spoil it in case you haven't seen it, but it really is a little odd.
And I was rather conflicted. The problem was that, logically, it did sort of work, but it also opened up all sorts of other questions that never really get answered. It also doesn't hang together as well from a scientific point of view where the earlier part of the film does.
But what's worse is it gives an ending that I found somewhat touching, but also ultimately unsatisfying.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
pc building woes
I've been unsure about posting about this for the last few weeks.
The reason I was telling myself was that I was afraid I might curse myself, as I kept thinking I'd solved the problem and then finding myself. So I didn't want to find what I thought was the final solution, but then the "yay" post caused it to fail.
This, of course, is superstition. It also isn't true. My fear was mainly of embarrassment - "yay, I've fixed it" followed by "no, I haven't." But then I realised I could write the post as a "I'm still trying to fix it" because I still am.
Anyway, a while back I think I mentioned how I was building a new PC. The reason was that the newest version of Civilization - Civ5 was coming out. No, that's not right. The excuse was that Civ5 was coming out. The reason is because I'm a huge nerd who isn't very sensible with his money.
The point is that I bought a load of new computer kit and built myself a new PC. The specs for the PC were:
I had a Dickens of a time with a case to put it all in as I ordered a really swanky one, but it turned out that the graphics card was an absolute monster and it simply didn't fit. The case I use for my then current games machine was actually an oversized one, so I ended up doing all sorts of switching over.
So yeah, I put together the machine and then started the process of loading on Windows7. And that's when the problems started.
See, as windows was loading, there was an error. The error message wasn't hugely helpful, but a Google search suggested that there'd probably been some sort of copying error from the CD into either memory or RAM. This seemed very odd and what was more worrying was that restarting everything and giving it another go kept producing the same error.
But it was late when I was doing it, so I left it and tried again on another day. And that time it worked. But, when I finally got into windows proper, the real problems started. Basically, every so often the machine would crash. What's more it was a proper full-on crash - what's known as a Blue Screen of Death, or BSOD.
But weirdly, every time it crashed it gave the same error message of a "Memory Management" error. This gave the initial impression it was the RAM, but a search of the error codes online was inconclusive, because although other people had the same codes, the meaning of them was not explained by Microsoft.
But it seemed like RAM, so I downloaded something called Memtest 86. This runs from a CD and test your RAM by sending it binary codes and checking the accuracy of what comes back. Now because I had 4 sticks, the best thing to do was to run each stick during the day while I was at work and see which one failed.
Only none of them failed. I even tried slotting all of them in and running them all and that still didn't produce any errors.
So what the hell was wrong?
This post is already quite long, so I'll pick up on another day.
The reason I was telling myself was that I was afraid I might curse myself, as I kept thinking I'd solved the problem and then finding myself. So I didn't want to find what I thought was the final solution, but then the "yay" post caused it to fail.
This, of course, is superstition. It also isn't true. My fear was mainly of embarrassment - "yay, I've fixed it" followed by "no, I haven't." But then I realised I could write the post as a "I'm still trying to fix it" because I still am.
Anyway, a while back I think I mentioned how I was building a new PC. The reason was that the newest version of Civilization - Civ5 was coming out. No, that's not right. The excuse was that Civ5 was coming out. The reason is because I'm a huge nerd who isn't very sensible with his money.
The point is that I bought a load of new computer kit and built myself a new PC. The specs for the PC were:
- 850W power supply
- Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3 motherboard
- Intel 2.8GHz socket 1156 Quad-core Processor
- 4 lots of 2gb 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM
- 150gb SATA2 Hard Drive
- ATI HD5970 Graphics Card (this is a dual GPU graphics card)
- Windows 7 Pro 64bit
I had a Dickens of a time with a case to put it all in as I ordered a really swanky one, but it turned out that the graphics card was an absolute monster and it simply didn't fit. The case I use for my then current games machine was actually an oversized one, so I ended up doing all sorts of switching over.
So yeah, I put together the machine and then started the process of loading on Windows7. And that's when the problems started.
See, as windows was loading, there was an error. The error message wasn't hugely helpful, but a Google search suggested that there'd probably been some sort of copying error from the CD into either memory or RAM. This seemed very odd and what was more worrying was that restarting everything and giving it another go kept producing the same error.
But it was late when I was doing it, so I left it and tried again on another day. And that time it worked. But, when I finally got into windows proper, the real problems started. Basically, every so often the machine would crash. What's more it was a proper full-on crash - what's known as a Blue Screen of Death, or BSOD.
But weirdly, every time it crashed it gave the same error message of a "Memory Management" error. This gave the initial impression it was the RAM, but a search of the error codes online was inconclusive, because although other people had the same codes, the meaning of them was not explained by Microsoft.
But it seemed like RAM, so I downloaded something called Memtest 86. This runs from a CD and test your RAM by sending it binary codes and checking the accuracy of what comes back. Now because I had 4 sticks, the best thing to do was to run each stick during the day while I was at work and see which one failed.
Only none of them failed. I even tried slotting all of them in and running them all and that still didn't produce any errors.
So what the hell was wrong?
This post is already quite long, so I'll pick up on another day.
pc building woes
I've been unsure about posting about this for the last few weeks.
The reason I was telling myself was that I was afraid I might curse myself, as I kept thinking I'd solved the problem and then finding myself. So I didn't want to find what I thought was the final solution, but then the "yay" post caused it to fail.
This, of course, is superstition. It also isn't true. My fear was mainly of embarrassment - "yay, I've fixed it" followed by "no, I haven't." But then I realised I could write the post as a "I'm still trying to fix it" because I still am.
Anyway, a while back I think I mentioned how I was building a new PC. The reason was that the newest version of Civilization - Civ5 was coming out. No, that's not right. The excuse was that Civ5 was coming out. The reason is because I'm a huge nerd who isn't very sensible with his money.
The point is that I bought a load of new computer kit and built myself a new PC. The specs for the PC were:
I had a Dickens of a time with a case to put it all in as I ordered a really swanky one, but it turned out that the graphics card was an absolute monster and it simply didn't fit. The case I use for my then current games machine was actually an oversized one, so I ended up doing all sorts of switching over.
So yeah, I put together the machine and then started the process of loading on Windows7. And that's when the problems started.
See, as windows was loading, there was an error. The error message wasn't hugely helpful, but a Google search suggested that there'd probably been some sort of copying error from the CD into either memory or RAM. This seemed very odd and what was more worrying was that restarting everything and giving it another go kept producing the same error.
But it was late when I was doing it, so I left it and tried again on another day. And that time it worked. But, when I finally got into windows proper, the real problems started. Basically, every so often the machine would crash. What's more it was a proper full-on crash - what's known as a Blue Screen of Death, or BSOD.
But weirdly, every time it crashed it gave the same error message of a "Memory Management" error. This gave the initial impression it was the RAM, but a search of the error codes online was inconclusive, because although other people had the same codes, the meaning of them was not explained by Microsoft.
But it seemed like RAM, so I downloaded something called Memtest 86. This runs from a CD and test your RAM by sending it binary codes and checking the accuracy of what comes back. Now because I had 4 sticks, the best thing to do was to run each stick during the day while I was at work and see which one failed.
Only none of them failed. I even tried slotting all of them in and running them all and that still didn't produce any errors.
So what the hell was wrong?
This post is already quite long, so I'll pick up on another day.
The reason I was telling myself was that I was afraid I might curse myself, as I kept thinking I'd solved the problem and then finding myself. So I didn't want to find what I thought was the final solution, but then the "yay" post caused it to fail.
This, of course, is superstition. It also isn't true. My fear was mainly of embarrassment - "yay, I've fixed it" followed by "no, I haven't." But then I realised I could write the post as a "I'm still trying to fix it" because I still am.
Anyway, a while back I think I mentioned how I was building a new PC. The reason was that the newest version of Civilization - Civ5 was coming out. No, that's not right. The excuse was that Civ5 was coming out. The reason is because I'm a huge nerd who isn't very sensible with his money.
The point is that I bought a load of new computer kit and built myself a new PC. The specs for the PC were:
- 850W power supply
- Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3 motherboard
- Intel 2.8GHz socket 1156 Quad-core Processor
- 4 lots of 2gb 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM
- 150gb SATA2 Hard Drive
- ATI HD5970 Graphics Card (this is a dual GPU graphics card)
- Windows 7 Pro 64bit
I had a Dickens of a time with a case to put it all in as I ordered a really swanky one, but it turned out that the graphics card was an absolute monster and it simply didn't fit. The case I use for my then current games machine was actually an oversized one, so I ended up doing all sorts of switching over.
So yeah, I put together the machine and then started the process of loading on Windows7. And that's when the problems started.
See, as windows was loading, there was an error. The error message wasn't hugely helpful, but a Google search suggested that there'd probably been some sort of copying error from the CD into either memory or RAM. This seemed very odd and what was more worrying was that restarting everything and giving it another go kept producing the same error.
But it was late when I was doing it, so I left it and tried again on another day. And that time it worked. But, when I finally got into windows proper, the real problems started. Basically, every so often the machine would crash. What's more it was a proper full-on crash - what's known as a Blue Screen of Death, or BSOD.
But weirdly, every time it crashed it gave the same error message of a "Memory Management" error. This gave the initial impression it was the RAM, but a search of the error codes online was inconclusive, because although other people had the same codes, the meaning of them was not explained by Microsoft.
But it seemed like RAM, so I downloaded something called Memtest 86. This runs from a CD and test your RAM by sending it binary codes and checking the accuracy of what comes back. Now because I had 4 sticks, the best thing to do was to run each stick during the day while I was at work and see which one failed.
Only none of them failed. I even tried slotting all of them in and running them all and that still didn't produce any errors.
