And he or she is now a movie star:
Some more noisy eating can be seen here (and note how it seems to be left handed):
As usual, very cute.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
All possum
The friendly possum under the deck has been coming back a lot lately. He (or she) likes to be fed, and this photo came out looking like I was being threatened if I didn't hand over a grape:
And he or she is now a movie star:
Some more noisy eating can be seen here (and note how it seems to be left handed):
As usual, very cute.
And he or she is now a movie star:
Some more noisy eating can be seen here (and note how it seems to be left handed):
As usual, very cute.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The last unconquered lands
Madagascar mystery of how small group of Indonesian women colonised island
So it seems Madagascar has an odd anthropological history, with DNA research indicating this:
So it seems Madagascar has an odd anthropological history, with DNA research indicating this:
If the samples are right, around 30 Indonesian women founded the Malagasy population ''with a much smaller, but just as important, biological contribution from Africa'', it says.
The study focused on mitrochondrial DNA, which is transmitted only through the mother, so it does not exclude the possibility that Indonesian men also arrived with the first women.
Computer simulations suggest the settlement began around AD830, around the time Indonesian trading networks expanded under the Srivijaya Empire of Sumatra.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
French mythology?
Wine and kids: Is it OK to let them try it? - Slate Magazine
This article notes that the French method of a gradual introduction to alcohol to kids at the family table did not actually lead to responsible adult drinking:
Oh. It was a French myth? Should I stop serving my kids sparkling apple juice in champagne glasses?
This article notes that the French method of a gradual introduction to alcohol to kids at the family table did not actually lead to responsible adult drinking:
NPR recently aired a story looking at the rising incidence of binge drinking among French youths and growing doubts in France about the wisdom of giving children an early introduction to alcohol. What accounts for the upsurge in hell-raising? One possibility is that French parents have become more like us: They aren’t drinking nearly as much wine as they used to, and fewer children are being introduced to alcohol in the home. But here’s the thing: Early exposure has historically not encouraged moderation in France. Alcoholism has long been a major public health problem there. (In fact, the incidence of alcohol-related road fatalities got so bad that in the mid-1990s the government enacted some of Europe’s toughest drunk-driving laws.) The bottom line is that the seemingly more enlightened French approach hasn’t actually produced healthier drinking habits.
Oh. It was a French myth? Should I stop serving my kids sparkling apple juice in champagne glasses?
Going down
James Cameron’s Rocket Plunge to the Planet’s Deepest Recess - NYTimes.com
I don't care for James Cameron or his films, but I suppose I have to admit that he has the kind of rich man eccentric hobby that is at least interesting. That is, he gets his own personal deep sea submersible built and ride it to the bottom of the deepest trench in the world.
This article shows the unique vertical axis design of the submersible, which has been built in Australia. (Who knew we were good at that? Pity we can't seem to do it quite so well with Navy submarine.)
He obviously does not suffer from claustrophobia:
Of course, if he disappears in the attempt to do this, it would form a great premise for a future Cameron-esque director to build on. Not that I wish him harm; rich people who push technological limits are doing something better than making expensive but so-so movies.
I don't care for James Cameron or his films, but I suppose I have to admit that he has the kind of rich man eccentric hobby that is at least interesting. That is, he gets his own personal deep sea submersible built and ride it to the bottom of the deepest trench in the world.
This article shows the unique vertical axis design of the submersible, which has been built in Australia. (Who knew we were good at that? Pity we can't seem to do it quite so well with Navy submarine.)
He obviously does not suffer from claustrophobia:
Mr. Cameron plans to plummet 6.8 miles. The Challenger Deep is the most remote area of the Mariana Trench, the deepest of the seabed recesses that crisscross the globe. He is to cram his 6-foot-2 frame into a personnel sphere just 43 inches wide, forcing him to keep his knees bent and his body largely immobile. The dive plan calls for him to remain in that position for up to nine hours.Better him than me.
Of course, if he disappears in the attempt to do this, it would form a great premise for a future Cameron-esque director to build on. Not that I wish him harm; rich people who push technological limits are doing something better than making expensive but so-so movies.
The road to Mandalay
Mandalay is one of the nicest sounding city names, isn't it? Not sure why; it just is.
