No blog posts this week as it's been absolutely manic.
Well, actually it was super manic last week (I did 49 hours: standard hours are 37.5) and just plain busy this week. Trouble was last week left me shattered and then I've had virtually no sleep Sunday and Monday night, so blogging wasn't really in the forefront of my mind.
Also I'm on leave tomorrow so this is it for the week. I'll try to write a bunch of stuff while I'm off - particularly on the F1 and stuff I've watched and should review.
Thursday, 29 November 2012
Friday, 23 November 2012
getting a brazilian
Well, it's that time to make puns again as it's the Brazilian Grand Prix this weekend.
It's usually a cracker Brazil as the circuit is quite short, quite quick and has opportunities for overtaking. Of course this year we have the added interest in the resolution of the Driver's championship.
I have to say I would prefer Alonso to win, but you can't say Vettel (and Red Bull in particular) would be undeserving winners.
It has been one of the best seasons in a while and it's just a shame that Lewis was the victim of so much finger-trouble during the year and some unsuccessful development by the team. I think the honest truth is that McLaren has let Lewis down this year (and arguably the last few years). Obviously I'm biased as I'm a fan, but I think he's probably the best pure race driver out there.
Sure others have the edge in some areas but Lewis is the sort of driver I like - one who takes the car by the scuff of the next and gets the best out of and that never settles for position / points if he can chase down and pass someone. In a way he's actually somewhat disadvantaged by the non-standardised nature of F1.
Some formulas the cars are basically all identical (either by rule design or that they are all literally manufactured by the same company) but in F1 the idea is each team designs their own car - some parts are standardised and some there are only a few choices of very similar components (engines, for example) but in F1 it's all very much down to what the team designs and builds.
It's an underappreciated part of the sport for the general public: F1 is very much a team sport.
Next year also looks like it's going to be a good one as the rules are basically the same, meaning the teams should be even closer - particularly in terms of the teams at the back, as it will give them a chance to incorporate some of the cleverer ideas they've seen on the big team's cars.
It's usually a cracker Brazil as the circuit is quite short, quite quick and has opportunities for overtaking. Of course this year we have the added interest in the resolution of the Driver's championship.
I have to say I would prefer Alonso to win, but you can't say Vettel (and Red Bull in particular) would be undeserving winners.
It has been one of the best seasons in a while and it's just a shame that Lewis was the victim of so much finger-trouble during the year and some unsuccessful development by the team. I think the honest truth is that McLaren has let Lewis down this year (and arguably the last few years). Obviously I'm biased as I'm a fan, but I think he's probably the best pure race driver out there.
Sure others have the edge in some areas but Lewis is the sort of driver I like - one who takes the car by the scuff of the next and gets the best out of and that never settles for position / points if he can chase down and pass someone. In a way he's actually somewhat disadvantaged by the non-standardised nature of F1.
Some formulas the cars are basically all identical (either by rule design or that they are all literally manufactured by the same company) but in F1 the idea is each team designs their own car - some parts are standardised and some there are only a few choices of very similar components (engines, for example) but in F1 it's all very much down to what the team designs and builds.
It's an underappreciated part of the sport for the general public: F1 is very much a team sport.
Next year also looks like it's going to be a good one as the rules are basically the same, meaning the teams should be even closer - particularly in terms of the teams at the back, as it will give them a chance to incorporate some of the cleverer ideas they've seen on the big team's cars.
Thursday, 22 November 2012
it lives
So I tested my yeast this last weekend.
The results were not exactly conclusive.
Well, I say that - I did reach a firm conclusion that the new yeast I brought is definitely okay and a packet of yeast I opened from the last batch is also probably okay. However, as to whether the older yeast is okay, I am of the feeling that it is not, but my results were cast into doubt by the new yeast.
Let me explain.
Basically, my main theory as to why my bread recently has not been rising was either that the yeast I was using is dead/contaminated/not working very well, but I was also suspicious that temperate was an issue. With the recent down-turn in temperature I was suspicious that the yeast was not getting fully activated and hence not rising properly.
That would explain why the bread rises were poor, but not completely absent - the bread wasn't like an unleavened bread, but was only about a third of what it should have been.
As such I looked up testing the yeast - what temperature to use - and discovered it was actually surprisingly warm (115F - 120F). You also put in some sugar to give it something to feed on and give it 10 minutes - no rise = dead yeast.
So I gave this a go and got a very result from my old yeast - a slight scum, but nothing to write home about. I then tried it again using my brand new yeast and the other packet I opened from a few weeks back. And I got mixed results - the new yeast went bonkers and the older yeast was somewhere in between.
However, the problem was I was not particularly stringent on the temperatures. The last one with the brand new yeast I did at the proper temperature range. The mid-age yeast I did at a warm temperature but a good way below the recommended range and the old yeast I was quite a long way below.
Now I'd not been stringent because I hadn't thought it would make a big impact, but essentially I effectively got results of: very low temperature = poor result; medium low temperate = okay result; correct temperature = great result as well as the age factor.
In other words I didn't conclusively prove that it's the yeast that's bad, only that I need to be more precise with my temperatures before I can be sure.
However, I did use the two yeasts that had worked to bake loaves and got some awesome results. I'd worried that the bread maker might be faulty, but using the new yeast in there it produced an excellent loaf and using the medium-age yeast to hand-make a loaf I got an excellent result too.
I quite like hand-making, but it can be a bit messy and is a hell of a lot more faff than just sticking it all in the machine.
Still, now I can at least test the old yeast properly next time and see if it is duff.
The results were not exactly conclusive.
Well, I say that - I did reach a firm conclusion that the new yeast I brought is definitely okay and a packet of yeast I opened from the last batch is also probably okay. However, as to whether the older yeast is okay, I am of the feeling that it is not, but my results were cast into doubt by the new yeast.
Let me explain.
Basically, my main theory as to why my bread recently has not been rising was either that the yeast I was using is dead/contaminated/not working very well, but I was also suspicious that temperate was an issue. With the recent down-turn in temperature I was suspicious that the yeast was not getting fully activated and hence not rising properly.
That would explain why the bread rises were poor, but not completely absent - the bread wasn't like an unleavened bread, but was only about a third of what it should have been.
As such I looked up testing the yeast - what temperature to use - and discovered it was actually surprisingly warm (115F - 120F). You also put in some sugar to give it something to feed on and give it 10 minutes - no rise = dead yeast.
So I gave this a go and got a very result from my old yeast - a slight scum, but nothing to write home about. I then tried it again using my brand new yeast and the other packet I opened from a few weeks back. And I got mixed results - the new yeast went bonkers and the older yeast was somewhere in between.
However, the problem was I was not particularly stringent on the temperatures. The last one with the brand new yeast I did at the proper temperature range. The mid-age yeast I did at a warm temperature but a good way below the recommended range and the old yeast I was quite a long way below.
Now I'd not been stringent because I hadn't thought it would make a big impact, but essentially I effectively got results of: very low temperature = poor result; medium low temperate = okay result; correct temperature = great result as well as the age factor.
In other words I didn't conclusively prove that it's the yeast that's bad, only that I need to be more precise with my temperatures before I can be sure.
However, I did use the two yeasts that had worked to bake loaves and got some awesome results. I'd worried that the bread maker might be faulty, but using the new yeast in there it produced an excellent loaf and using the medium-age yeast to hand-make a loaf I got an excellent result too.
I quite like hand-making, but it can be a bit messy and is a hell of a lot more faff than just sticking it all in the machine.
Still, now I can at least test the old yeast properly next time and see if it is duff.
pirates! in an adventure with scientists
I should have posted this yesterday, but was far too busy and forgot!
I really wanted to like this.
It's made by Aardman (in Claymation - they've done a few digital films too) and is an adaptation of a series of popular books. As I understand it the books aren't actually aimed at children, but I think this film was.
I'm not sure if that was my problem with it, though. My real problem was more that it felt like you needed to have read the books to really get the film. Or, to put it another way, it felt like we were being dumped inside a world where we were supposed to know how everything worked (what the "rules" were), but I didn't, so I felt lost.