So what the hell was wrong?
This post is already quite long, so I'll pick up on another day.
Monday, 15 November 2010
thank you, come again
So, it's all over.
The 2010 Formula 1 season has finished, with the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix this last Sunday. And the winner was Sebastian Vettel, who also managed to take something of a surprise World Championship title with it.
I say something of a shock, because Vettel was pretty much an outside bet. In order to take the title, going into the race he had to win, with Alonso and Webber getting poor results. In qualifying Alonso ended up third and Webber a poor fifth. That meant it seemed really likely Alonso would take the title.
But, on the very first lap Michael Schumacher spun and ended up in a bit of a scary accident where one of the Force India's ran up the side of his car. This meant there was a long safety car period and some of the lower down drivers took the opportunity to pit.
Once the race was back under way, Webber came in for tyres after a few laps, because his seemed to be going off and Ferrari covered his decision. But, and here's where things get a complicated, Vettel stayed out and so did Hamilton and Button.
The reason this is complicated was because Alonso and Webber ended up behind Petrov, who had come in for tyres with the safety car. However, Vettel, Hamilton and Button's tyres either weren't that bad or they came back to them, so those three stayed out for ages.
When Hamilton did eventually pit, he ended up behind Kubica who, because he was outside of the top ten, was on the harder compound of tyres and so didn't come in for ages. Vettel was able to time his pit stop so he came out in front of Hamilton. Mclaren tried a similar trick with Button, but it didn't work and he ended up behind Hamilton.
So why were these important? Well, Abu Dhabi kinda typifies the modern bread of circuit, which is to say that overtaking is almost impossible. I mean, you basically ended up with Hamilton and Alonso trapped behind Kubica and Petrov. They were both in Renaults, which have basically been proven to be an inferior car - indeed, the word is that there's been no development of the car for ages.
Of course, the fact that Renault engines are in the Red Bulls inspired some conspiracy theories, but these are clearly rubbish as the Renault car is Renault in name only - the team was bought out last year. No, the problem is that at certain circuits, the combination of the track layout and the almost complete reliance on down force generated by aerodynamics (the wings) means overtaking become impossible.
So you end up with this situation that some circuits are great, with actual chances of overtaking, but others there's no overtaking at all. That means that, as this last Sunday, you're reliant on tactics and other aspects to bring any sort of interest to the race itself.
I mean, if this race had happened earlier in the season, it would have been dull city. The fact that it decided the world championship was all that made it interesting.
So while we've had the best season in ages, we've still had some frankly dull races. Let's hope that some of the changes to the rules proposed for future years - turbos, allowing the use of ground effect and some of the things like KERS make all of the actual races good ones.
Which is to take nothing away from Vettel - well done that man.
The 2010 Formula 1 season has finished, with the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix this last Sunday. And the winner was Sebastian Vettel, who also managed to take something of a surprise World Championship title with it.
I say something of a shock, because Vettel was pretty much an outside bet. In order to take the title, going into the race he had to win, with Alonso and Webber getting poor results. In qualifying Alonso ended up third and Webber a poor fifth. That meant it seemed really likely Alonso would take the title.
But, on the very first lap Michael Schumacher spun and ended up in a bit of a scary accident where one of the Force India's ran up the side of his car. This meant there was a long safety car period and some of the lower down drivers took the opportunity to pit.
Once the race was back under way, Webber came in for tyres after a few laps, because his seemed to be going off and Ferrari covered his decision. But, and here's where things get a complicated, Vettel stayed out and so did Hamilton and Button.
The reason this is complicated was because Alonso and Webber ended up behind Petrov, who had come in for tyres with the safety car. However, Vettel, Hamilton and Button's tyres either weren't that bad or they came back to them, so those three stayed out for ages.
When Hamilton did eventually pit, he ended up behind Kubica who, because he was outside of the top ten, was on the harder compound of tyres and so didn't come in for ages. Vettel was able to time his pit stop so he came out in front of Hamilton. Mclaren tried a similar trick with Button, but it didn't work and he ended up behind Hamilton.
So why were these important? Well, Abu Dhabi kinda typifies the modern bread of circuit, which is to say that overtaking is almost impossible. I mean, you basically ended up with Hamilton and Alonso trapped behind Kubica and Petrov. They were both in Renaults, which have basically been proven to be an inferior car - indeed, the word is that there's been no development of the car for ages.
Of course, the fact that Renault engines are in the Red Bulls inspired some conspiracy theories, but these are clearly rubbish as the Renault car is Renault in name only - the team was bought out last year. No, the problem is that at certain circuits, the combination of the track layout and the almost complete reliance on down force generated by aerodynamics (the wings) means overtaking become impossible.
So you end up with this situation that some circuits are great, with actual chances of overtaking, but others there's no overtaking at all. That means that, as this last Sunday, you're reliant on tactics and other aspects to bring any sort of interest to the race itself.
I mean, if this race had happened earlier in the season, it would have been dull city. The fact that it decided the world championship was all that made it interesting.
So while we've had the best season in ages, we've still had some frankly dull races. Let's hope that some of the changes to the rules proposed for future years - turbos, allowing the use of ground effect and some of the things like KERS make all of the actual races good ones.
Which is to take nothing away from Vettel - well done that man.
Friday, 12 November 2010
and how does that affect the graph?
Following on from yesterday, something I wasn't sure about mentioning was my graph.
Basically, what I have discussed before is that I've set an initial target for my weight loss. I've not given too many details, as I find it rather embarrassing, but what I have said is that this initial target marks the transition point from me being "Morbidly Obese" to simply "Obese".
Now, clearly that doesn't mean it's any sort of end point, but it seemed like a reasonably sensible first target - get from my current weight to under that threshold before the end of the year. Unfortunately, Christmas is one of those holidays where consumption is difficult to avoid, so I'm actually hoping to exceed the target by a bit so that any bounce up that occurs doesn't take me back over.
But anyway - the point is, get below that line by the end of the year (When not at my Dad's and eating too much I will of course be home and can probably do a lot of walking, so that's how I'm hoping to compensate). And of course, me being me, that also means I can create a spreadsheet.
In this case I also have the bonus of the fact that I'm using a pedometer to monitor my walking, so I've got numbers I can put in daily (the pedo) and weekly (my weight). And that means (drum roll) graphs!
In this case, I've got two fairly simple graphs that plot my weight and BMI, but the key point here is that there's a line drawn on them that connects my initial weight and the weight I need to get to in order to go below the target weight.
Now generally, I've been some way below this line. Indeed, it was the degree of belowness that triggered my worry about not eating enough calories a while back, but last week's zero change result was particularly alarming, because for the first time I got close to the line with the very real prospect that this week I would go over it.
Thankfully, I'm now back well below the line after Sunday's weigh in.
Anyway, the thing I really wanted to mention was that my big plan is to have a "reveal all" session once I pass my first target. My idea is I'll reveal my initial weight, show the graphs and discuss my next target. I'll also probably do a bit of an analysis on the pedometer stuff.
Dunno why I wanted to mention that, I guess it's partly because of the scare, but also because I'm actually getting quite excited about hitting the target. It feels like it's been ages (to be frank, it has) with such slow progress, but recently it's started to feel like it's really doable.
Basically, what I have discussed before is that I've set an initial target for my weight loss. I've not given too many details, as I find it rather embarrassing, but what I have said is that this initial target marks the transition point from me being "Morbidly Obese" to simply "Obese".
Now, clearly that doesn't mean it's any sort of end point, but it seemed like a reasonably sensible first target - get from my current weight to under that threshold before the end of the year. Unfortunately, Christmas is one of those holidays where consumption is difficult to avoid, so I'm actually hoping to exceed the target by a bit so that any bounce up that occurs doesn't take me back over.
But anyway - the point is, get below that line by the end of the year (When not at my Dad's and eating too much I will of course be home and can probably do a lot of walking, so that's how I'm hoping to compensate). And of course, me being me, that also means I can create a spreadsheet.
In this case I also have the bonus of the fact that I'm using a pedometer to monitor my walking, so I've got numbers I can put in daily (the pedo) and weekly (my weight). And that means (drum roll) graphs!
In this case, I've got two fairly simple graphs that plot my weight and BMI, but the key point here is that there's a line drawn on them that connects my initial weight and the weight I need to get to in order to go below the target weight.
Now generally, I've been some way below this line. Indeed, it was the degree of belowness that triggered my worry about not eating enough calories a while back, but last week's zero change result was particularly alarming, because for the first time I got close to the line with the very real prospect that this week I would go over it.
Thankfully, I'm now back well below the line after Sunday's weigh in.
Anyway, the thing I really wanted to mention was that my big plan is to have a "reveal all" session once I pass my first target. My idea is I'll reveal my initial weight, show the graphs and discuss my next target. I'll also probably do a bit of an analysis on the pedometer stuff.
Dunno why I wanted to mention that, I guess it's partly because of the scare, but also because I'm actually getting quite excited about hitting the target. It feels like it's been ages (to be frank, it has) with such slow progress, but recently it's started to feel like it's really doable.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
perhaps it did change?
This last weekend's weigh in revealed something interesting.
The something in question was that I had apparently lost another 5 pounds. To me, this sounded slightly odd, because I'd had a slight issue with chocolates.
The issue stems from the fact that my landlord had been on holiday and I'd been house sitting for him. He seems to go on holiday at least 4 times a year, but anyway, when he does, he asks me to look out for the place and at the same time I can pick up my mail.
When he returns, he usually shows his appreciation by buying me a box of chocolates. The me of old would proceed to eat these chocolates on my own. To be fair to the old me he wouldn't scoff them all at once and he'd try to adjust his other eating to compensate a bit, but it wouldn't be that serious an attempt and so he'd get a whole boat load of extra calories to deal with.