This is mentioned because Foreign Correspondent last night was from Burma, and what an interesting country it looked. Dirt poor, and as I missed the start I'm not sure if they ever explained what the stuff on the face is about, but the vistas of old temples from balloons looked almost other worldly.
Video should be available here.
This is mentioned because Foreign Correspondent last night was from Burma, and what an interesting country it looked. Dirt poor, and as I missed the start I'm not sure if they ever explained what the stuff on the face is about, but the vistas of old temples from balloons looked almost other worldly.
Video should be available here.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Thomas, the Australian, and the "avoidable flood" that was unavoidable
Hedley Thomas is, predictably, crowing about the finding of the Queensland Flood Inquiry that the Wivenhoe Dam was not operated in accordance with the manual. It's true, his articles did mean the commission had to examine how the SEQWater report came to be written because (it would appear) lawyers missed the importance of some evidence relating to what dam release strategy the engineers thought they were operating on during the weekend of 8 - 9 January.
I haven't read all of the Inquiry's report on the engineer's evidence; but certainly, the way the SEQWater report was written was (as I indicted in a previous post), not a good look.
Whether the 3 engineers in question deserve any condemnation for it from a Crimes and Misconduct Commission enquiry is another question. The Inquiry found that the the Manual was pretty hopeless anyway, and I suspect that the fundamental problem with any such manual is that, by its very nature, flood management via dam releases must leave a wide scope of discretion in the engineers, at least until you get to a level where it's a case of "do anything to protect the dam."
And at the end of the day, what should matter is the degree to which, if any, dam operations actually caused any harm.
This is where Hedley Thomas and the Australian deserve no praise at all; quite the opposite in fact. The paper as a whole has followed a sensationalist line in its reporting, virtually since the flood occurred.
For example: this is what the Inquiry writes at Chapter 16, page 527:
The Inquiry notes that, even though the dam manual was not followed from 8 am Saturday, no one thought the actual dam releases were at inappropriate levels during Saturday. The following paragraphs (at page 527 of the inquiry report) indicate that it was probably during the afternoon of Sunday 9 January that the change to faster releases could have happened:
Does anyone really think that 7 hours of faster release would have made a huge difference?
Does anyone reading the Australian or Hedley Thomas get any sense of that?
The Inquiry finds:
Of crucial importance is this paragraph - talking about what would have happened even if you started with the dam at 75% capacity:
So let's get this clear - the modelling of the independent hydrologist, based on starting at a dam 75% and with lower "trigger points" for releases would have resulted in a flood in Brisbane city of about 50 centimetres less.
Contrast this to what Hedley Thomas was writing on Feb 14 2011:
Or what about the headlines given to his continual promoting of the idea that the dam management caused the flood:
Here's the thing: Hedley Thomas decided early to go hard with the story that this was a "preventable flood" that was the fault of dam operations. This was based on some hunches of a couple of engineers, and Thomas and the Australian has, in a long series of headlines and articles continued to foster this belief.
In reality, the Inquiry and the independent modelling it used has shown it was not an "avoidable flood" at all. Different timing of water releases may have made a relatively small difference to flood levels to most areas, but it still would have been a major flood even if you started at a 75% dam level and had lower triggers.
Given this scenario, my hunch is that it is rather unlikely that overseas modelling is going to be certain enough to allow for liability to be legally established for anyone. Certainly, the inquiry modelling would indicate that no one (in most of Brisbane, anyway) with more than about .5 m of water through their house is going to have any hope of blaming their damage on dam management.
The Australian, and Hedley Thomas, have been largely uninterested in reporting this level of detail of the Inquiry and its modelling, and have been more interested in campaigning for a interpretation of the event that actually isn't holding up to scrutiny. Personally, I think the the misunderstanding in large parts of the community that they have fostered for a year about the nature of the flood easily outweighs any benefit of having successfully made a few engineer's lives a further misery.
Finally, it's interesting too to note the connection between climate change skepticism (for which The Australian is well for promoting) and the "avoidable flood" meme. On both subjects, people like Andrew Bolt have been happy to promote the Thomas line without actually looking at the detail of the Inquiry. Same as his ignoring the fact that more intense droughts and floods have been predicted by CSIRO for years, Andrew Bolt has shown no sign of informing himself of the Inquiry's detailed findings as illustrated in this post.
Increasingly, I have been noticing how "pop" climate change skepticism thrives on laziness, and not looking into matters in enough detail. These "fake skeptics", as some call them, are easily conned in all sorts of ways, and The Australian is always there to help.