Which isn't to say I thought it was a bad film, it's just that I found myself confused at bits and so missing other bits. Why, for example, is the Pirate Captain called Pirate Captain? I'm guessing there's actually no explanation for that in the books as it's meant to be a joke, but why are all the other pirates on his ship known by their defining characteristics, rather than proper names. So there's Albino Pirate and Pirate with Gout, for example. It's particularly odd as other pirates that aren't on the ship have names - is it just because Pirate Captain forgets their names? Forgetfulness isn't really a trait they play up.
But then saying that they never really refer to each other by name either - the only one who does is Pirate Captain, and even then, not all the time. So Pirate with Gout has a bandaged leg, but it was only at the end when the credits rolled I realised that this was because he was meant to be suffering with gout.
I mean, perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere in the film but I missed it. The trouble is that's my point - I seemed to miss quite a few things that were important to make things funny or to help the plot.
So, for example, at one point a character is crushed. After a few moments he then appears in a doorway, confounding the hero's theory. Well, how did he get in the doorway? Did he crawl along the sewer? Maybe it's explained, but otherwise it's random.
Now random can be funny, but I don't think random was meant to be the type of funny here.
Another example was that another character finds a document that then explains some stuff later on. However, I completely missed this and only discovered that was meant to be the point when they said it in the commentary.
As it was when he said "I found out X" I was left wondering how he found out X and where he'd got the bit of paper from that he showed Pirate Captain to prove X.
Again, it's a relatively minor thing, but it seemed to happen quite a lot and I kept finding myself going "eh?" rather than laughing.
I dunno, maybe it's me - perhaps I was a bit tired or something?
I mean the film looked great and there was plenty in there I did enjoy, it's just I didn't like it as much as I thought I would.
I really wanted to like this.
It's made by Aardman (in Claymation - they've done a few digital films too) and is an adaptation of a series of popular books. As I understand it the books aren't actually aimed at children, but I think this film was.
I'm not sure if that was my problem with it, though. My real problem was more that it felt like you needed to have read the books to really get the film. Or, to put it another way, it felt like we were being dumped inside a world where we were supposed to know how everything worked (what the "rules" were), but I didn't, so I felt lost.
Which isn't to say I thought it was a bad film, it's just that I found myself confused at bits and so missing other bits. Why, for example, is the Pirate Captain called Pirate Captain? I'm guessing there's actually no explanation for that in the books as it's meant to be a joke, but why are all the other pirates on his ship known by their defining characteristics, rather than proper names. So there's Albino Pirate and Pirate with Gout, for example. It's particularly odd as other pirates that aren't on the ship have names - is it just because Pirate Captain forgets their names? Forgetfulness isn't really a trait they play up.
But then saying that they never really refer to each other by name either - the only one who does is Pirate Captain, and even then, not all the time. So Pirate with Gout has a bandaged leg, but it was only at the end when the credits rolled I realised that this was because he was meant to be suffering with gout.
I mean, perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere in the film but I missed it. The trouble is that's my point - I seemed to miss quite a few things that were important to make things funny or to help the plot.
So, for example, at one point a character is crushed. After a few moments he then appears in a doorway, confounding the hero's theory. Well, how did he get in the doorway? Did he crawl along the sewer? Maybe it's explained, but otherwise it's random.
Now random can be funny, but I don't think random was meant to be the type of funny here.
Another example was that another character finds a document that then explains some stuff later on. However, I completely missed this and only discovered that was meant to be the point when they said it in the commentary.
As it was when he said "I found out X" I was left wondering how he found out X and where he'd got the bit of paper from that he showed Pirate Captain to prove X.
Again, it's a relatively minor thing, but it seemed to happen quite a lot and I kept finding myself going "eh?" rather than laughing.
I dunno, maybe it's me - perhaps I was a bit tired or something?
I mean the film looked great and there was plenty in there I did enjoy, it's just I didn't like it as much as I thought I would.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
lazy days
I had a pretty lazy weekend last weekend.
I've discussed before that I put together a to do list for the weekend so that I don't forget anything. Well occasionally (not for a while) I go off-piste and this was one of those weekends.
I didn't do any washing, even though I had thought to myself that I would in order to get ahead (I have the Friday at the end of the month off and am trying to avoid the temptation to just leave everything until then).
I didn't hoover - being a bedsit and with the areas I live in having lots of trees I need to hoover every week.
I didn't catch up with my e-mails & the blogs that I follow: heck, I hardly even opened a browser window all weekend.
I didn't put on any e-bay auctions. To be fair while I've a bit of a pile of stuff I want to get rid of I don't need the cash (the pay rise seems to be bringing a bit of relief on that front).
I didn't compile my new anime to torrent (I still do these, even though I've not watched an anime in months!)
I didn't even do that much in the way of catching up with TV. And obviously the GP wasn't really shown - certainly not at sensible times.
I did watch my rental Blu-Ray, so that's something I guess.
But what I basically did was play a computer game.
Now I had suspected that I might do this, as the new Call of Duty Game is out (Black Ops 2); however, I was possessed by more of a creative bug earlier in the week. This was brought on by the relative imminence of the SimCity and me reading some of the blog posts - I had a bug to create something.
As such I loaded up Anno1404 (I have the new game - 2070, but have not yet played it and I wanted to just crack on and build a world, rather than work out how to play the game). I must have totalled about 12 hours across the weekend.
I therefore feel a bit guilty that I basically "wasted" a big chunk of the weekend, but also happy I did something fun and a bit pointless with my weekend.
One thing I will say, though, is that it definitely beats working at the weekend.
I've discussed before that I put together a to do list for the weekend so that I don't forget anything. Well occasionally (not for a while) I go off-piste and this was one of those weekends.
I didn't do any washing, even though I had thought to myself that I would in order to get ahead (I have the Friday at the end of the month off and am trying to avoid the temptation to just leave everything until then).
I didn't hoover - being a bedsit and with the areas I live in having lots of trees I need to hoover every week.
I didn't catch up with my e-mails & the blogs that I follow: heck, I hardly even opened a browser window all weekend.
I didn't put on any e-bay auctions. To be fair while I've a bit of a pile of stuff I want to get rid of I don't need the cash (the pay rise seems to be bringing a bit of relief on that front).
I didn't compile my new anime to torrent (I still do these, even though I've not watched an anime in months!)
I didn't even do that much in the way of catching up with TV. And obviously the GP wasn't really shown - certainly not at sensible times.
I did watch my rental Blu-Ray, so that's something I guess.
But what I basically did was play a computer game.
Now I had suspected that I might do this, as the new Call of Duty Game is out (Black Ops 2); however, I was possessed by more of a creative bug earlier in the week. This was brought on by the relative imminence of the SimCity and me reading some of the blog posts - I had a bug to create something.
As such I loaded up Anno1404 (I have the new game - 2070, but have not yet played it and I wanted to just crack on and build a world, rather than work out how to play the game). I must have totalled about 12 hours across the weekend.
I therefore feel a bit guilty that I basically "wasted" a big chunk of the weekend, but also happy I did something fun and a bit pointless with my weekend.
One thing I will say, though, is that it definitely beats working at the weekend.
Monday, 19 November 2012
lone star state
It was the inaugural US Grand Prix this weekend.
They've rather cheekily called the circuit the "Circuit of the Americas". Note the plural in particular: clearly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, etc were all presumably signed off on such a name... ;).
Anyway, the circuit looked very interesting. It's not fully Tilke - his company was involved, but I understand the basic layout structure was designed by the people who built it. However, with Tilke being the only company that builds bespoke FIA circuits I guess it's difficult for anybody else to deign one that's fully up to spec: access roads, paddocks, etc.
It does feature big run-off areas, which is the modern circuit disease as they don't provide any way to separate the men from the boys.
The race sounded good.
I say sounded because I listened to it on the radio and have recorded the highlights with the intention to watch them tonight. The BBC's US Grand Prix coverage was just bizarre as I mentioned last Friday. It turned out that the race highlights were being shown as starting at 22:30 and were some 2 hours long, taking them up to half-past midnight.