The new me decided that the best thing to do was to take the chocolates in to work. That way I could have a few, but avoid eating too many. Only the new me was also a bit stunned by the size of the box my landlord had bought (it was a double layer Thornton's selection box!) and so the new me had quite a few chocolates, as it was almost impossible to avoid them.
Otherwise, the week was fairly normal diet and exercise wise, so I was expecting to loose a few pounds, but not to the extent of loosing 5 pounds.
This actually leads me to suspect that last weeks weigh in was something of a false result. Looking back I didn't really weigh myself under the same circumstances as I have done every other week. And as I've said before, consistency is the real key to monitoring something like this.
I therefore think that last week I actually lost perhaps one or two pounds, but because of the inconsistency of measurement it was 'hidden'. This week I therefore probably saw those one or two pounds plus the extra 3 or 4 pounds I'd genuinely lost this week.
I have to confess this makes much more sense to me. Despite how harsh I was on myself last week I was a little puzzled that I hadn't lost anything at all. I mean, when I tried to guesstimate the calories, I was struggling to see how what I'd eaten would have genuinely cancelled out the rest of the week's diet, even though that diet was slightly higher than normal.
One of the weird advantages of being so heavy is it's actually easy to loose weight. When I start getting closer to simply being fat, I'm pretty sure the scale of weight loss will reduce and I'll have to be doing more exercise. Hopefully, though, I won't be hitting that sort of problem until we get back into the warmer months, when exercising (walking) will be much easier and enjoyable.
The something in question was that I had apparently lost another 5 pounds. To me, this sounded slightly odd, because I'd had a slight issue with chocolates.
The issue stems from the fact that my landlord had been on holiday and I'd been house sitting for him. He seems to go on holiday at least 4 times a year, but anyway, when he does, he asks me to look out for the place and at the same time I can pick up my mail.
When he returns, he usually shows his appreciation by buying me a box of chocolates. The me of old would proceed to eat these chocolates on my own. To be fair to the old me he wouldn't scoff them all at once and he'd try to adjust his other eating to compensate a bit, but it wouldn't be that serious an attempt and so he'd get a whole boat load of extra calories to deal with.
The new me decided that the best thing to do was to take the chocolates in to work. That way I could have a few, but avoid eating too many. Only the new me was also a bit stunned by the size of the box my landlord had bought (it was a double layer Thornton's selection box!) and so the new me had quite a few chocolates, as it was almost impossible to avoid them.
Otherwise, the week was fairly normal diet and exercise wise, so I was expecting to loose a few pounds, but not to the extent of loosing 5 pounds.
This actually leads me to suspect that last weeks weigh in was something of a false result. Looking back I didn't really weigh myself under the same circumstances as I have done every other week. And as I've said before, consistency is the real key to monitoring something like this.
I therefore think that last week I actually lost perhaps one or two pounds, but because of the inconsistency of measurement it was 'hidden'. This week I therefore probably saw those one or two pounds plus the extra 3 or 4 pounds I'd genuinely lost this week.
I have to confess this makes much more sense to me. Despite how harsh I was on myself last week I was a little puzzled that I hadn't lost anything at all. I mean, when I tried to guesstimate the calories, I was struggling to see how what I'd eaten would have genuinely cancelled out the rest of the week's diet, even though that diet was slightly higher than normal.
One of the weird advantages of being so heavy is it's actually easy to loose weight. When I start getting closer to simply being fat, I'm pretty sure the scale of weight loss will reduce and I'll have to be doing more exercise. Hopefully, though, I won't be hitting that sort of problem until we get back into the warmer months, when exercising (walking) will be much easier and enjoyable.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
ocean's 11
The subject of this week's review may come as something of a surprise, as Ocean's 11 is one of those films that 'surely everyone has seen'. I mean, it's pretty old and has been on regular telly loads of time, right?
Well, yes, but I've never really gotten around to watching it. I am aware that it received pretty good reviews and did well enough at the box office to spawn two sequels, so it's not like it passed under my radar or anything. I just never really got around to watching it until now.
Generally speaking I think I'd have to agree with the consensus. It's a good, fun, entertaining movie. I've no experience of the original Rat Pack Ocean's 11 film it's a remake of, so I can't comment on that, but this film works pretty well.
I've no idea of whether it was coincidental or whatever, but I think The Hustle TV series was probably inspired by the film, but because I'd seen that first, in my head I kept thinking 'this is like the Hustle', rather than the reverse.
It's a scam/caper type movie and it takes the route of being a very Hollywood pop-corn version of crime, where the thieves are actually on some level 'honest' (eh?) and because the target is Vegas, it's all okay. I dunno, it's that old Robin Hood/A-Team thing where they're criminals, but they're almost righting wrongs.
There's also a few nice little twists in it, but not to the extent of that being the point of the film. and generally as a heist it sort of holds up. I did have a few questions as to why they were doing certain things, some of which were clearly more to do with making it visually entertaining that anything that 'makes sense'.
A few of these, though, were a little off. The most noticeable is to do with the money, which I won't detail to avoid spoilers, but it's what I believe is labelled a "fridge door moment". A fridge door moment is the question or illogicality that strikes you several hours after seeing the film when you're looking into the fridge for a snack.
"Hang on - how did they....?" That sort of thing.
And there are actually a few of these, but only a couple really spoil the integrity of the con. Some you can sort of think up possible explanations for, even though there's nothing on-screen to back it up. Movie logic is another phrase for it - it works there while you're watching the film, but not upon later inspection.
Anyway, these don't really spoil the film and overall it works. There were only two things I wasn't sure about.
Firstly, there's a section towards the end which is weirdly heavy on the pathos. I mean, it's a beautiful scene, but it's odd - it's like they stopped the fun caper movie and insert this poignant sentimental section before then going back to the film proper.
The other thing was the end, which is weirdly open-ended. Not in a really bad way, but it makes the film feel like it doesn't quite end when the credits roll.
I was reminded actually of that bit in Jurassic park where the can of shaving foam with the embryos in it is filmed sliding down the hill in the rain, almost as if it was meant to be the source of a sequel or it was meant to come up later. But then it didn't
Well, yes, but I've never really gotten around to watching it. I am aware that it received pretty good reviews and did well enough at the box office to spawn two sequels, so it's not like it passed under my radar or anything. I just never really got around to watching it until now.
Generally speaking I think I'd have to agree with the consensus. It's a good, fun, entertaining movie. I've no experience of the original Rat Pack Ocean's 11 film it's a remake of, so I can't comment on that, but this film works pretty well.
I've no idea of whether it was coincidental or whatever, but I think The Hustle TV series was probably inspired by the film, but because I'd seen that first, in my head I kept thinking 'this is like the Hustle', rather than the reverse.
It's a scam/caper type movie and it takes the route of being a very Hollywood pop-corn version of crime, where the thieves are actually on some level 'honest' (eh?) and because the target is Vegas, it's all okay. I dunno, it's that old Robin Hood/A-Team thing where they're criminals, but they're almost righting wrongs.
There's also a few nice little twists in it, but not to the extent of that being the point of the film. and generally as a heist it sort of holds up. I did have a few questions as to why they were doing certain things, some of which were clearly more to do with making it visually entertaining that anything that 'makes sense'.
A few of these, though, were a little off. The most noticeable is to do with the money, which I won't detail to avoid spoilers, but it's what I believe is labelled a "fridge door moment". A fridge door moment is the question or illogicality that strikes you several hours after seeing the film when you're looking into the fridge for a snack.
"Hang on - how did they....?" That sort of thing.
And there are actually a few of these, but only a couple really spoil the integrity of the con. Some you can sort of think up possible explanations for, even though there's nothing on-screen to back it up. Movie logic is another phrase for it - it works there while you're watching the film, but not upon later inspection.
Anyway, these don't really spoil the film and overall it works. There were only two things I wasn't sure about.
Firstly, there's a section towards the end which is weirdly heavy on the pathos. I mean, it's a beautiful scene, but it's odd - it's like they stopped the fun caper movie and insert this poignant sentimental section before then going back to the film proper.
The other thing was the end, which is weirdly open-ended. Not in a really bad way, but it makes the film feel like it doesn't quite end when the credits roll.
I was reminded actually of that bit in Jurassic park where the can of shaving foam with the embryos in it is filmed sliding down the hill in the rain, almost as if it was meant to be the source of a sequel or it was meant to come up later. But then it didn't
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
animu blip
So last week I experienced something of an anime blip, in that I actually watched some.
I wasn't entirely sure why. I think part of it is that all the sorting out is kinda done and my room redecoration is kinda done, so two things that were absorbing a lot of my time are now not taking up any time. Also, dinner is now a meal that requires no preparation, so that's freed up some time.
But I think a bigger part of it is a degree of guilt and a smidgen of worry.
I mean, I've still got a massive pile of unwatched anime DVDs. I've also now got nearly a years worth of unscanned anime magazines. And what's more I've got this Crunchyroll subscription that I'm paying for and not really suing.
And what makes the last of those worse is that some of the shows on Crunchyroll are subject to time limits. In other words, after a while they're no longer on there to watch. That's okay if it's a series I think I'll like and it's been licensed, so I can buy it on DVD, but if it's a more average show that I wouldn't want to buy or isn't licensed anyway, then I'm loosing the chance to watch it. And paying for the privilege.
So, and despite the amount of stuff to watch on telly surging upwards, last week I started watching some anime stuff. Unfortunately I then seemed to get scuppered by other stuff I had to do, so it stopped, but I thought I'd dust off the old anime mini reviews thing.
Except, the first thing I'm going to talk about I watched ages ago.
