Well I acquired more boxes, which pretty much sets what I'm going to be doing this weekend. I'm kinda just hoping that I've finally got enough now - it'll be tedious if I get half way through and realise I need yet more!
Apart from that I've got a weird list of stuff I need to do. My Dad gets back from Canada this weekend and he's buying my old monitor off me. That means that at some point I'll have to drop what I'm doing and take the monitor to him. Because he's flying from Heathrow, it means he won't be that far away, so he's decided to go the long way round and we can meet up and I can give him the monitor.
I've given him some basic instructions and they should put him on roads he knows from when we used to go to Devon on holiday, but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets lost. My basic idea was to take him slightly off route and meet up with him at the large Sainsbury's that's down the road from me. Trouble is Dad's never the best with directions and it can be a bit confusing round there with all the roundabouts.
But adding on to that is the fact that he's not computer literate, so I'll need to sit down and write him some instructions as to how to connect up the monitor and, more importantly, set up his desktop so it does the new resolution. That should be interesting.
Most of the rest of the weekend will be spent being domestic, I think. With all this time spent sorting out I've not done any cleaning or ironing in ages. Well, I'm assuming there that I get the sorting down fairly quickly - if it drags I won't have any room to set the iron up, which means I could be wearing a lot of scruffy shirts at work next week!
Hopefully I'll be able to do the ironing while the MotoGP is on this Sunday. It's the British MotoGP, I think, which means it'll be my first proper look at the new Silverstone circuit.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Thursday, 17 June 2010
civ5
I learned recently that Civilization 5 is in production.
I have mixed feeling about this. I mean, I love the civ series and have devoted untold hours to playing it, so it's always good that there's a new entry in the franchise.
However, my fear comes because I wasn't that big a fan of Civ4. I mean, it was okay, but it kinda did away with the things that I love to do in Civ. See, I like to make gigantic, sprawling empires where every city has every improvement and they're all as big and productive as they can be.
In Civ4, these aspects were kinda done away with - the emphasis of the game was on much smaller worlds (I think the huge map in Civ4 was broadly equivalent to the normal one in Civ3) and you were supposed to specialise your cities to either focus on Science or religion or whatever.
This is fine, but didn't really appeal to me too much. The problem comes in that Civ4 was generally hailed as the best Civ ever and had universally glowing reviews. This suggests (and what I've seen and read supports this) that Civ5 will continue and develop those aspects of the game even more.
There are some other radical changes. The most notable is that the map square have been replaced by hexagons. I think this is probably a good idea, on balance. However, what they've also done is made it so that each square can only have 1 unit in it. Also, cities can no longer be garrisoned by units. This seems like a bit of a mixed bag.
Stacks of Doom were always a bit of a bugbear in the game - you could literally put hundreds of units on the same square and it was a true moment of dread to see the AI advancing two to three hundred tanks towards you.
However, it does mean that things could get logistically very confusing. I mean, if you've got a big army, it'll be easy to get really confused if you're trying to re-adjust your forces to attack or defend on a different flank. Also, how do things like air power work? Surely Jets and Bombers will have to live in cities or on aircraft carriers? And where will you store ICBMs?
Plus it's hardly realistic is it? If a signal tile is big enough to represent a city like London, then surely you can fit dozens of units that sort of space? And what about choke points? Choke points on continents were often crucial to effective defence on many a map I've played.
I dunno - it could be good or it could be horrible.
One good thing they seem to be doing is improving the diplomacy. Diplomacy was always vital to games, but it's often been a bit predictable or limited. It sounds like they're making it so the AI is cleverer - hopefully this also relates to the actual game play and tactics as well.
But the upshot is it looks like my autumn could basically disappear :).
I have mixed feeling about this. I mean, I love the civ series and have devoted untold hours to playing it, so it's always good that there's a new entry in the franchise.
However, my fear comes because I wasn't that big a fan of Civ4. I mean, it was okay, but it kinda did away with the things that I love to do in Civ. See, I like to make gigantic, sprawling empires where every city has every improvement and they're all as big and productive as they can be.
In Civ4, these aspects were kinda done away with - the emphasis of the game was on much smaller worlds (I think the huge map in Civ4 was broadly equivalent to the normal one in Civ3) and you were supposed to specialise your cities to either focus on Science or religion or whatever.
This is fine, but didn't really appeal to me too much. The problem comes in that Civ4 was generally hailed as the best Civ ever and had universally glowing reviews. This suggests (and what I've seen and read supports this) that Civ5 will continue and develop those aspects of the game even more.
There are some other radical changes. The most notable is that the map square have been replaced by hexagons. I think this is probably a good idea, on balance. However, what they've also done is made it so that each square can only have 1 unit in it. Also, cities can no longer be garrisoned by units. This seems like a bit of a mixed bag.