Needless to say I didn't stay up to watch it (talking to those who are interested in F1 none of them did). The race started at 7PM GMT and did last for the best part of the maximum 2 hours running time, which meant it ended at 9PM ish. I was slightly delayed with the radio (partly to give me a buffer in case of safety cars) and so finished at 9:30PM.
I was pleased Lewis won - he was really on fire. The drivers really seemed to enjoy the circuit and it seemed like a good race. Also while not perfect from a championship point of view (Vettel did extend his lead) it means it's still all to play for in Brazil (the extension was small change).
Brazil is this next weekend and can be quite unpredictable. It's an old-skool circuit where you get a lot of action. Overtaking is very much a possibility and accidents are not uncommon, so thins like safety cars can come into play. This is particularly the case if the weather is wet or changeable (current forecast is for rain!).
Luckily the BBC is also showing the full race live and while late in the day here in the UK it'll be on at teatime so is much more watchable than the US coverage.
They've rather cheekily called the circuit the "Circuit of the Americas". Note the plural in particular: clearly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, etc were all presumably signed off on such a name... ;).
Anyway, the circuit looked very interesting. It's not fully Tilke - his company was involved, but I understand the basic layout structure was designed by the people who built it. However, with Tilke being the only company that builds bespoke FIA circuits I guess it's difficult for anybody else to deign one that's fully up to spec: access roads, paddocks, etc.
It does feature big run-off areas, which is the modern circuit disease as they don't provide any way to separate the men from the boys.
The race sounded good.
I say sounded because I listened to it on the radio and have recorded the highlights with the intention to watch them tonight. The BBC's US Grand Prix coverage was just bizarre as I mentioned last Friday. It turned out that the race highlights were being shown as starting at 22:30 and were some 2 hours long, taking them up to half-past midnight.
Needless to say I didn't stay up to watch it (talking to those who are interested in F1 none of them did). The race started at 7PM GMT and did last for the best part of the maximum 2 hours running time, which meant it ended at 9PM ish. I was slightly delayed with the radio (partly to give me a buffer in case of safety cars) and so finished at 9:30PM.
I was pleased Lewis won - he was really on fire. The drivers really seemed to enjoy the circuit and it seemed like a good race. Also while not perfect from a championship point of view (Vettel did extend his lead) it means it's still all to play for in Brazil (the extension was small change).
Brazil is this next weekend and can be quite unpredictable. It's an old-skool circuit where you get a lot of action. Overtaking is very much a possibility and accidents are not uncommon, so thins like safety cars can come into play. This is particularly the case if the weather is wet or changeable (current forecast is for rain!).
Luckily the BBC is also showing the full race live and while late in the day here in the UK it'll be on at teatime so is much more watchable than the US coverage.
Friday, 16 November 2012
us grand prix
It's the United States Grand Prix this weekend.
It's also possibly the worst coverage of any of the Grand Prix by the BBC this year.
This is frustrating for two reasons. First, and most important, the championship is at a crucial stage where Vettel or Alonso could win it. To be fair this is not something the BBC could have predicted.
The coverage is very thin - they're showing highlights of the qualifying late night on Saturday and they're showing highlights of the race very late night on Sunday. Indeed, the race highlights are so late on Sunday I won't be staying up to watch them and will probably watch them on Monday.
However, they're covering the race on 5Live so I will listen to that. But there's no other coverage on the radio - no practice or qualifying. I'm sure it will probably be online but I'm not going to do that.
The second point of frustration is that this is a brand new circuit. It's one that's been built for this year so there have never been any races there before. This one I don't understand - you would have thought they would want to cover the brand new American race.
Weird.
It's also possibly the worst coverage of any of the Grand Prix by the BBC this year.
This is frustrating for two reasons. First, and most important, the championship is at a crucial stage where Vettel or Alonso could win it. To be fair this is not something the BBC could have predicted.
The coverage is very thin - they're showing highlights of the qualifying late night on Saturday and they're showing highlights of the race very late night on Sunday. Indeed, the race highlights are so late on Sunday I won't be staying up to watch them and will probably watch them on Monday.
However, they're covering the race on 5Live so I will listen to that. But there's no other coverage on the radio - no practice or qualifying. I'm sure it will probably be online but I'm not going to do that.
The second point of frustration is that this is a brand new circuit. It's one that's been built for this year so there have never been any races there before. This one I don't understand - you would have thought they would want to cover the brand new American race.
Weird.
Thursday, 15 November 2012
shattered
So I've obviously not been posting the last few days.
To be honest I've hardly been at work the last few days - Monday and Wednesday I was at meetings away from work and Tuesday I had so much to do that I didn't even open my web-browser, let alone think about writing a blog.
Today I appear to be paying for all this activity as I am utterly shattered. And it's not because I was up particularly late or had trouble sleeping - I've just been working so hard that I've run out of steam.
I could honestly go home right now and just fall asleep as soon as my head hit the pillow.
I came in last Sunday and did a reasonable day. The morning was most successful, particularly as I developed something of a headache in the afternoon. To be honest it wasn't as useful a session as the previous time I worked the Sunday.
To be honest I've hardly been at work the last few days - Monday and Wednesday I was at meetings away from work and Tuesday I had so much to do that I didn't even open my web-browser, let alone think about writing a blog.
Today I appear to be paying for all this activity as I am utterly shattered. And it's not because I was up particularly late or had trouble sleeping - I've just been working so hard that I've run out of steam.
I could honestly go home right now and just fall asleep as soon as my head hit the pillow.
I came in last Sunday and did a reasonable day. The morning was most successful, particularly as I developed something of a headache in the afternoon. To be honest it wasn't as useful a session as the previous time I worked the Sunday.
Friday, 9 November 2012
tired
No grand prix this weekend, so current plan is to watch some of this telly I've stacked up.
Of course, the last time that was the plan I ended up spending almost all of my Sunday at work…
And unfortunately it does currently look like I may have to work at the weekend. The issue really is that I’ve got a stack of stuff building up – none of it is important, as such, but it all needs my attention. It’s just that because it’s not important I’ve been back-burnering it, and now it’s getting to a stage where it’s actually getting in the way – causing me confusion, clogging up the system, etc.
There may be a bit of an issue, though, as I understand some other people are wanting to work this weekend and I don’t really want to get in their way.
Of course, the last time that was the plan I ended up spending almost all of my Sunday at work…
And unfortunately it does currently look like I may have to work at the weekend. The issue really is that I’ve got a stack of stuff building up – none of it is important, as such, but it all needs my attention. It’s just that because it’s not important I’ve been back-burnering it, and now it’s getting to a stage where it’s actually getting in the way – causing me confusion, clogging up the system, etc.
There may be a bit of an issue, though, as I understand some other people are wanting to work this weekend and I don’t really want to get in their way.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
all a bit flat
I seem to have been having some issues with my bread making just recently.
The problem in question is that it's not rising properly. I use a bread machine and I've had this issue before. The solution was basically that I was using the wrong type of yeast. I hadn't really realised there were different types of yeast, but it seems there are and the one I was using was not making the bread rise properly.
So I switched to the right type of yeast and bob's your mother's brother it started rising properly. I also discovered - by accident - that I got even better rises if I let the yeast sit in the milk and sugar solution for a little while before adding the flour setting it going. I guess it gave the yeast time to properly activate.
Well things had been going great and then I had a bit of an issue in that I dropped the container I use to hold the yeast and had to buy some more. Since I started using this new batch it's gone back to the issue I mentioned above - not really rising properly. And even if I try leaving it in the milk for a while it doesn't seem to help - indeed, where it used to go nice and frothy in that time it now just sits there.
Now the bread does rise a bit, but it's a really pathetic rise - about a third of some of the best ones I've had.
However, I did some research and it seems that sometimes the yeast you buy can be duff, so I started trying to do some experiments. However, I have to confess these were a bit random. I've just done some reading online and it would appear there's a bit more a sensible way to test yeast (similar, actually, to what I was doing by leaving it) and it says if it fails that test then the yeast is duff.