Blessing of the Campanella
Blessings of Campanella pretty much managed to combine several things I really don't like into a whole that did nothing for me.
The things I didn't like included a derivative fantasy setting, a quest theme, cookie-cutter characters, generic character designs and a non-descript hero. If I had to guess, my guess would be that the whole thing was based on some Japanese RPG game.
It's probably a hallmark of how uninterested I was in the show that I don't even have the energy to go and find out.
Giant Killing
This was the show that I started properly watching via Crunchyroll.
I'd already sampled it back when it came out. It's basically a football (soccer, rather than American) anime and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
My surprise continued while I was watching it, but it did become increasingly apparent that while it's about football, it's not really football. It's much more like chess than it is proper football. Well, I say that, I'm not exactly a football fan, so maybe there is more of a similarity between the two than I'd realised.
If I'm honest I think I binged on the show a bit too heavily. I think I watched about 15 episodes across just a couple of days and I that's a bit much - I got a bit fatigued by the end. Also, the earlier episodes happen across only a few days, but then it switches to more of a 'sampling' method.
By that I mean that it'll skip ahead a few days until the next match and only show you about 15 minutes worth of the actual game, where in the earlier episodes things were more real time. I think this, combined with binging, disorientated me a bit.
But I did enjoy it, although it confirmed to me it wasn't a show I would ever buy on DVD, which makes it the perfect thing for watching on Crunchyroll.
Claymore
I didn't watch claymore on Crunchyroll, as I think I actually watched and bought it a good while before I even knew there was a Crunchyroll. No, this is a DVD release from Funimation. Indeed, it's actually a DVD release that came out in old-skool format - released as six single episodic disks, rather than one or two half/full season sets, although it was one of the last shows ever to come out like that.
I initially saw Claymore on fansub and decided to buy it. I bought the DVDs, but in the meantime I've bought and read the manga version, which is now up to volume 17 (I think). One thing I've been struck by is how similar the anime is to the manga.
I know later on the story diverges, but they've stuck pretty close in the 6 or so episodes I've watched so far. However, they've not really stuck closely to the style.
Well, they've maintained the bean-pole character designs, but there's a definite stylistic shift. And to be frank, it's a good one. The manga is relatively simply presented, but the anime is much more of a visual treat, with interesting camera angles and stylisation of movement.
The most effective thing is probably the use of colour, which obviously wouldn't be possible in black-and-white manga, but here they've not simply coloured things in. Instead, we get scenes painted in vivid colour palettes that really use colour in an interesting and dynamic way.
I'm sure I'll be doing a full review at some point, but I've been quite impressed by this show - more so than I remembered.
I wasn't entirely sure why. I think part of it is that all the sorting out is kinda done and my room redecoration is kinda done, so two things that were absorbing a lot of my time are now not taking up any time. Also, dinner is now a meal that requires no preparation, so that's freed up some time.
But I think a bigger part of it is a degree of guilt and a smidgen of worry.
I mean, I've still got a massive pile of unwatched anime DVDs. I've also now got nearly a years worth of unscanned anime magazines. And what's more I've got this Crunchyroll subscription that I'm paying for and not really suing.
And what makes the last of those worse is that some of the shows on Crunchyroll are subject to time limits. In other words, after a while they're no longer on there to watch. That's okay if it's a series I think I'll like and it's been licensed, so I can buy it on DVD, but if it's a more average show that I wouldn't want to buy or isn't licensed anyway, then I'm loosing the chance to watch it. And paying for the privilege.
So, and despite the amount of stuff to watch on telly surging upwards, last week I started watching some anime stuff. Unfortunately I then seemed to get scuppered by other stuff I had to do, so it stopped, but I thought I'd dust off the old anime mini reviews thing.
Except, the first thing I'm going to talk about I watched ages ago.
Blessing of the Campanella
Blessings of Campanella pretty much managed to combine several things I really don't like into a whole that did nothing for me.
The things I didn't like included a derivative fantasy setting, a quest theme, cookie-cutter characters, generic character designs and a non-descript hero. If I had to guess, my guess would be that the whole thing was based on some Japanese RPG game.
It's probably a hallmark of how uninterested I was in the show that I don't even have the energy to go and find out.
Giant Killing
This was the show that I started properly watching via Crunchyroll.
I'd already sampled it back when it came out. It's basically a football (soccer, rather than American) anime and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
My surprise continued while I was watching it, but it did become increasingly apparent that while it's about football, it's not really football. It's much more like chess than it is proper football. Well, I say that, I'm not exactly a football fan, so maybe there is more of a similarity between the two than I'd realised.
If I'm honest I think I binged on the show a bit too heavily. I think I watched about 15 episodes across just a couple of days and I that's a bit much - I got a bit fatigued by the end. Also, the earlier episodes happen across only a few days, but then it switches to more of a 'sampling' method.
By that I mean that it'll skip ahead a few days until the next match and only show you about 15 minutes worth of the actual game, where in the earlier episodes things were more real time. I think this, combined with binging, disorientated me a bit.
But I did enjoy it, although it confirmed to me it wasn't a show I would ever buy on DVD, which makes it the perfect thing for watching on Crunchyroll.
Claymore
I didn't watch claymore on Crunchyroll, as I think I actually watched and bought it a good while before I even knew there was a Crunchyroll. No, this is a DVD release from Funimation. Indeed, it's actually a DVD release that came out in old-skool format - released as six single episodic disks, rather than one or two half/full season sets, although it was one of the last shows ever to come out like that.
I initially saw Claymore on fansub and decided to buy it. I bought the DVDs, but in the meantime I've bought and read the manga version, which is now up to volume 17 (I think). One thing I've been struck by is how similar the anime is to the manga.
I know later on the story diverges, but they've stuck pretty close in the 6 or so episodes I've watched so far. However, they've not really stuck closely to the style.
Well, they've maintained the bean-pole character designs, but there's a definite stylistic shift. And to be frank, it's a good one. The manga is relatively simply presented, but the anime is much more of a visual treat, with interesting camera angles and stylisation of movement.
The most effective thing is probably the use of colour, which obviously wouldn't be possible in black-and-white manga, but here they've not simply coloured things in. Instead, we get scenes painted in vivid colour palettes that really use colour in an interesting and dynamic way.
I'm sure I'll be doing a full review at some point, but I've been quite impressed by this show - more so than I remembered.
Monday, 8 November 2010
best season in ages
This year's F1 has probably been one of the best seasons in ages.
At the very start of the year, the first race in Dubai was, quite frankly, dull, and there was a real risk that the season would turn out to be a stinker. But after that things really livened up and don't ever seem to have stopped being lively.
In years gone by it wasn't unusual for one team to emerge as being totally dominant. I can remember a lot of seasons - the Schumacher era in particular - when a single driver dominated, taking most every pole and winning most races. I remember a lot of seasons where the winner was decided a good three or four races before the end, and back then you didn't have as many races.
But this year, despite Red Bull having what most have acknowledge as being the best car, they haven't romped away with it. There have been problems of reliability, the rivalry of their two drivers and the fact that some cars seem to suit certain circuits better to make things more complicated than that. And then on top of that we've had all sorts of other stuff going on to add even more spice to the mix.
One thing I think was particularly interesting this year is that you had several drivers who clearly had a genuinely good chance of winning it. Often, you only get a couple of drivers and teams that stand a genuine chance, but this year there were several, with several others just on the margins waiting to swoop in if any weakness was shown.
The Brazilian Grand Prix just passed was pretty good. Brazil is one of those circuits where even the average races are interesting. I think this year's actual race probably goes down as average, although qualifying was definitely one of the best this year.
But that's the thing about this year - even when the race itself wasn't necessarily the best ever, it's still added to the overall enjoyment of the season. So the result on Sunday meant that Red Bull secured a well deserved constructors championship, but that the driver's title is far from over.
Button is now definitely out of it, and Hamilton has almost no chance, but Vettel is still in with an outside shot and of course Alonso and Webber are still very much in contention.
So it goes down to the wire, and there's only a week to find out the result, as Abu Dhabi is his Sunday.
At the very start of the year, the first race in Dubai was, quite frankly, dull, and there was a real risk that the season would turn out to be a stinker. But after that things really livened up and don't ever seem to have stopped being lively.
In years gone by it wasn't unusual for one team to emerge as being totally dominant. I can remember a lot of seasons - the Schumacher era in particular - when a single driver dominated, taking most every pole and winning most races. I remember a lot of seasons where the winner was decided a good three or four races before the end, and back then you didn't have as many races.
But this year, despite Red Bull having what most have acknowledge as being the best car, they haven't romped away with it. There have been problems of reliability, the rivalry of their two drivers and the fact that some cars seem to suit certain circuits better to make things more complicated than that. And then on top of that we've had all sorts of other stuff going on to add even more spice to the mix.
One thing I think was particularly interesting this year is that you had several drivers who clearly had a genuinely good chance of winning it. Often, you only get a couple of drivers and teams that stand a genuine chance, but this year there were several, with several others just on the margins waiting to swoop in if any weakness was shown.
The Brazilian Grand Prix just passed was pretty good. Brazil is one of those circuits where even the average races are interesting. I think this year's actual race probably goes down as average, although qualifying was definitely one of the best this year.
But that's the thing about this year - even when the race itself wasn't necessarily the best ever, it's still added to the overall enjoyment of the season. So the result on Sunday meant that Red Bull secured a well deserved constructors championship, but that the driver's title is far from over.
Button is now definitely out of it, and Hamilton has almost no chance, but Vettel is still in with an outside shot and of course Alonso and Webber are still very much in contention.
So it goes down to the wire, and there's only a week to find out the result, as Abu Dhabi is his Sunday.