Stacks of Doom were always a bit of a bugbear in the game - you could literally put hundreds of units on the same square and it was a true moment of dread to see the AI advancing two to three hundred tanks towards you.
However, it does mean that things could get logistically very confusing. I mean, if you've got a big army, it'll be easy to get really confused if you're trying to re-adjust your forces to attack or defend on a different flank. Also, how do things like air power work? Surely Jets and Bombers will have to live in cities or on aircraft carriers? And where will you store ICBMs?
Plus it's hardly realistic is it? If a signal tile is big enough to represent a city like London, then surely you can fit dozens of units that sort of space? And what about choke points? Choke points on continents were often crucial to effective defence on many a map I've played.
I dunno - it could be good or it could be horrible.
One good thing they seem to be doing is improving the diplomacy. Diplomacy was always vital to games, but it's often been a bit predictable or limited. It sounds like they're making it so the AI is cleverer - hopefully this also relates to the actual game play and tactics as well.
But the upshot is it looks like my autumn could basically disappear :).
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
adaptation
I have something of a blind-spot for the word adaptation. To me, the word should be "adaption".
I don't know why I think this - the proper word makes sense and everything, it's just, I dunno, it seems like it's got too many syllables.
(According to a google search I've just done, adaption is a word and is also another word for adaptation - this is weird, because I've never seen it used and the spell checker corrects it to adaptation.)
Anyway, the film is written by Charlie Kaufman, who is, simply put, one of the best screen-writers ever. Kaufman was responsible for Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which are two of my favourite films.
This is a really hard review to write, because the film is really complex. Or at least, it's complex when you really start to look at it - on the surface it's relatively straight-forward.
The straight-forward version is the story of Charlie Kaufman trying to adapt a book called the Orchid Thief. This is a real-life, non-fiction book, written by a real person about a guy called John Laroche who wanted to clone a very rare orchid that grows in the Florida swamps.
However, the film is a blend of this non-fiction narrative with a fictional one. Which is where it gets complicated. Basically, the film is about the process of adaptation that Charlie Kaufman goes through in adapting what he comes to realise is an un-adaptable book.
The book it seems is a real life account and doesn't have a proper narrative thread. And yet the nature of mainstream movie making is that it's all about narrative. There's a brilliant part close to the beginning where Kaufman is basically in a lunch meeting, telling the person he's doing the adaptation about all the things he doesn't want to put in the movie because he wants it to be about "real life" and real life isn't like that.
And yet as the problem of adapting the un-adaptable rears its head, Kaufman transitions into that very story he didn't want to write. But the way this is done is so clever you don't really realise what's going on.
What makes it even more interesting is that it's not clear if Kaufman is being really disparaging about such writing or whether in a way he's admitting that in the end he's unable to transcend it. Effectively, he's asking the question, rather than giving the answer.
So we have a very weird mix of a film - real events are mixed with fictional ones and the plot twists around, looping back on itself in a complex way.
I don't know why I think this - the proper word makes sense and everything, it's just, I dunno, it seems like it's got too many syllables.
(According to a google search I've just done, adaption is a word and is also another word for adaptation - this is weird, because I've never seen it used and the spell checker corrects it to adaptation.)
Anyway, the film is written by Charlie Kaufman, who is, simply put, one of the best screen-writers ever. Kaufman was responsible for Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which are two of my favourite films.
This is a really hard review to write, because the film is really complex. Or at least, it's complex when you really start to look at it - on the surface it's relatively straight-forward.
The straight-forward version is the story of Charlie Kaufman trying to adapt a book called the Orchid Thief. This is a real-life, non-fiction book, written by a real person about a guy called John Laroche who wanted to clone a very rare orchid that grows in the Florida swamps.
However, the film is a blend of this non-fiction narrative with a fictional one. Which is where it gets complicated. Basically, the film is about the process of adaptation that Charlie Kaufman goes through in adapting what he comes to realise is an un-adaptable book.
The book it seems is a real life account and doesn't have a proper narrative thread. And yet the nature of mainstream movie making is that it's all about narrative. There's a brilliant part close to the beginning where Kaufman is basically in a lunch meeting, telling the person he's doing the adaptation about all the things he doesn't want to put in the movie because he wants it to be about "real life" and real life isn't like that.
And yet as the problem of adapting the un-adaptable rears its head, Kaufman transitions into that very story he didn't want to write. But the way this is done is so clever you don't really realise what's going on.
What makes it even more interesting is that it's not clear if Kaufman is being really disparaging about such writing or whether in a way he's admitting that in the end he's unable to transcend it. Effectively, he's asking the question, rather than giving the answer.