I haven't actually done that yet, but will give it a go next weekend. I have to buy a thermometer to make sure the water temperature is reasonable - I have been meaning to get one a while, to be fair - as you can overheat yeast and kill it, but also if the liquid is too cold then that will impair the yeast.
I had actually been thinking that the recent change in weather to colder temperatures was a part of it - certainly, as I say, cold can be an issue.
What is slightly worrying, though, is that I actually opened a separate packet of yeast and tested that too and got poor results as well. It will be annoying if both batches are duff, although to be fair it was the same make, so perhaps the make is poor so I will be buying another make and trying that too.
Anyway, basic points is I'm going to be a bit more scientific about things this next weekend and see if I can't work out if it's the yeast that's duff or my liquid has just been too hot or too cold.
The problem in question is that it's not rising properly. I use a bread machine and I've had this issue before. The solution was basically that I was using the wrong type of yeast. I hadn't really realised there were different types of yeast, but it seems there are and the one I was using was not making the bread rise properly.
So I switched to the right type of yeast and bob's your mother's brother it started rising properly. I also discovered - by accident - that I got even better rises if I let the yeast sit in the milk and sugar solution for a little while before adding the flour setting it going. I guess it gave the yeast time to properly activate.
Well things had been going great and then I had a bit of an issue in that I dropped the container I use to hold the yeast and had to buy some more. Since I started using this new batch it's gone back to the issue I mentioned above - not really rising properly. And even if I try leaving it in the milk for a while it doesn't seem to help - indeed, where it used to go nice and frothy in that time it now just sits there.
Now the bread does rise a bit, but it's a really pathetic rise - about a third of some of the best ones I've had.
However, I did some research and it seems that sometimes the yeast you buy can be duff, so I started trying to do some experiments. However, I have to confess these were a bit random. I've just done some reading online and it would appear there's a bit more a sensible way to test yeast (similar, actually, to what I was doing by leaving it) and it says if it fails that test then the yeast is duff.
I haven't actually done that yet, but will give it a go next weekend. I have to buy a thermometer to make sure the water temperature is reasonable - I have been meaning to get one a while, to be fair - as you can overheat yeast and kill it, but also if the liquid is too cold then that will impair the yeast.
I had actually been thinking that the recent change in weather to colder temperatures was a part of it - certainly, as I say, cold can be an issue.
What is slightly worrying, though, is that I actually opened a separate packet of yeast and tested that too and got poor results as well. It will be annoying if both batches are duff, although to be fair it was the same make, so perhaps the make is poor so I will be buying another make and trying that too.
Anyway, basic points is I'm going to be a bit more scientific about things this next weekend and see if I can't work out if it's the yeast that's duff or my liquid has just been too hot or too cold.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
attack the block
I think one of the basic underlying themes of Attack the Block is assumptions and the misunderstandings they lead to.
So the film starts with a mugging of a woman by a bunch of kids, but later on it's revealed that the woman lives in the same block (as in block of flats) and they tell her that if they'd known they wouldn't have mugged her. So they assumed she wasn't part of "their" block and so mugged her.
Later on the explanation of why the aliens are attacking the block and, in particular, the kids, shows how what they had been assuming to be the case is actually false. I'm trying to avoid spoilers, and I think it's fairly obvious a reveal like that is coming - it's usually the case in this sort of film.
Overall I thought the film basically fulfilled what it was going for. My only real complaint was with the kids - to me they didn't seem quite real. I dunno - realistic urban kids is a very difficult thing to pull off.
I mean, part of the problem is that that sort of culture changes incredibly quickly - the kids, after all, grow up and so move through phases very quickly. This week's cool phrase is next week's cliché.
They attempt to get round that by making the kids dialogue less real and more normal (it would likely be indecipherable if it were really real), but of course that makes the characters feel a little artificial. Interestingly the kids almost don't swear - it's the adults that have real potty mouths. Quite why this is I'm not sure, but again, it makes it seem slightly artificial.
In its favour the kids aren't too cookie-cutter. I mean they are presented to some degree as having "traits" so one is into pyrotechnics and another is a glasses-wearing nerd, but these aren't heavily laid on - think of the characters having preferences, rather than being entirely defined by those things. They're also all distinctive and memorable.
The above are actually relatively minor - things you can basically ignore or may not actually agree with. A bigger problem is that, actually, I didn't like the kids.
Having just moaned about them being a bit unrealistic, it's because of what they are trying to get close to (urban miscreants) that I didn't like them. During a bit where the police showed up I was, I have to confess, rather on the side of the police.
There are also some flaws and problems with the logic and the events - in particular it's not quite clear what's going on outside the focus on the kids. So the police are there at the end and the residents are outside as if they'd been in and evacuated the residents, but the police only actually seem to enter the building when the armed officers arrive.
Also the internal geography of the flats seems quite mismatched in places and it seems to have a lot more floors on the inside than the outside. The place also seemed weirdly deserted - particularly given all the people outside at the end. None of them seemed to interact with the aliens, which seemed a bit odd.
But overall I think it's worth a watch
It's a shame it didn't have any extras on the disk, though. I would particularly have been interested in how they did the aliens - they were very convincing and it was a clever idea to have them jet black, because I'm guessing the lack of details avoids CGI / model issues.
So the film starts with a mugging of a woman by a bunch of kids, but later on it's revealed that the woman lives in the same block (as in block of flats) and they tell her that if they'd known they wouldn't have mugged her. So they assumed she wasn't part of "their" block and so mugged her.
Later on the explanation of why the aliens are attacking the block and, in particular, the kids, shows how what they had been assuming to be the case is actually false. I'm trying to avoid spoilers, and I think it's fairly obvious a reveal like that is coming - it's usually the case in this sort of film.
Overall I thought the film basically fulfilled what it was going for. My only real complaint was with the kids - to me they didn't seem quite real. I dunno - realistic urban kids is a very difficult thing to pull off.
I mean, part of the problem is that that sort of culture changes incredibly quickly - the kids, after all, grow up and so move through phases very quickly. This week's cool phrase is next week's cliché.
They attempt to get round that by making the kids dialogue less real and more normal (it would likely be indecipherable if it were really real), but of course that makes the characters feel a little artificial. Interestingly the kids almost don't swear - it's the adults that have real potty mouths. Quite why this is I'm not sure, but again, it makes it seem slightly artificial.
In its favour the kids aren't too cookie-cutter. I mean they are presented to some degree as having "traits" so one is into pyrotechnics and another is a glasses-wearing nerd, but these aren't heavily laid on - think of the characters having preferences, rather than being entirely defined by those things. They're also all distinctive and memorable.
The above are actually relatively minor - things you can basically ignore or may not actually agree with. A bigger problem is that, actually, I didn't like the kids.
Having just moaned about them being a bit unrealistic, it's because of what they are trying to get close to (urban miscreants) that I didn't like them. During a bit where the police showed up I was, I have to confess, rather on the side of the police.
There are also some flaws and problems with the logic and the events - in particular it's not quite clear what's going on outside the focus on the kids. So the police are there at the end and the residents are outside as if they'd been in and evacuated the residents, but the police only actually seem to enter the building when the armed officers arrive.
Also the internal geography of the flats seems quite mismatched in places and it seems to have a lot more floors on the inside than the outside. The place also seemed weirdly deserted - particularly given all the people outside at the end. None of them seemed to interact with the aliens, which seemed a bit odd.
But overall I think it's worth a watch
It's a shame it didn't have any extras on the disk, though. I would particularly have been interested in how they did the aliens - they were very convincing and it was a clever idea to have them jet black, because I'm guessing the lack of details avoids CGI / model issues.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
brrr and boom
So this last weekend it was bonfire night.
This year I didn't actually go to a display. There were a couple of reasons for that.
Firstly I made a right mess of my timings, so I was running very late and so would have struggled to get to one in time.
The second reason is kinda related in that I'd had some sleep issues, waking up after only about 5 hours sleep on Saturday morning and so feeling really tired by Saturday evening.
The last was that it was stunningly cold. I mean I've experienced colder weather, but it's not normally quite so sharp early in November. I had thought the last couple of weeks in October had been a bit chilly, but this weekend the temperature really nose-dived.