Friday, 5 November 2010
brazlillian
This weekend it's the Brazilian Grand Prix. Well, actually it's the Brazilian F1 GP and the Valencia MotoGP, but the MotoGP is already decided, as Jorge Lorenzo won the championship several races ago.
The F1 GP is far from decided, as there are still five drivers who could technically win it. Well, I say that, but for two of them - Vettel and Button - it's pretty much a long shot. Both would almost need the other guys to all get no points in both of the remaining races to win it.
And to be frank, it's a bit of a long shot for the third place man, Lewis Hamilton. He's in one of those situations where the others could score a few points and he'd have to win both races to take the title.
Now to be fair, Brazil is well known as a track where unpredictable things happen. It's not unusual for there to be rain, for example, and there have been some big pile-ups in the past. Also, it's a circuit where there's loads of opportunities to pass.
However, the last Grand Prix - Abu Dhabi - has been much more processional and predictable. So although you can see odd things happening and going in Vettel's, Button's or Hamilton's favour at Brazil, it's much less likely at Abu Dhabi, so really you have to say that there are only two contenders with a good shot at taking the championship.
First there's Mark Webber, who's had a very up and down season. By rights, the championship should be a Red Bull fight to the finish. Barring a few circuits they've clearly had the quickest car all year and the number of pole positions and front-row lock-outs they've had is amazing.
In years gone by these would all have been converted to race wins (or at worst second places) and you would have seen both drivers fighting it out for the championship. But that's not really happened - Red Bull have been plagued by all sorts of technical and other problems that have seen them if not throw it away then not exactly help themselves.
But then, to be fair, Red Bull are a relatively new team - they're not like Ferrari and McLaran who have years of race and title winning experience to draw on. They're the upstart new kids who've persevered and got themselves into a championship winning situation.
The other real contender is Fernando Alonso.
Weirdly, Alonso seems to have become something of a pantomime villain for the British press. There was the whole thing of Massa being told to let him through and he can be a bit of a spiky character. Plus he's won several titles already, and the press love an 'underdog makes good' story, which is more what you've got for Webber. And I guess there's something of an antipodean affection, if you will.
My own take is that Alonso is probably one of the best drivers on the grid at the moment and is definitely one of the all time great drivers. So personally, I like him. Plus of course, he's driving for Ferrari, which is my favourite team.
However, I also think it would be nice for Webber to win, so it looks like it could be a cracker of an end to what has, I think, been one of the all-time classic seasons.
The F1 GP is far from decided, as there are still five drivers who could technically win it. Well, I say that, but for two of them - Vettel and Button - it's pretty much a long shot. Both would almost need the other guys to all get no points in both of the remaining races to win it.
And to be frank, it's a bit of a long shot for the third place man, Lewis Hamilton. He's in one of those situations where the others could score a few points and he'd have to win both races to take the title.
Now to be fair, Brazil is well known as a track where unpredictable things happen. It's not unusual for there to be rain, for example, and there have been some big pile-ups in the past. Also, it's a circuit where there's loads of opportunities to pass.
However, the last Grand Prix - Abu Dhabi - has been much more processional and predictable. So although you can see odd things happening and going in Vettel's, Button's or Hamilton's favour at Brazil, it's much less likely at Abu Dhabi, so really you have to say that there are only two contenders with a good shot at taking the championship.
First there's Mark Webber, who's had a very up and down season. By rights, the championship should be a Red Bull fight to the finish. Barring a few circuits they've clearly had the quickest car all year and the number of pole positions and front-row lock-outs they've had is amazing.
In years gone by these would all have been converted to race wins (or at worst second places) and you would have seen both drivers fighting it out for the championship. But that's not really happened - Red Bull have been plagued by all sorts of technical and other problems that have seen them if not throw it away then not exactly help themselves.
But then, to be fair, Red Bull are a relatively new team - they're not like Ferrari and McLaran who have years of race and title winning experience to draw on. They're the upstart new kids who've persevered and got themselves into a championship winning situation.
The other real contender is Fernando Alonso.
Weirdly, Alonso seems to have become something of a pantomime villain for the British press. There was the whole thing of Massa being told to let him through and he can be a bit of a spiky character. Plus he's won several titles already, and the press love an 'underdog makes good' story, which is more what you've got for Webber. And I guess there's something of an antipodean affection, if you will.
My own take is that Alonso is probably one of the best drivers on the grid at the moment and is definitely one of the all time great drivers. So personally, I like him. Plus of course, he's driving for Ferrari, which is my favourite team.
However, I also think it would be nice for Webber to win, so it looks like it could be a cracker of an end to what has, I think, been one of the all-time classic seasons.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
no change
Well, it finally happened.
When I weighed myself on Sunday, I found I had lost no weight.
Now, I could regard this as a bit of a disaster or I could console myself with the fact that I've not put on weight. I'm inclined to do a bit of both.
See, last week was a bit of a tough one. Firstly, it turned out that it was someone at work's birthday, so we went down the pub on Friday. That meant having a big old pub-lunch type meal. Then of course there was Saturday, where we had a three course meal at a restaurant.
Neither of these adequately fit into sensible meal sizes, calories wise, when you're on a diet. Oh, I'm sure that because of my otherwise diet-friendly eating I wasn't in a situation of having too many calories, but the point is there were sufficient calories to bugger up the diet.
Plus, the person whose birthday it was brought in some cake and I had a slice. I mean, technically I could have avoided most of these things, but there are two problems - firstly, it would mean admitting I'm on a diet to my work colleagues, which I'm not fully comfortable with, but also as part of that it'd be a bit rude to say I didn't want any cake or not go to the lunch.
However, there's also a bit of a double whammy here. Last week I was talking about how I'd scared myself a little by not feeling hungry and that I was worried I was taking in too few calories. This sounds daft, but one of the weird things is it can be bad loosing weight too quickly - as I understand it, your heart can be put under quite a strain, for example.
Anyway, the point is that as a result of that I was actually eating slightly more. Not to the extent that I wasn't still on a diet, but enough to take me up to being safely above 1,300 calories. If I'd thought about it properly I'd have not done that, so as to try to compensate a bit for the big meals. But I didn't, so I think that all pretty much explains why I didn't loose any weight.
Certainly I didn't do enough exercise to make up for it either. I mean, I tried on Saturday to arrive early and have a nice long walk around London, but of course on Sunday I was so tired I didn't do any walking at all, so I'm betting those two have cancelled each other out. And of course I'm now in a period where I'm doing less exercise generally.
So yeah, bit of a mixed bag. Part of me is pleased it wasn't as bad as it could have been (I think putting on weight would be a bit of a blow), but the other part of me is a bit annoyed with myself that I didn't think things through and plan the week out properly.
When I weighed myself on Sunday, I found I had lost no weight.
Now, I could regard this as a bit of a disaster or I could console myself with the fact that I've not put on weight. I'm inclined to do a bit of both.
See, last week was a bit of a tough one. Firstly, it turned out that it was someone at work's birthday, so we went down the pub on Friday. That meant having a big old pub-lunch type meal. Then of course there was Saturday, where we had a three course meal at a restaurant.
Neither of these adequately fit into sensible meal sizes, calories wise, when you're on a diet. Oh, I'm sure that because of my otherwise diet-friendly eating I wasn't in a situation of having too many calories, but the point is there were sufficient calories to bugger up the diet.
Plus, the person whose birthday it was brought in some cake and I had a slice. I mean, technically I could have avoided most of these things, but there are two problems - firstly, it would mean admitting I'm on a diet to my work colleagues, which I'm not fully comfortable with, but also as part of that it'd be a bit rude to say I didn't want any cake or not go to the lunch.
However, there's also a bit of a double whammy here. Last week I was talking about how I'd scared myself a little by not feeling hungry and that I was worried I was taking in too few calories. This sounds daft, but one of the weird things is it can be bad loosing weight too quickly - as I understand it, your heart can be put under quite a strain, for example.
Anyway, the point is that as a result of that I was actually eating slightly more. Not to the extent that I wasn't still on a diet, but enough to take me up to being safely above 1,300 calories. If I'd thought about it properly I'd have not done that, so as to try to compensate a bit for the big meals. But I didn't, so I think that all pretty much explains why I didn't loose any weight.
Certainly I didn't do enough exercise to make up for it either. I mean, I tried on Saturday to arrive early and have a nice long walk around London, but of course on Sunday I was so tired I didn't do any walking at all, so I'm betting those two have cancelled each other out. And of course I'm now in a period where I'm doing less exercise generally.
So yeah, bit of a mixed bag. Part of me is pleased it wasn't as bad as it could have been (I think putting on weight would be a bit of a blow), but the other part of me is a bit annoyed with myself that I didn't think things through and plan the week out properly.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
the road
During my lazy, bed-based yesterday I watched my latest DVD rental, which was The Road.
The Road is based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, who was the guy who wrote No Country for Old Men. And to be frank, it has some quite similar elements, while at the same time being radically different.
One of the things that marked old men as being something a bit different was that it didn't really follow narrative conventions. Not wanting to spoil it, that basically means that the later part of the film doesn't really do what you'd expect it to do.
In a way, the road is a half-way house. There are some parts to it that aren't quite what you'd expect, but others do follow more traditional narrative paths.
Let me go back a bit. The road is at heart a post-apocalyptic road movie. However, what it focuses on is two characters - 'the man' and 'the boy' (they're never named - indeed, nobody is) almost to the exclusion of everything else. So, we never really find out what the apocalypse was, or what caused it and indeed we barely even glimpse what happens.
This of course is in stark contrast to most every other post-apocalyptic film, in that we would normally tend to focus on the spectacle of the disaster itself, rather than what happens afterwards. There is one very notable exception here - the Mad Max films.