So we have a very weird mix of a film - real events are mixed with fictional ones and the plot twists around, looping back on itself in a complex way.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
canadian gp
It was the Canadian Grand Prix last weekend, and it was an absolute belter.
The Canadian Grand Prix often produces some classic races and it was a real shame it was off the calendar last year.
To be fair, part of the reason it does produce classic races is one of those artificial things, a bit like when it rains. Rain always produces an interesting race, because tyre strategies go haywire and of course the drivers struggle with grip.
Well, the circuit for the Canadian GP is a bit of a weird one - it's built on a man-made island that was created with the spoil from when they built the Montreal subway. That means that, while it is designed as a proper circuit, it's also a public park and people can drive on it.
This means that few other races are held on the circuit, but it also means the tarmac is not like normal racing tarmac. The stuff they use on racetracks is a lot stickier and softer than they use on normal roads. In that way, it's a lot like a street circuit, like Monaco.
It's also like a street circuit because there aren't really any run-off areas - there's barriers and walls right next to the circuit. But, unlike a normal street circuit, the track is quite wide like a proper circuit and has proper bends and chicanes in. It's a kind of hybrid between a street circuit and a proper race track.
And those factors contribute to it being an interesting race - the tarmac means the tyre strategies can go bonkers, like we saw this last weekend and the circuit itself lends itself to exciting racing, providing a real challenge to the drivers and also good opportunities for overtaking.
And my Dad was there. He's gone on a combined race weekend holiday to Canada, which lasts for about 10 days. The first bit is at Montreal for the race and this second week is in Quebec, I think - he told me, but I have an awful memory.
I'd have loved to have gone too, but it would have cost a fortune and I'm still reeling from the expense of Monaco last year :/.
The Canadian Grand Prix often produces some classic races and it was a real shame it was off the calendar last year.
To be fair, part of the reason it does produce classic races is one of those artificial things, a bit like when it rains. Rain always produces an interesting race, because tyre strategies go haywire and of course the drivers struggle with grip.
Well, the circuit for the Canadian GP is a bit of a weird one - it's built on a man-made island that was created with the spoil from when they built the Montreal subway. That means that, while it is designed as a proper circuit, it's also a public park and people can drive on it.
This means that few other races are held on the circuit, but it also means the tarmac is not like normal racing tarmac. The stuff they use on racetracks is a lot stickier and softer than they use on normal roads. In that way, it's a lot like a street circuit, like Monaco.
It's also like a street circuit because there aren't really any run-off areas - there's barriers and walls right next to the circuit. But, unlike a normal street circuit, the track is quite wide like a proper circuit and has proper bends and chicanes in. It's a kind of hybrid between a street circuit and a proper race track.
And those factors contribute to it being an interesting race - the tarmac means the tyre strategies can go bonkers, like we saw this last weekend and the circuit itself lends itself to exciting racing, providing a real challenge to the drivers and also good opportunities for overtaking.
And my Dad was there. He's gone on a combined race weekend holiday to Canada, which lasts for about 10 days. The first bit is at Montreal for the race and this second week is in Quebec, I think - he told me, but I have an awful memory.
I'd have loved to have gone too, but it would have cost a fortune and I'm still reeling from the expense of Monaco last year :/.
Monday, 14 June 2010
aches and pains
Well, back to work and, quite frankly, I could do with the rest! I woke up on Sunday and I think just about every muscle I've got ached, and I'm still not fully fixed today.
The reason for the aches and pains are twofold - first off I did a huge amount of sorting out, but then I also decided to give my car a thoroughly good clean.
My initial plan for the weekend was just to do the sorting out, but I it was a little unrealistic to genuinely think I could do it all. I mean, to be frank, it's one of those jobs that never ends, but also I'd forgotten that my landlord was going on holiday, so there was no way to get anything into the attic.
As well as this I discovered I still didn't have enough plastic stacking crates - I must own more than 20 of them now, but I still need more! See the problem was I tackled the stuff under my bed and I had forgotten just how much was under there. In the end I ended up filling 7 of the smaller crates and putting them under the bed. They work quite well, but in order to support the bed beams (don't ask) stuff has to be sticking out of the top. This means that I need spare crates for if and when I take them out.
This is also the issue for quite a few things - I kinda realised it was one thing to transfer all the stuff I've had in big cardboard to stacking crates, but what about all the stuff I use day-to-day? That needs to have boxes ready and waiting to.
Does that sound odd? I guess it comes back to the point that my landlord want to decorate the flat, which means that everything needs to be able to go in the attic, even if I'm using it in the meantime. I need that extra capacity so I can just chuck it in the boxes and then stick it away in the attic while he decorates.