As such, staying in actually seemed appealing.
It was a bit of a weird experience, though, because I could still hear the displays. Where I live I'm basically in between Aldershot and Farnham, both of which hold quite big displays in parks that aren't too far away from me.
Now I don't know the exact start times, but I'm pretty sure both must have overlapped at the least, because you could have been mistaken for thinking world war three was happening - the cacophony of bangs between the two was quite extraordinary.
Speaking of the weather I believe it's going to get even colder next week, with temperatures down into the freezing zone. I hope it's not a sign of another cold winter - I could really do with a mild one for a change, not least of all because it costs me a fortune.
My heating (well, the heating I have control of) is electric. Now electric heating is not the most efficient anyway, but my flat is actually quite chilly & drafty anyway. It also doesn't help that in the last few years the electric company have really ramped up the prices. Why they privatised power I'll never know.
Anyway, there's also some heating I don't really have control of - there's basically a spur off my landlord heating and I have a radiator in my bedsit area. This is really good when it's on - I can leave the door open and basically heat the whole flat - but when it's on is not in my control.
This leads to some weird situations where they turn the heating on but I don't need it (I can turn the radiator off) and I end up wondering why they've turned it on. In particular, late at night, after the evening where they've not turned it on, suddenly the radiator will be blazingly hot. And the opposite is true as well - I'm sat there chilly, having to turn my own radiator on, but there heating is apparently completely off.
It's a particular problem this time of year when it wobbles between just being a bit chilly and properly cold - it's a bit better in winter proper as they obviously need to have it on themselves.
The other annoying side to it is that I actually pay some money in my rent specifically to cover the heating, so when I'm shivering I can get a bit annoyed as it feels Iike I'm not getting what I'm paying for.
This year I didn't actually go to a display. There were a couple of reasons for that.
Firstly I made a right mess of my timings, so I was running very late and so would have struggled to get to one in time.
The second reason is kinda related in that I'd had some sleep issues, waking up after only about 5 hours sleep on Saturday morning and so feeling really tired by Saturday evening.
The last was that it was stunningly cold. I mean I've experienced colder weather, but it's not normally quite so sharp early in November. I had thought the last couple of weeks in October had been a bit chilly, but this weekend the temperature really nose-dived.
As such, staying in actually seemed appealing.
It was a bit of a weird experience, though, because I could still hear the displays. Where I live I'm basically in between Aldershot and Farnham, both of which hold quite big displays in parks that aren't too far away from me.
Now I don't know the exact start times, but I'm pretty sure both must have overlapped at the least, because you could have been mistaken for thinking world war three was happening - the cacophony of bangs between the two was quite extraordinary.
Speaking of the weather I believe it's going to get even colder next week, with temperatures down into the freezing zone. I hope it's not a sign of another cold winter - I could really do with a mild one for a change, not least of all because it costs me a fortune.
My heating (well, the heating I have control of) is electric. Now electric heating is not the most efficient anyway, but my flat is actually quite chilly & drafty anyway. It also doesn't help that in the last few years the electric company have really ramped up the prices. Why they privatised power I'll never know.
Anyway, there's also some heating I don't really have control of - there's basically a spur off my landlord heating and I have a radiator in my bedsit area. This is really good when it's on - I can leave the door open and basically heat the whole flat - but when it's on is not in my control.
This leads to some weird situations where they turn the heating on but I don't need it (I can turn the radiator off) and I end up wondering why they've turned it on. In particular, late at night, after the evening where they've not turned it on, suddenly the radiator will be blazingly hot. And the opposite is true as well - I'm sat there chilly, having to turn my own radiator on, but there heating is apparently completely off.
It's a particular problem this time of year when it wobbles between just being a bit chilly and properly cold - it's a bit better in winter proper as they obviously need to have it on themselves.
The other annoying side to it is that I actually pay some money in my rent specifically to cover the heating, so when I'm shivering I can get a bit annoyed as it feels Iike I'm not getting what I'm paying for.
Monday, 5 November 2012
abu dhabi
It's been a weird F1 season this year.
At the start of the year everyone said McLaren's car was clearly the best. Red Bull were badly affected by the rule change, as they were getting maximum benefit from exhaust blown diffusers. Ferrari had taken some big risks, but they hadn't quite worked and the car was believed to be horribly difficult to drive.
However, McLaren failed to capitalise on their advantage. They had a lot of finger trouble (particularly in pit stops) and some mechanical reliability problems. But Lewis was relatively consistent and they hung in there.
Red Bull weren't winning everything in sight, but they continued their phenomenal reliability and were still in touch. Ferrari had Alonso and Alonso was able to compensate for the car's problems and was also consistent.
And with the rule's stability the mid-field teams were now up there challenging for podium positions and the back-field teams were all doing quite well. Mercedes had a brilliant idea, but it turned out it wasn't quite so brilliant.
Races that are usually terrible have actually been good (Valencia was great; this last weekend's Abu Dhabi GP was also really good, though more on that in a minute).
So as we came into the second part of the season all this seemed to mean that Alonso, with phenomenal reliability, his clear talent and some tweaks to help correct the car seemed like winning the championship.
But then he was taken out of two races in incidents and Red Bull have Adrian Newey and it's always dangerous to count him out, so they seemed to have taken a huge step forward and Vettel returned to race dominating form.
This weekend Red Bull had the opportunity to clench the constructor’s championship and also stretch their lead in the driver's championship. But then it all kicked off - Lewis was on fire and took pole, Vettel had practice issues and was only third. But during qualifying he was asked to stop out on track and FIA scrutiny revealed too little fuel in the tank, so he was demoted to the back.
But Red Bull decided to tweak the car, meaning he started in the pit lane - as bad as things can get bar not actually starting. And yet he finished third!
It can be quite puzzling when that happens - a clear example being Button at the wet Canada when he was stone-dead last and went on to win. The thing is, though, you have to remember that during most races they try to nurse the engine and gearbox as the regulations punish them if they have to change/use too many.
Well, if you're starting from the pit lane and it's nearly the end of the season you are going to take a different view: let's crank the engine up, hang the gearbox and tweak the car for overtaking, rather than leading. Of course they may pay a price for that later, but once you've won the championships it doesn't matter, does it?
Of course he was helped quite a lot by two safety cars and for some reason this year Abu Dhabi, which famously had the race where Vettel won because Alonso couldn't overtake Petrov, was jam-packed with overtaking. And good overtaking - not easy drive pasts due to DRS, though clearly the DRS was helping the overtakes.
Still, from a championship point of view it would have been better if Vettel had been further behind Alonso. The gap is closed, but Alonso is still 10 points behind with only two races left.
At the start of the year everyone said McLaren's car was clearly the best. Red Bull were badly affected by the rule change, as they were getting maximum benefit from exhaust blown diffusers. Ferrari had taken some big risks, but they hadn't quite worked and the car was believed to be horribly difficult to drive.
However, McLaren failed to capitalise on their advantage. They had a lot of finger trouble (particularly in pit stops) and some mechanical reliability problems. But Lewis was relatively consistent and they hung in there.
Red Bull weren't winning everything in sight, but they continued their phenomenal reliability and were still in touch. Ferrari had Alonso and Alonso was able to compensate for the car's problems and was also consistent.
And with the rule's stability the mid-field teams were now up there challenging for podium positions and the back-field teams were all doing quite well. Mercedes had a brilliant idea, but it turned out it wasn't quite so brilliant.
Races that are usually terrible have actually been good (Valencia was great; this last weekend's Abu Dhabi GP was also really good, though more on that in a minute).
So as we came into the second part of the season all this seemed to mean that Alonso, with phenomenal reliability, his clear talent and some tweaks to help correct the car seemed like winning the championship.
But then he was taken out of two races in incidents and Red Bull have Adrian Newey and it's always dangerous to count him out, so they seemed to have taken a huge step forward and Vettel returned to race dominating form.