The mad max films are pretty much post-disaster (from memory) and they also have strong elements of what you might call unusual narrative. And to be frank, the road does tread a fine line of being on the verge of being similar and simply exploring similar themes.
The biggest difference is that the mad max films are primarily action-oriented, where the road is more of a dark thriller.
I'm skirting around points here a bit, because it's really difficult to avoid spoilers. I don't want to really give away anything about the film, as I think it would rob it of its impact. And it is a film with some serious impact. The performances are remarkable, the presentation is very fitting and the whole thing hangs together very well.
If I was to make one criticism it would be that everything is a bit dark (I mean that in the sense that it's physically dark, rather than dark in tone, although it is quite dark in tone as well). This is obviously deliberate, but it can make things more than a bit difficult to see - I actually ended up turning the brightness up.
But then if that's the extent of my criticism I think you can tell I really quite liked it. Certainly I think I preferred it to no country.
The Road is based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, who was the guy who wrote No Country for Old Men. And to be frank, it has some quite similar elements, while at the same time being radically different.
One of the things that marked old men as being something a bit different was that it didn't really follow narrative conventions. Not wanting to spoil it, that basically means that the later part of the film doesn't really do what you'd expect it to do.
In a way, the road is a half-way house. There are some parts to it that aren't quite what you'd expect, but others do follow more traditional narrative paths.
Let me go back a bit. The road is at heart a post-apocalyptic road movie. However, what it focuses on is two characters - 'the man' and 'the boy' (they're never named - indeed, nobody is) almost to the exclusion of everything else. So, we never really find out what the apocalypse was, or what caused it and indeed we barely even glimpse what happens.
This of course is in stark contrast to most every other post-apocalyptic film, in that we would normally tend to focus on the spectacle of the disaster itself, rather than what happens afterwards. There is one very notable exception here - the Mad Max films.
The mad max films are pretty much post-disaster (from memory) and they also have strong elements of what you might call unusual narrative. And to be frank, the road does tread a fine line of being on the verge of being similar and simply exploring similar themes.
The biggest difference is that the mad max films are primarily action-oriented, where the road is more of a dark thriller.
I'm skirting around points here a bit, because it's really difficult to avoid spoilers. I don't want to really give away anything about the film, as I think it would rob it of its impact. And it is a film with some serious impact. The performances are remarkable, the presentation is very fitting and the whole thing hangs together very well.
If I was to make one criticism it would be that everything is a bit dark (I mean that in the sense that it's physically dark, rather than dark in tone, although it is quite dark in tone as well). This is obviously deliberate, but it can make things more than a bit difficult to see - I actually ended up turning the brightness up.
But then if that's the extent of my criticism I think you can tell I really quite liked it. Certainly I think I preferred it to no country.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
ouch
Yesterday's blog post talked about the main activities of Saturday night. Today's blog post is all about the other stuff.
The first thing to mention is that when I eventually got back on Saturday night (well, Sunday morning, I suppose, technically). The road leading down to where I live was blocked by a police car, one of those pick-up type trucks that Aussies call "yoots" (utility vehicle) and a low-loader.
I waited for a few minutes to see what they were up to, but it was abundantly clear that whatever it was was going to take a while. I therefore parked up on the side of the road and walked the last bit.
On the way down I asked one of the coppers what was going on and he said they'd basically chased the yoot for failing to stop and he was in the back of the police car while they confiscated the car.
What I did was go back home, change, tidy my stuff away, sort my bedroom out a bit and then by the time I'd done that they'd buggered off, so I was able to drive my car down and park it where I usually do. But what that all meant was I didn't get to bed until about 2:30am.
Now luckily it was clock change-over night, so I got some extra time in bed, but it meant that I woke up on Sunday absolutely shattered. I mean, it was bad enough that the time I was getting back anyway, to have that delayed by the best part of an hour didn't really help.
The upshot of this was that I basically spent all of Sunday in bed. Now I'd pretty much anticipated this and hadn't planned on doing much more anyway, but it does always end up feeling like a waste of time. However, saying that I did do a bit more e-baying and put up the auctions I'd planned to.
Also, of course I watched loads of stuff I'd recorded, so in a way that was productive.
Anyway, the real problem I had was that when I went to bed I was suddenly struck by the most ferocious stomach pain. This actually seemed to be a repeat of a bout of stomach pain I had a while back. On that occasion I'd clearly eaten too much and a glass of milk seemed to calm it down, suggesting it was basically heart burn. However, on this occasion I hadn't over-eaten during the day and milk didn't really seem to help.
Of course I had eaten a big meal on Saturday, so maybe it was that. And after a few hours I decided to try massaging my stomach and (huge) gut area. For some reason this seemed to help and rather suddenly the pain went away.
But by this time it must have been something like 3am, so I ended up getting very little sleep and was like a zombie all day.
The first thing to mention is that when I eventually got back on Saturday night (well, Sunday morning, I suppose, technically). The road leading down to where I live was blocked by a police car, one of those pick-up type trucks that Aussies call "yoots" (utility vehicle) and a low-loader.
I waited for a few minutes to see what they were up to, but it was abundantly clear that whatever it was was going to take a while. I therefore parked up on the side of the road and walked the last bit.
On the way down I asked one of the coppers what was going on and he said they'd basically chased the yoot for failing to stop and he was in the back of the police car while they confiscated the car.
What I did was go back home, change, tidy my stuff away, sort my bedroom out a bit and then by the time I'd done that they'd buggered off, so I was able to drive my car down and park it where I usually do. But what that all meant was I didn't get to bed until about 2:30am.
Now luckily it was clock change-over night, so I got some extra time in bed, but it meant that I woke up on Sunday absolutely shattered. I mean, it was bad enough that the time I was getting back anyway, to have that delayed by the best part of an hour didn't really help.
The upshot of this was that I basically spent all of Sunday in bed. Now I'd pretty much anticipated this and hadn't planned on doing much more anyway, but it does always end up feeling like a waste of time. However, saying that I did do a bit more e-baying and put up the auctions I'd planned to.
Also, of course I watched loads of stuff I'd recorded, so in a way that was productive.
Anyway, the real problem I had was that when I went to bed I was suddenly struck by the most ferocious stomach pain. This actually seemed to be a repeat of a bout of stomach pain I had a while back. On that occasion I'd clearly eaten too much and a glass of milk seemed to calm it down, suggesting it was basically heart burn. However, on this occasion I hadn't over-eaten during the day and milk didn't really seem to help.
Of course I had eaten a big meal on Saturday, so maybe it was that. And after a few hours I decided to try massaging my stomach and (huge) gut area. For some reason this seemed to help and rather suddenly the pain went away.
But by this time it must have been something like 3am, so I ended up getting very little sleep and was like a zombie all day.
Monday, 1 November 2010
dinner and a show
So then - war horse on Saturday night. How was it?
Well, truth be told it was okay. If I'm brutally honest I was keener on the (and I'm not sure this is the exact word for it) stagecraft than I was the actual play.
See, the title of the play pretty much tells you what one of the big features of the story is - horses. But, being a play, you couldn't very well rely on having actual horses in the show, not least of all because the horses in the story need to play proper 'parts', rather than just be there.
This was achieved by having puppet horses, which were actually control by three separate performers. If you imagine a classic pantomime horse, with a buy at the front and one in the rear of the costume, and then add someone else to control the head and take the whole thing through the technological equivalent of going from the stone age to the IT age, then that's roughly the idea.
But there's also all sorts of other clever staging things, like a tank and a scene stealing goose. And what I found most remarkable was the fact that even though you could see the people operating these things, it still very much 'worked'. I mean, I wouldn't say it ever got to the stage that you forgot the people were there, but there was enough cleverness and the performance side of things was so strong you were able to suspend just enough disbelief for it to really work.
And the play itself was okay. I'd been told it was a bit sad and weepy and I can kinda see where people were coming from, but I didn't find it that bad. Perhaps it's one of those where if you're expecting it to be really sad then that sort of undermines it, as it were.
As for the rest of the evening that went okay. The idea was we were having dinner before the shows and unfortunately some people were rather late - to the tune of us starting nearly an hour late. That ended up meaning that we basically had the main course and desert in a really compressed fashion, which wasn't ideal. I mean, it was good that they were willing to be quick for us, but it didn't really enhance the dining experience.
But the food was okay and luckily I ended up with the people who I know. as mentioned last week, there were partners and a few people I don't know that well coming along, so there was the distinct possibility of ending up sat amongst people I couldn't talk to.
Well, truth be told it was okay. If I'm brutally honest I was keener on the (and I'm not sure this is the exact word for it) stagecraft than I was the actual play.
See, the title of the play pretty much tells you what one of the big features of the story is - horses. But, being a play, you couldn't very well rely on having actual horses in the show, not least of all because the horses in the story need to play proper 'parts', rather than just be there.
This was achieved by having puppet horses, which were actually control by three separate performers. If you imagine a classic pantomime horse, with a buy at the front and one in the rear of the costume, and then add someone else to control the head and take the whole thing through the technological equivalent of going from the stone age to the IT age, then that's roughly the idea.
But there's also all sorts of other clever staging things, like a tank and a scene stealing goose. And what I found most remarkable was the fact that even though you could see the people operating these things, it still very much 'worked'. I mean, I wouldn't say it ever got to the stage that you forgot the people were there, but there was enough cleverness and the performance side of things was so strong you were able to suspend just enough disbelief for it to really work.
And the play itself was okay. I'd been told it was a bit sad and weepy and I can kinda see where people were coming from, but I didn't find it that bad. Perhaps it's one of those where if you're expecting it to be really sad then that sort of undermines it, as it were.