Also, I'm having a bit of a problem in that the boxes, although great for lifting stuff and convenient, aren't as space efficient as cardboard boxes. You can fill and stack a cardboard box so that it's 100% full and takes up no unnecessary space, but a plastic stacking box 'wastes' space because of how they go together. It's not a big deal, but it does mean I keep underestimating how many I need, hence the need for more.
But the key thing is I am on the very cusp of having boxes for everything. I can do the other type of sorting out (deciding what to keep, throw away or sell) in slower time.
The car cleaning was partly a way of doing something productive in my box-deficient state and partly because my car really needed it.
It was a full-on clean:
The first and last were pretty much without surprises, but cleaning the car body turned out to be rather more painful than I'd expected.
The problem was tar spots.
Basically, I think what's causing them is all the road patching they've done to fill potholes. I'm guessing loose bits come off as you drive over it and your tyres tend to fling it back. All of the tar-spots were in a similar area just behind each of my wheels.
I'd noticed them a while back when I gave the car a quick wipe, so I decided I was going to sort them as part of this big clean. There are several products you can use to get rid of them, but I think they're all essentially turpentine-based solvents. It doesn't damage your paintwork, but dissolves them tar.
Well, eventually it dissolves the tar. What it turns out you also need to invest is a lot of elbow grease, as you need to really rub it on. Twice. See, you rub it on and it starts to dissolve it, then you have to run again to really get rid of the spots. And this is all at basically ground level, so there's loads of rubbing while bending over, so you can see why, combined with all the box-lugging, I've buggered up my wimpy muscles.
Don't get me wrong, though the product itself was good, it was just that I hadn't appreciated how hard it would be and just how many tar spots there were.
The reason for the aches and pains are twofold - first off I did a huge amount of sorting out, but then I also decided to give my car a thoroughly good clean.
My initial plan for the weekend was just to do the sorting out, but I it was a little unrealistic to genuinely think I could do it all. I mean, to be frank, it's one of those jobs that never ends, but also I'd forgotten that my landlord was going on holiday, so there was no way to get anything into the attic.
As well as this I discovered I still didn't have enough plastic stacking crates - I must own more than 20 of them now, but I still need more! See the problem was I tackled the stuff under my bed and I had forgotten just how much was under there. In the end I ended up filling 7 of the smaller crates and putting them under the bed. They work quite well, but in order to support the bed beams (don't ask) stuff has to be sticking out of the top. This means that I need spare crates for if and when I take them out.
This is also the issue for quite a few things - I kinda realised it was one thing to transfer all the stuff I've had in big cardboard to stacking crates, but what about all the stuff I use day-to-day? That needs to have boxes ready and waiting to.
Does that sound odd? I guess it comes back to the point that my landlord want to decorate the flat, which means that everything needs to be able to go in the attic, even if I'm using it in the meantime. I need that extra capacity so I can just chuck it in the boxes and then stick it away in the attic while he decorates.
Also, I'm having a bit of a problem in that the boxes, although great for lifting stuff and convenient, aren't as space efficient as cardboard boxes. You can fill and stack a cardboard box so that it's 100% full and takes up no unnecessary space, but a plastic stacking box 'wastes' space because of how they go together. It's not a big deal, but it does mean I keep underestimating how many I need, hence the need for more.
But the key thing is I am on the very cusp of having boxes for everything. I can do the other type of sorting out (deciding what to keep, throw away or sell) in slower time.
The car cleaning was partly a way of doing something productive in my box-deficient state and partly because my car really needed it.
It was a full-on clean:
- Full alloy wheel clean and polish.
- Full car body clean and polish.
- Full hoover out and surface clean inside.
The first and last were pretty much without surprises, but cleaning the car body turned out to be rather more painful than I'd expected.
The problem was tar spots.
Basically, I think what's causing them is all the road patching they've done to fill potholes. I'm guessing loose bits come off as you drive over it and your tyres tend to fling it back. All of the tar-spots were in a similar area just behind each of my wheels.
I'd noticed them a while back when I gave the car a quick wipe, so I decided I was going to sort them as part of this big clean. There are several products you can use to get rid of them, but I think they're all essentially turpentine-based solvents. It doesn't damage your paintwork, but dissolves them tar.
Well, eventually it dissolves the tar. What it turns out you also need to invest is a lot of elbow grease, as you need to really rub it on. Twice. See, you rub it on and it starts to dissolve it, then you have to run again to really get rid of the spots. And this is all at basically ground level, so there's loads of rubbing while bending over, so you can see why, combined with all the box-lugging, I've buggered up my wimpy muscles.
Don't get me wrong, though the product itself was good, it was just that I hadn't appreciated how hard it would be and just how many tar spots there were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)