This weekend Red Bull had the opportunity to clench the constructor’s championship and also stretch their lead in the driver's championship. But then it all kicked off - Lewis was on fire and took pole, Vettel had practice issues and was only third. But during qualifying he was asked to stop out on track and FIA scrutiny revealed too little fuel in the tank, so he was demoted to the back.
But Red Bull decided to tweak the car, meaning he started in the pit lane - as bad as things can get bar not actually starting. And yet he finished third!
It can be quite puzzling when that happens - a clear example being Button at the wet Canada when he was stone-dead last and went on to win. The thing is, though, you have to remember that during most races they try to nurse the engine and gearbox as the regulations punish them if they have to change/use too many.
Well, if you're starting from the pit lane and it's nearly the end of the season you are going to take a different view: let's crank the engine up, hang the gearbox and tweak the car for overtaking, rather than leading. Of course they may pay a price for that later, but once you've won the championships it doesn't matter, does it?
Of course he was helped quite a lot by two safety cars and for some reason this year Abu Dhabi, which famously had the race where Vettel won because Alonso couldn't overtake Petrov, was jam-packed with overtaking. And good overtaking - not easy drive pasts due to DRS, though clearly the DRS was helping the overtakes.
Still, from a championship point of view it would have been better if Vettel had been further behind Alonso. The gap is closed, but Alonso is still 10 points behind with only two races left.
Friday, 2 November 2012
abu dhabi grand prix
Well, I thought last weekend's race was poor, so I'm bracing myself for a real bore-fest this weekend.
It's the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix this weekend and so far it's been a real snooze fest each time it's been held.
I take the point that F1 is supposed to be a world championship, but so many really dull racetracks in the Middle East (and mostly pretty dodgy parts of the Middle East at that) can't be a good thing either. I mean if it's supposed to be a World Championship, why no Russian race? Or African race? Or more South American races?
Because the dictators in those parts of the world don't have enough cash or the desire (or maybe the common sense!) to throw it at Bernie, obviously.
It's the second to last double-header too, with a weekend off next week followed by the last two races as a double header (Austin, the new track and Brazil, the traditional closer). I think the championship could well go down to the wire in that Ferrari will remain relatively competitive, but Red Bull just slightly better and therefore winning in the end.
Of course anything can happen - there's been a lot more unreliability this year than there has been in recent years - but barring problems and accidents I don't see how Ferrari will really be able to catch-up. Much of their success was really due to Alonso, consistency and reliability and Newey's big brain and Vettel's particular talent for leading & controlling races probably just manages to trump those things.
One of the things that has been amusing me just recently, though is that other drivers have clearly cottoned on to Vettel's love of putting his name in the record books at each circuit. He clearly not only loves to win but also likes to get the fastest lap as well, so the other drivers seem to have been deliberately trying to take that off him, even when they can't win the race.
So last weekend Vettel put in a super quick lap on the last lap but Alonso also did the fastest lap as the last lap so he took it off him, but then Jenson Button did a fastest lap too, clearly with the intent of taking it off him as well. The weekend before Webber clearly did a fastest lap towards the end just to take it off of Seb too.
It's the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix this weekend and so far it's been a real snooze fest each time it's been held.
I take the point that F1 is supposed to be a world championship, but so many really dull racetracks in the Middle East (and mostly pretty dodgy parts of the Middle East at that) can't be a good thing either. I mean if it's supposed to be a World Championship, why no Russian race? Or African race? Or more South American races?
Because the dictators in those parts of the world don't have enough cash or the desire (or maybe the common sense!) to throw it at Bernie, obviously.
It's the second to last double-header too, with a weekend off next week followed by the last two races as a double header (Austin, the new track and Brazil, the traditional closer). I think the championship could well go down to the wire in that Ferrari will remain relatively competitive, but Red Bull just slightly better and therefore winning in the end.
Of course anything can happen - there's been a lot more unreliability this year than there has been in recent years - but barring problems and accidents I don't see how Ferrari will really be able to catch-up. Much of their success was really due to Alonso, consistency and reliability and Newey's big brain and Vettel's particular talent for leading & controlling races probably just manages to trump those things.
One of the things that has been amusing me just recently, though is that other drivers have clearly cottoned on to Vettel's love of putting his name in the record books at each circuit. He clearly not only loves to win but also likes to get the fastest lap as well, so the other drivers seem to have been deliberately trying to take that off him, even when they can't win the race.
So last weekend Vettel put in a super quick lap on the last lap but Alonso also did the fastest lap as the last lap so he took it off him, but then Jenson Button did a fastest lap too, clearly with the intent of taking it off him as well. The weekend before Webber clearly did a fastest lap towards the end just to take it off of Seb too.
Thursday, 1 November 2012
simcity moving closer
So the new version of SimCity is moving closer.
Current release date appears to still be February 2013. I'd wondered if it might slip or perhaps if it was tied in to something (only thing I can think of in February is Valentine's Day). You'd think they might try to hit an important date or get it out for Christmas, but I guess the date they've given is based on realism and not rushing it out. Hopefully, anyway - I wouldn't mind if it slipped so long as it means a better product at the end.
Anyway, it's looking good from what they've shown on the website and various places. In particular my big concern about SimCity 4000 I expressed before was that it was full of horrible micro-management. Not meaning micro-management is horrible, but that the way you had to go about the micromanagement was horrible.
In the new game engine they've developed there's a lot more in the way of clever graphics to show you the numbers. Now sometimes this can be quite a token effort, but here they appear to have done it in a really sensible and easy to use way - at least, that's what it looks like from the gameplay footage.
I have to say it doesn't look massively different to SimCity Societies (or SimCity 4000 for that matter) but then those games looked pretty good.
One thing they do appear to have developed is the idea that your city sits in a region - you can either control all cities in the region or other people can control other cities. I'm pretty sure this was in SimCity 4000, but there was a thing on the site where people were asking questions and the implication was that this was new.
My guess is I'm miss-remembering quite how it worked in 4000 - perhaps although multiple people could control cities they interaction between them was minimal? Certainly in the new game it appears to be going more for a specialisation idea. So one city might be industrial, another residential and a third all about education. In a sense then this means that the region kinda operates like a single big city, or a network of interconnected towns.
It sounds interesting either way - interactions sound like they might be quite complex and multi-faceted. Although only if you want them to be seemed to be the implication - you could have them all isolated.
There seem to be some changes, though. You can no longer terraform. The way they explained it was that it gives it more of a puzzle element, which makes some sense. I never used to be that big into terraforming anyway.
However, a slightly odd change is the lack of subways. They appear to have trains, buses, boats and even trams, but apparently subways have gone. I'm not quite sure why - subways could presumably be represented in some fairly simple ways. Perhaps they're saving it for an extension or as downloadable content?
I mean, it's not a big loss, just a bit unusual.
Still, it's looking good. And hopefully it will be a game I will play properly, rather than sitting on my shelf like all the others!
Current release date appears to still be February 2013. I'd wondered if it might slip or perhaps if it was tied in to something (only thing I can think of in February is Valentine's Day). You'd think they might try to hit an important date or get it out for Christmas, but I guess the date they've given is based on realism and not rushing it out. Hopefully, anyway - I wouldn't mind if it slipped so long as it means a better product at the end.
Anyway, it's looking good from what they've shown on the website and various places. In particular my big concern about SimCity 4000 I expressed before was that it was full of horrible micro-management. Not meaning micro-management is horrible, but that the way you had to go about the micromanagement was horrible.
In the new game engine they've developed there's a lot more in the way of clever graphics to show you the numbers. Now sometimes this can be quite a token effort, but here they appear to have done it in a really sensible and easy to use way - at least, that's what it looks like from the gameplay footage.
I have to say it doesn't look massively different to SimCity Societies (or SimCity 4000 for that matter) but then those games looked pretty good.
One thing they do appear to have developed is the idea that your city sits in a region - you can either control all cities in the region or other people can control other cities. I'm pretty sure this was in SimCity 4000, but there was a thing on the site where people were asking questions and the implication was that this was new.
My guess is I'm miss-remembering quite how it worked in 4000 - perhaps although multiple people could control cities they interaction between them was minimal? Certainly in the new game it appears to be going more for a specialisation idea. So one city might be industrial, another residential and a third all about education. In a sense then this means that the region kinda operates like a single big city, or a network of interconnected towns.