As for the rest of the evening that went okay. The idea was we were having dinner before the shows and unfortunately some people were rather late - to the tune of us starting nearly an hour late. That ended up meaning that we basically had the main course and desert in a really compressed fashion, which wasn't ideal. I mean, it was good that they were willing to be quick for us, but it didn't really enhance the dining experience.
But the food was okay and luckily I ended up with the people who I know. as mentioned last week, there were partners and a few people I don't know that well coming along, so there was the distinct possibility of ending up sat amongst people I couldn't talk to.
Friday, 29 October 2010
war horse
This weekend I'm doing something a bit different.
Basically, the company I work for is marking its 20th anniversary this year, so the boss is kindly treating us all to a special treat. Ideas for this treat ere floated early in the year and there were a lot of suggestions from the sublime to the ridiculous. We all then got a vote on what we'd want to do and the winner was.. (drum roll)... a trip to the theatre!
Well, actually, dinner and then a trip to see "a show" up in that there London, but the show in question is a theatrical show, rather than a musical or something like that. In fact, the show is called "War Horse" and is literally about exactly that - a Horse in the first world war.
To be brutally frank the theatre is not my bag. I have enough trouble sitting in the cinema for extended periods of time (my arse goes numb and the combination of my weight and height tends to make the seating generally uncomfortable) so the idea of a three hour trip to the theatre is not necessarily up there at the top of my list. However, I'm guessing it's three hours because there'll be an intermission, so maybe I'll get a chance to have a stretch.
Also, if I'm totally honest the idea of spending quite so long with the people I work with at the weekend also isn't to far up my list. Especially since it was declared to basically be a "bring your partner" type event and I don't got one of those. Plus we've apparently had some drop-outs and some other people have been invited and I don't know them.
Is it normal that I do this, I wonder?
By 'this' I mean pre-list all of the potential negatives and reasons I might not like it. I sometimes wonder if normal people don't look forward to this sort of thing more. I mean, I don't know if it's a reflection of, as I say, the specific point that I don't really want to go to the theatre (if it was something I was keen on I'd have been more than twice before in my life, surely?) or if it's a more general pre-emption of a lack of enjoyment?
Basically, when I went to see my dad the other week he was talking to me about this new treatment he's on. Basically, my dad suffers from depression and he's been on this trial course where they basically try to altar his perceptions.
You see, one of the things with my dad is that he always focuses on the negative. It's actually one of the reasons I don't really enjoy being around him, because anything that comes up he will look at from a pessimistic, cynical or negative point of view. News is one of the worst things - I'll always attempt to change the channel is news comes on the TV, because rather than just watch it, it'll spark some rant or the voicing of some pessimistic viewpoint.
The point being for him, that because everything is always bad it has a reinforcing effect on his negative viewpoint.
And I'm wondering if maybe I do the same thing? I don't think so - my view on things isn't always negative like my dad.
Wow - that became weirdly analytical!
I guess I'll find out if this War Horse thing is any good on Saturday! Who knows, maybe I'll become a West End regular.
Basically, the company I work for is marking its 20th anniversary this year, so the boss is kindly treating us all to a special treat. Ideas for this treat ere floated early in the year and there were a lot of suggestions from the sublime to the ridiculous. We all then got a vote on what we'd want to do and the winner was.. (drum roll)... a trip to the theatre!
Well, actually, dinner and then a trip to see "a show" up in that there London, but the show in question is a theatrical show, rather than a musical or something like that. In fact, the show is called "War Horse" and is literally about exactly that - a Horse in the first world war.
To be brutally frank the theatre is not my bag. I have enough trouble sitting in the cinema for extended periods of time (my arse goes numb and the combination of my weight and height tends to make the seating generally uncomfortable) so the idea of a three hour trip to the theatre is not necessarily up there at the top of my list. However, I'm guessing it's three hours because there'll be an intermission, so maybe I'll get a chance to have a stretch.
Also, if I'm totally honest the idea of spending quite so long with the people I work with at the weekend also isn't to far up my list. Especially since it was declared to basically be a "bring your partner" type event and I don't got one of those. Plus we've apparently had some drop-outs and some other people have been invited and I don't know them.
Is it normal that I do this, I wonder?
By 'this' I mean pre-list all of the potential negatives and reasons I might not like it. I sometimes wonder if normal people don't look forward to this sort of thing more. I mean, I don't know if it's a reflection of, as I say, the specific point that I don't really want to go to the theatre (if it was something I was keen on I'd have been more than twice before in my life, surely?) or if it's a more general pre-emption of a lack of enjoyment?
Basically, when I went to see my dad the other week he was talking to me about this new treatment he's on. Basically, my dad suffers from depression and he's been on this trial course where they basically try to altar his perceptions.
You see, one of the things with my dad is that he always focuses on the negative. It's actually one of the reasons I don't really enjoy being around him, because anything that comes up he will look at from a pessimistic, cynical or negative point of view. News is one of the worst things - I'll always attempt to change the channel is news comes on the TV, because rather than just watch it, it'll spark some rant or the voicing of some pessimistic viewpoint.
The point being for him, that because everything is always bad it has a reinforcing effect on his negative viewpoint.
And I'm wondering if maybe I do the same thing? I don't think so - my view on things isn't always negative like my dad.
Wow - that became weirdly analytical!
I guess I'll find out if this War Horse thing is any good on Saturday! Who knows, maybe I'll become a West End regular.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
2 stone
This week's weigh in revealed I'd lost another 3 pounds.
I was pretty pleased with this as it was a fairly normal week. Or at least, I think it broadly represents what's going to be the norm across the winter.
The new plan is that I pretty much stick to the diet, but the exercise has reduced due to the combined factors of the freezing weather and the dark mornings and evenings. I'm still doing exercise, as mentioned last week, but it's less than it was.
My hope is that the loss of some of the exercise is not a big factor, as the diet is still very much in action. Also, I've done really quite well with my initial target, as I'm now pretty sure I've lost over 2 stone.
Since I didn't start weighing myself until I'd got my new scales and my first weigh in was somewhat dodgy, I'm pretty sure it's more than that, but I'm sticking with 2 stone as I don't think it makes sense to over-count these things.
There's a heck of a long way to go yet, but the main thing is I'm on target. I'm not bullish enough to actually reveal my starting weight, but I will say I'm on course to get my weight below the BMI level that represents morbid obesity by Chrimbo, which is my starting goal. I've also done pretty well in terms of loosing it at a fairly steady rate. It can actually be dangerous and damaging loosing weight too quickly, so I've been wanting to avoid that being an issue too.
And speaking of which, I was looking at what the minimum calorie intakes were, because I actually had a bit of an odd experience last Thursday. Basically, it came evening time and I found I wasn't at all hungry. I almost had to force myself to eat an apple and didn't then have my other bits I normally have in the evening as well.
This slightly worried me as it's not like I'd pigged out during the day, and my research suggests I did go under the minimum recommended intake, which is about 1,300 calories for a man. I therefore decided I would ensure I eat those bits in the evening, even if I don't feel specifically hungry, as such. Plus of course, I need to keep up things like vitamin and fibre intakes.
I guess what this really represents is the fact that my stomach has now shrunk. What happens when you consistently eat too much is that your stomach naturally grows in size. When you think about it this means that you get hungrier quicker and it takes more to fill you up.
But it's a reversible process - by consistently eating less your stomach shrinks down and gets used to those smaller volumes. And that's what's happened in my case.
This is actually what they effectively do when they do those gastric band or gastric bypass type surgeries. They're surgically short-cutting (pun intended) the size reduction process, which therefore means those people avoid the whole feeling ravenously hungry phase that is a big part of why weight loss fails.
I was pretty pleased with this as it was a fairly normal week. Or at least, I think it broadly represents what's going to be the norm across the winter.
The new plan is that I pretty much stick to the diet, but the exercise has reduced due to the combined factors of the freezing weather and the dark mornings and evenings. I'm still doing exercise, as mentioned last week, but it's less than it was.
My hope is that the loss of some of the exercise is not a big factor, as the diet is still very much in action. Also, I've done really quite well with my initial target, as I'm now pretty sure I've lost over 2 stone.
Since I didn't start weighing myself until I'd got my new scales and my first weigh in was somewhat dodgy, I'm pretty sure it's more than that, but I'm sticking with 2 stone as I don't think it makes sense to over-count these things.
There's a heck of a long way to go yet, but the main thing is I'm on target. I'm not bullish enough to actually reveal my starting weight, but I will say I'm on course to get my weight below the BMI level that represents morbid obesity by Chrimbo, which is my starting goal. I've also done pretty well in terms of loosing it at a fairly steady rate. It can actually be dangerous and damaging loosing weight too quickly, so I've been wanting to avoid that being an issue too.
And speaking of which, I was looking at what the minimum calorie intakes were, because I actually had a bit of an odd experience last Thursday. Basically, it came evening time and I found I wasn't at all hungry. I almost had to force myself to eat an apple and didn't then have my other bits I normally have in the evening as well.
This slightly worried me as it's not like I'd pigged out during the day, and my research suggests I did go under the minimum recommended intake, which is about 1,300 calories for a man. I therefore decided I would ensure I eat those bits in the evening, even if I don't feel specifically hungry, as such. Plus of course, I need to keep up things like vitamin and fibre intakes.
I guess what this really represents is the fact that my stomach has now shrunk. What happens when you consistently eat too much is that your stomach naturally grows in size. When you think about it this means that you get hungrier quicker and it takes more to fill you up.
But it's a reversible process - by consistently eating less your stomach shrinks down and gets used to those smaller volumes. And that's what's happened in my case.