It sounds interesting either way - interactions sound like they might be quite complex and multi-faceted. Although only if you want them to be seemed to be the implication - you could have them all isolated.
There seem to be some changes, though. You can no longer terraform. The way they explained it was that it gives it more of a puzzle element, which makes some sense. I never used to be that big into terraforming anyway.
However, a slightly odd change is the lack of subways. They appear to have trains, buses, boats and even trams, but apparently subways have gone. I'm not quite sure why - subways could presumably be represented in some fairly simple ways. Perhaps they're saving it for an extension or as downloadable content?
I mean, it's not a big loss, just a bit unusual.
Still, it's looking good. And hopefully it will be a game I will play properly, rather than sitting on my shelf like all the others!
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
scream 4
I really liked the original scream.
As I'm sure everyone knows, the clever thing about scream 1 was the meta-textual stuff. Or to put it another way it constantly referred to classic slasher films, yet was a slasher film in and of itself. In particular it played with the idea that many of the victims were slasher fans and new all about such films as Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street.
It was very well done - it didn't step too far over the line of reasonable-ness, yet it had plenty of fun with the format too. It managed to work as a story as well as a slasher film and a meditation on both.
Screams 2 and 3 were less good. They were written by the same guy and tried to bring in the types of things that happen in sequels (the second was almost unrelated, but the third brought it back to the origin, for example). It also got even more met textual in that in the Scream universe the events of the first film spawned a film series called "stab" (a film-within-a-film).
Those sequels were okay - the trouble with any sequel of course is that people who come to them are doing so because they enjoyed the first film, so the temptation is to give them basically the same thing, but of course then they know what to expect. While the plots weren't exactly predictable and "the same" the basic idea - the meta-textual thing - had to be the same, so it made them fairly predictable.
Scream 4 essentially tries to do what Scream did, but this time including the idea of self-referencing and meta-textuality. In other words if Scream was "what would happen if a slasher film happened in real life?" then Scream 4 is "what would happen if a slasher film happened in real life if a slasher film had already happened in real life and been absorbed into the milieu?"
You probably see the problem - certainly I think the problem I had writing that paragraph (and I therefore assume you had reading it) hints at the underlying difficulties. It's become too complicated. It's meta-text of meta-text. It's like a self-parody of a self-parody: it could be brilliant or (as here) it could just feel like it's derivative with too many bells and whistles added on.
Don't get me wrong - there are still some good killings and thrills, it's just that you can get those in any good slasher film. The bits that made Scream stand out when double-heaped end up making this film feel overly complicated.
As I'm sure everyone knows, the clever thing about scream 1 was the meta-textual stuff. Or to put it another way it constantly referred to classic slasher films, yet was a slasher film in and of itself. In particular it played with the idea that many of the victims were slasher fans and new all about such films as Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street.
It was very well done - it didn't step too far over the line of reasonable-ness, yet it had plenty of fun with the format too. It managed to work as a story as well as a slasher film and a meditation on both.
Screams 2 and 3 were less good. They were written by the same guy and tried to bring in the types of things that happen in sequels (the second was almost unrelated, but the third brought it back to the origin, for example). It also got even more met textual in that in the Scream universe the events of the first film spawned a film series called "stab" (a film-within-a-film).
Those sequels were okay - the trouble with any sequel of course is that people who come to them are doing so because they enjoyed the first film, so the temptation is to give them basically the same thing, but of course then they know what to expect. While the plots weren't exactly predictable and "the same" the basic idea - the meta-textual thing - had to be the same, so it made them fairly predictable.
Scream 4 essentially tries to do what Scream did, but this time including the idea of self-referencing and meta-textuality. In other words if Scream was "what would happen if a slasher film happened in real life?" then Scream 4 is "what would happen if a slasher film happened in real life if a slasher film had already happened in real life and been absorbed into the milieu?"
You probably see the problem - certainly I think the problem I had writing that paragraph (and I therefore assume you had reading it) hints at the underlying difficulties. It's become too complicated. It's meta-text of meta-text. It's like a self-parody of a self-parody: it could be brilliant or (as here) it could just feel like it's derivative with too many bells and whistles added on.
Don't get me wrong - there are still some good killings and thrills, it's just that you can get those in any good slasher film. The bits that made Scream stand out when double-heaped end up making this film feel overly complicated.
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
it's christmas
I was actually planning to blog about this a few weeks back, but Christmas seems to have arrived already.
I noticed while I was on holiday at the end of September that the big supermarket already had a few Christmas things out, but I kinda dismissed it as it's a huge supermarket and it was only one or two tins f biscuits that looked a bit Christmassy.
However, while shopping in the local Sainsbury's last week and then the big Tesco up the road a couple of days later (nowhere seems to sell Crunchy Bran, which is one of my favourite cereals) there were some proper areas that seemed to be sprouting multiple Christmas things.
Every year it seems to get worse - I mean, seriously, September is ridiculously early isn't it? That's a quarter of a year before the event. And both Halloween and Bonfire night still a month away - it's just taking the piss.
The thing is though, people must buy this stuff. I'm sure supermarkets wouldn't waste space on Chrimbo stuff if nobody bought it; so who the hell buys it this early?
The other thing I wanted to mention on the Christmas front is that it snowed this last weekend. And I don't mean in a general sense in the UK - it snowed where I live.
Every Saturday morning I do my washing at the laundrette and once I've transferred it over to the Tumble Dryer I usually go for a short walk around the estate (while it's washing I read a book). Well this time weekend it was bitterly cold and as I was coming up the hill a small flurry of snow started.
We're only talking tiny bits and it wasn't settling or anything, but still snow. It had stopped by the time I got to the top of the hill and I don't think it snowed again.
It's a bit of a worrying sign, actually - I was hoping we might finally get a mild winter, having suffered really cold ones for the last few years. I've also not really been prepping for winter; particularly in terms of electricity - there's only a little bit of electricity on the meter and when it gets properly cold heating really sucks away at the power.
To be fair, given I was expecting to change jobs and therefore move, I've been tending to keep the meter quite low all year, but I'd better ramp it up just in case winter is a cold one. I'm now certainly not going to be moving or doing anything change-wise until next year.
I noticed while I was on holiday at the end of September that the big supermarket already had a few Christmas things out, but I kinda dismissed it as it's a huge supermarket and it was only one or two tins f biscuits that looked a bit Christmassy.
However, while shopping in the local Sainsbury's last week and then the big Tesco up the road a couple of days later (nowhere seems to sell Crunchy Bran, which is one of my favourite cereals) there were some proper areas that seemed to be sprouting multiple Christmas things.
Every year it seems to get worse - I mean, seriously, September is ridiculously early isn't it? That's a quarter of a year before the event. And both Halloween and Bonfire night still a month away - it's just taking the piss.
The thing is though, people must buy this stuff. I'm sure supermarkets wouldn't waste space on Chrimbo stuff if nobody bought it; so who the hell buys it this early?
The other thing I wanted to mention on the Christmas front is that it snowed this last weekend. And I don't mean in a general sense in the UK - it snowed where I live.
Every Saturday morning I do my washing at the laundrette and once I've transferred it over to the Tumble Dryer I usually go for a short walk around the estate (while it's washing I read a book). Well this time weekend it was bitterly cold and as I was coming up the hill a small flurry of snow started.
We're only talking tiny bits and it wasn't settling or anything, but still snow. It had stopped by the time I got to the top of the hill and I don't think it snowed again.
It's a bit of a worrying sign, actually - I was hoping we might finally get a mild winter, having suffered really cold ones for the last few years. I've also not really been prepping for winter; particularly in terms of electricity - there's only a little bit of electricity on the meter and when it gets properly cold heating really sucks away at the power.
To be fair, given I was expecting to change jobs and therefore move, I've been tending to keep the meter quite low all year, but I'd better ramp it up just in case winter is a cold one. I'm now certainly not going to be moving or doing anything change-wise until next year.
Monday, 29 October 2012
indian snore prix
Indian Grand Prix this last weekend and it was a pretty rubbish race.
It was a race the BBC only showed highlights of and unlike some of the others it was probably a race that really only deserved highlights. I listened on the radio and watched the TV coverage. The clocks went back, which made pre-setting the recording difficult, but then coverage started at about 9:30 so I was up and about anyway.
I actually did some stuff on the computer while it was on but didn't really miss anything. Indeed, the radio coverage seemed to focus quite a lot on other stuff, rather than what was (not) happening on track.
What was weird is they seemed to big up the race quite a bit beforehand. I guess when you're spending lots of money to show races you're not going to do the race down, but I seem to recall last year wasn't that great either. Quite whey they were describing it as one of Tilka's best and a circuit the driver's love I'm not sure.
Well, I guess what the driver's love and what the spectators love can be quite different things, but still, it was a bit of a damp squib of a race by all accounts.
What was interesting is that the TV coverage flattered the race - they trimmed out so much of the dull stuff that it seemed much more exciting than it was. What was really telling having listened to both is that the highlights didn't have any exciting bits missing - in a really exciting race they would have had to make choices about what to leave out for want of time, but here they had to put in some of the less exciting moments to pad it out.
Unfortunately from a championship point of view Vettel also extended his lead - not by much and he very nearly got scuppered by a technical problem at the end, but still, it now looks like Vettel and Red Bull really have the momentum.
It was a race the BBC only showed highlights of and unlike some of the others it was probably a race that really only deserved highlights. I listened on the radio and watched the TV coverage. The clocks went back, which made pre-setting the recording difficult, but then coverage started at about 9:30 so I was up and about anyway.
I actually did some stuff on the computer while it was on but didn't really miss anything. Indeed, the radio coverage seemed to focus quite a lot on other stuff, rather than what was (not) happening on track.
What was weird is they seemed to big up the race quite a bit beforehand. I guess when you're spending lots of money to show races you're not going to do the race down, but I seem to recall last year wasn't that great either. Quite whey they were describing it as one of Tilka's best and a circuit the driver's love I'm not sure.
Well, I guess what the driver's love and what the spectators love can be quite different things, but still, it was a bit of a damp squib of a race by all accounts.
What was interesting is that the TV coverage flattered the race - they trimmed out so much of the dull stuff that it seemed much more exciting than it was. What was really telling having listened to both is that the highlights didn't have any exciting bits missing - in a really exciting race they would have had to make choices about what to leave out for want of time, but here they had to put in some of the less exciting moments to pad it out.
Unfortunately from a championship point of view Vettel also extended his lead - not by much and he very nearly got scuppered by a technical problem at the end, but still, it now looks like Vettel and Red Bull really have the momentum.
Friday, 26 October 2012
patchy
Posting this week has been patchy as I've been rushed off my feet.
Obviously I've already mentioned that I came in last Sunday, and a big part of what I've been doing this week has been as a result of that. The thing I finished I've then proceeded to roll-out to the rest of the staff.
Now ideally I would have done that at a single session, but that was just not practical, so I've done two sessions already and I've probably got two more pending. It's all been quite tiring, particularly since I've also had the "day job" to do as well.
As a result, I'm shattered - thank God the clocks go back this weekend and I can get an extra hours kip!
It's the Indian Grand Prix this weekend.
It's only the second year, but I don't particularly remember it being a good race last year. There was overtaking, but I seem to recall it was basically all as a result of the DRS.
I'll also hopefully do a bit of general TV watching, as last weekend's "bonus work" didn't help clear it down any.
Obviously I've already mentioned that I came in last Sunday, and a big part of what I've been doing this week has been as a result of that. The thing I finished I've then proceeded to roll-out to the rest of the staff.
Now ideally I would have done that at a single session, but that was just not practical, so I've done two sessions already and I've probably got two more pending. It's all been quite tiring, particularly since I've also had the "day job" to do as well.
As a result, I'm shattered - thank God the clocks go back this weekend and I can get an extra hours kip!
It's the Indian Grand Prix this weekend.
It's only the second year, but I don't particularly remember it being a good race last year. There was overtaking, but I seem to recall it was basically all as a result of the DRS.
I'll also hopefully do a bit of general TV watching, as last weekend's "bonus work" didn't help clear it down any.
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
eating tweak
So I've tweaked how and what I eat in an attempt to get the diet going again.
The tweak, essentially, is that I have cereal for lunch. Now we're talking "proper" cereal here - not coco puffs or corn flakes or something, but high-fibre healthy jobs.
There were two real factors in the decision.
The first was that I noticed cereal contains very few calories. There's that old gag that the cardboard box has more calories in it that the contents, but generally speaking high-fibre cereals are pretty low in calories. Recommended portion sizes vary but they generally only come in at 200 calories. Now obviously what they say is a portion and what most people eat are a bit different, but even if you double the amount we're still only talking 400 calories.
If you team it with skimmed milk as well then that helps too (some portions on the box include the calories for semi-skimmed milk). So the bowl I have is generally a very big bowl, but I reckon even worse case we're talking 500 calories max (I tend to like to mix several cereals together).
That compares to around 1,000 calories for the sandwich-based meal I used to have (and still do some days, to be fair). Now the idea of the sandwich-based meal was that this was the single big meal of the day. That worked in the first diet phase, but just recently I've really struggled to limit my dinner to a small meal.
With the cereal lunch I can eat a reasonable dinner without it being a problem - and if I only have a small dinner then that helps even more.
The second factor is that I noticed I was doing okay in terms of hunger with just my bowl of cereal for breakfast. I therefore thought that maybe if I had cereal at lunch then I wouldn't get hungry, and it turns out it works.
I mean, I've had a few days where I was peckish, but I haven't ended up starving hungry. Of course I didn't with sandwiches ever, but then that's what makes the evening eating annoying - I'm not hungry, as such, but I eat anyway.
But then that's always been one of my main problems - always eating, even when I'm not hungry. Eating is just something I do - and if I'm not eating then I'm probably thinking about what I'm going to have for my next meal.
Anyway, initial results have been okay - 1 pound lost in the first week and 3 pounds this last week. I guess moment of truth will be this weekend as I think 3 weeks losing in a row is a good sign it's working.
The tweak, essentially, is that I have cereal for lunch. Now we're talking "proper" cereal here - not coco puffs or corn flakes or something, but high-fibre healthy jobs.
There were two real factors in the decision.
The first was that I noticed cereal contains very few calories. There's that old gag that the cardboard box has more calories in it that the contents, but generally speaking high-fibre cereals are pretty low in calories. Recommended portion sizes vary but they generally only come in at 200 calories. Now obviously what they say is a portion and what most people eat are a bit different, but even if you double the amount we're still only talking 400 calories.
If you team it with skimmed milk as well then that helps too (some portions on the box include the calories for semi-skimmed milk). So the bowl I have is generally a very big bowl, but I reckon even worse case we're talking 500 calories max (I tend to like to mix several cereals together).
That compares to around 1,000 calories for the sandwich-based meal I used to have (and still do some days, to be fair). Now the idea of the sandwich-based meal was that this was the single big meal of the day. That worked in the first diet phase, but just recently I've really struggled to limit my dinner to a small meal.
With the cereal lunch I can eat a reasonable dinner without it being a problem - and if I only have a small dinner then that helps even more.
The second factor is that I noticed I was doing okay in terms of hunger with just my bowl of cereal for breakfast. I therefore thought that maybe if I had cereal at lunch then I wouldn't get hungry, and it turns out it works.
I mean, I've had a few days where I was peckish, but I haven't ended up starving hungry. Of course I didn't with sandwiches ever, but then that's what makes the evening eating annoying - I'm not hungry, as such, but I eat anyway.
But then that's always been one of my main problems - always eating, even when I'm not hungry. Eating is just something I do - and if I'm not eating then I'm probably thinking about what I'm going to have for my next meal.
Anyway, initial results have been okay - 1 pound lost in the first week and 3 pounds this last week. I guess moment of truth will be this weekend as I think 3 weeks losing in a row is a good sign it's working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)