This is actually what they effectively do when they do those gastric band or gastric bypass type surgeries. They're surgically short-cutting (pun intended) the size reduction process, which therefore means those people avoid the whole feeling ravenously hungry phase that is a big part of why weight loss fails.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
the men who stare at goats
Jon Ronson is a particular type of journalist, but for the life of me I can't think of what they're called.
I don't mean that in any nasty sense, it's more that I don't know if there's a word to some it up. 'Gonzo' is about the closest term I can think of.
Basically, in Gonzo journalism, the journalist is generally a part of the actual story themselves. So the story tends to be a very subjective one and the idea is that it's effectively told through that person's experiences, but also, crucially, through what they personally thought about what was going on.
But the point is that doesn't quite sum it up with Ronson, because there's an open-mindedness that isn't really synonymous with Gonzo. Michael Moore's stuff is more in line with the aim of Gonzo (although really, he does polemics). I dunno - it's like a humanist version of Gonzo. A sort of "I actually think you're right/wrong, but I'm genuinely going to let you have your say" approach to the subjects being interviewed.
I mention this because the men who stare at goats is technically a fictional film, but it's based on a non-fiction book with the same name by Jon Ronson. And it's really rather good, except for the end.
In case you don't know, the specific men who did the goat staring where part of the US military's attempt to explore the potential that new age type thinking offered. In other words, it involved attempts at things like remote viewing and invisibility.
Now the point that was emphasised in the film was that this was clearly daft, although the nature of the daftness doesn't really come from the actual psychic powers themselves. The comedy is derived more from the idea that these people seemed to genuinely believe that they could develop these sorts of powers.
I've not actually read the book, but one of the commentaries is by Ronson and he suggests that this wasn't really true. The man who's idea it was had a more pragmatic approach - that by trying to reach these goals, they might be able to develop something that was actually doable.
Also, while the idea of developing psychic soldiers might seem daft from a purely rational point of view, you have to bear in mind that this is going on at the height of the cold war and also in the shadow of Vietnam. Given the mode of thinking that gives rise to policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction, you can kind of see how it becomes a kind of self-reinforcing possibility.
I mean, what if it was possible and they hadn't tried, but the Russians had?
Anyway, the point is that the film is very good - it's very funny and yet at the same time makes some interesting points. I wasn't a particular fan of the end, because for me, it represented a bit of a step too far (I won't spoiler it), but you can see where it's coming from. But apart from that, it's very worth your time watching it.
I don't mean that in any nasty sense, it's more that I don't know if there's a word to some it up. 'Gonzo' is about the closest term I can think of.
Basically, in Gonzo journalism, the journalist is generally a part of the actual story themselves. So the story tends to be a very subjective one and the idea is that it's effectively told through that person's experiences, but also, crucially, through what they personally thought about what was going on.
But the point is that doesn't quite sum it up with Ronson, because there's an open-mindedness that isn't really synonymous with Gonzo. Michael Moore's stuff is more in line with the aim of Gonzo (although really, he does polemics). I dunno - it's like a humanist version of Gonzo. A sort of "I actually think you're right/wrong, but I'm genuinely going to let you have your say" approach to the subjects being interviewed.
I mention this because the men who stare at goats is technically a fictional film, but it's based on a non-fiction book with the same name by Jon Ronson. And it's really rather good, except for the end.
In case you don't know, the specific men who did the goat staring where part of the US military's attempt to explore the potential that new age type thinking offered. In other words, it involved attempts at things like remote viewing and invisibility.
Now the point that was emphasised in the film was that this was clearly daft, although the nature of the daftness doesn't really come from the actual psychic powers themselves. The comedy is derived more from the idea that these people seemed to genuinely believe that they could develop these sorts of powers.
I've not actually read the book, but one of the commentaries is by Ronson and he suggests that this wasn't really true. The man who's idea it was had a more pragmatic approach - that by trying to reach these goals, they might be able to develop something that was actually doable.
Also, while the idea of developing psychic soldiers might seem daft from a purely rational point of view, you have to bear in mind that this is going on at the height of the cold war and also in the shadow of Vietnam. Given the mode of thinking that gives rise to policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction, you can kind of see how it becomes a kind of self-reinforcing possibility.
I mean, what if it was possible and they hadn't tried, but the Russians had?
Anyway, the point is that the film is very good - it's very funny and yet at the same time makes some interesting points. I wasn't a particular fan of the end, because for me, it represented a bit of a step too far (I won't spoiler it), but you can see where it's coming from. But apart from that, it's very worth your time watching it.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
my achy, breaky legs
I hadn't really intended to bibble on about the grand prix for so long yesterday, but I wrote the blog out and then realised it was quite long, so I thought I'd save the rest until today.
When I write these blogs I do so in Word, before cutting and pasting them into the new post ting on the blog. I do this partly as it allows me to pre-write and edit them (and yet still all those typos get through!), but also because it's easier to judge the length. I like to try to make them about a single A4 page long or just under. I figure much longer than that and they'll take too long to read through.
Anyway, the other thing I wanted to mention was how my shed sorting plan had gone.
It went pretty well.
Well, that was easy.
I kid. The essential plan of action was for me to take all of the boxes out of the shed on Saturday morning. I was then going to spend the rest of Saturday going through them, with the idea that I could finish off sorting them out on Sunday morning and then put them all back in the shed Sunday afternoon.
It didn't entirely work like that, because there were so many boxes I found it difficult to really sort them out in a practical sense. I therefore brought them all into my bed-sit Saturday morning and started sorting, but discovered I needed more room and put half of them out in the corridor that connects me and my landlord (which was the type of reason this seemed a good time to do it, while he's on holiday).
Having done that, I sorted the half of the boxes I had left and then took these back out to the shed (although in a ramshackle way - I left the stacking order until I'd sorted the other boxes) on the Saturday. I then moved the corridor boxes into my bed-sit and sorted those. y that time it was late and I was tired, so I went to bed.
When I got up on Sunday I discovered that Saturday had really been too much and I was really tired and I also had a lot of aching muscles. So, after a slow start, I moved the rest of the boxes back out to the shed and stacked them all up in what I consider to be a reasonable efficient order.
What I've tired to do is compensate for the problems I discovered when I put them out the first time.
Problem 1 was the order the boxes were in. They were pretty random and I'd put a lot of stuff on e-bay, but not in a sensible way - some boxes had e-bay stuff and non-eBay stuff and where buried under other boxes. Problem 2 was that I hadn't kept a record of what was where. And problem 3 was that e-bay stuff had to go in the shed, which was a pain in the arse.
This time I've therefore kept a load of e-bay stuff in the kitchen. I've also numbered the boxes and kept a note of what's in each box. I've also stacked the boxes in what I believe to be a sensible order.
I also have the advantage that I've gotten rid of a lot of stuff, so quite of the boxes are actually half empty, which gives me more room to put other stuff in and also makes them lighter and therefore easier to shift around.
Anyway, the real upshot was that Sunday afternoon I was really tired and so didn't have the energy to do a great deal of e-baying. I put a few on and took photos and weighed things, but I ran out of steam, so there's quite a lot left to do. In a way, that's better as the last time when I had nearly a hundred things on at once was an absolute nightmare, although it did mean I didn't take full advantage of the free listing day.
When I write these blogs I do so in Word, before cutting and pasting them into the new post ting on the blog. I do this partly as it allows me to pre-write and edit them (and yet still all those typos get through!), but also because it's easier to judge the length. I like to try to make them about a single A4 page long or just under. I figure much longer than that and they'll take too long to read through.
Anyway, the other thing I wanted to mention was how my shed sorting plan had gone.
It went pretty well.
Well, that was easy.
I kid. The essential plan of action was for me to take all of the boxes out of the shed on Saturday morning. I was then going to spend the rest of Saturday going through them, with the idea that I could finish off sorting them out on Sunday morning and then put them all back in the shed Sunday afternoon.
It didn't entirely work like that, because there were so many boxes I found it difficult to really sort them out in a practical sense. I therefore brought them all into my bed-sit Saturday morning and started sorting, but discovered I needed more room and put half of them out in the corridor that connects me and my landlord (which was the type of reason this seemed a good time to do it, while he's on holiday).
Having done that, I sorted the half of the boxes I had left and then took these back out to the shed (although in a ramshackle way - I left the stacking order until I'd sorted the other boxes) on the Saturday. I then moved the corridor boxes into my bed-sit and sorted those. y that time it was late and I was tired, so I went to bed.
When I got up on Sunday I discovered that Saturday had really been too much and I was really tired and I also had a lot of aching muscles. So, after a slow start, I moved the rest of the boxes back out to the shed and stacked them all up in what I consider to be a reasonable efficient order.
What I've tired to do is compensate for the problems I discovered when I put them out the first time.
Problem 1 was the order the boxes were in. They were pretty random and I'd put a lot of stuff on e-bay, but not in a sensible way - some boxes had e-bay stuff and non-eBay stuff and where buried under other boxes. Problem 2 was that I hadn't kept a record of what was where. And problem 3 was that e-bay stuff had to go in the shed, which was a pain in the arse.
This time I've therefore kept a load of e-bay stuff in the kitchen. I've also numbered the boxes and kept a note of what's in each box. I've also stacked the boxes in what I believe to be a sensible order.
I also have the advantage that I've gotten rid of a lot of stuff, so quite of the boxes are actually half empty, which gives me more room to put other stuff in and also makes them lighter and therefore easier to shift around.
Anyway, the real upshot was that Sunday afternoon I was really tired and so didn't have the energy to do a great deal of e-baying. I put a few on and took photos and weighed things, but I ran out of steam, so there's quite a lot left to do. In a way, that's better as the last time when I had nearly a hundred things on at once was an absolute nightmare, although it did mean I didn't take full advantage of the free listing day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)