I haven't read all of the Inquiry's report on the engineer's evidence; but certainly, the way the SEQWater report was written was (as I indicted in a previous post), not a good look.
Whether the 3 engineers in question deserve any condemnation for it from a Crimes and Misconduct Commission enquiry is another question. The Inquiry found that the the Manual was pretty hopeless anyway, and I suspect that the fundamental problem with any such manual is that, by its very nature, flood management via dam releases must leave a wide scope of discretion in the engineers, at least until you get to a level where it's a case of "do anything to protect the dam."
And at the end of the day, what should matter is the degree to which, if any, dam operations actually caused any harm.
This is where Hedley Thomas and the Australian deserve no praise at all; quite the opposite in fact. The paper as a whole has followed a sensationalist line in its reporting, virtually since the flood occurred.
For example: this is what the Inquiry writes at Chapter 16, page 527:
It is unfortunate that there has been a conflation in some media reporting of two separate issues: whether there was non-compliance with the manual strategies and whether it caused unnecessary flooding. The Commission has found the first (see 16.11 Conclusions: the dam operations strategies.) As to the second, Mr Babister’s perception was that the flood engineers managed Wivenhoe Dam so that its flood mitigation effect was ‘very close’ to the maximum achievable within the constraints of the manual. That may well be right. The problem is that the possibility exists that because the engineers failed to consider the releases open to them within the parameters of the correct W strategy, an opportunity may have been lost for earlier releases.Was that opening line directed to Hedley Thomas? I think it pretty likely, given that this is what we get from Hedley Thomas (and Jamie Walker):
The evidence was uniformly to the effect that the pattern of releases adopted on Saturday 8 January was appropriate: the lake level was only just over 68.5 metres and showed every sign of dropping; higher releases would have been risky and unwarranted. The picture is not so clear for Sunday 9 January, when the rainfall returned.
The Floods Commission of Inquiry's finding that the engineers who operated Australia's largest dam failed to adopt the correct strategy to protect Brisbane from inundation for about 36 hours from Saturday, January 8, last year, has given a major boost to the hopes of thousands of victims.See the difference?
The Inquiry notes that, even though the dam manual was not followed from 8 am Saturday, no one thought the actual dam releases were at inappropriate levels during Saturday. The following paragraphs (at page 527 of the inquiry report) indicate that it was probably during the afternoon of Sunday 9 January that the change to faster releases could have happened:
Mr Babister initially said that ‘the more practical or realistic options if you were going to have higher releases, is to start some time after midday or somewhere between midday and 1600 hours. That’s when it would be realistic on the 9th to increase flows above what was released’; although he subsequently modified that view to say that the ‘only area’ that there was ‘some argument they probably could have released slightly higher flows’ was after 4.00 pm that afternoon. The scenario of higher releases on the afternoon of 9 January, Mr Babister said, was most closely reflected in scenario 9 of Figure 16.1; but it was ‘an adventurous risk-taking approach’ because it relied on confidence in the rainfall forecast.The chapter concludes:
Mr Shannon’s view was that given the ‘frightening’ inflow by 2.00 pm on 9 January and the predicted lake level it would be ‘extraordinary’ not to have put the closure of the bridges in train by then, in accordance with the intention of W3. And Mr Tibaldi volunteered in evidence that ‘decid[ing] to ramp up earlier for this event... would have reduced flood damage’. Mr Ayre agreed.
That night [9 January], though, at about 7.00 pm, it was recognised that the release rate from Wivenhoe would have to be elevated. No actual strategy change was documented; at best, it can be said that the actions taken were consistent with strategy W3.It therefore seems accurate to say that the Inquiry has only raised doubt about the actual rates of water releases for only 7 hours (from midday to 7 pm on 9 January) or even less.
It follows that Wivenhoe Dam was operated in breach of the manual from 8.00 am on 8 January 2011 until the evening of 9 January 2011.
Does anyone really think that 7 hours of faster release would have made a huge difference?
Does anyone reading the Australian or Hedley Thomas get any sense of that?
The Inquiry finds:
There is, it is obvious, plenty of scope for argument about whether adherence to the manual strategies would have made a difference to the way in which the flood engineers actually operated the dam; but the possibility certainly exists that they would have responded more quickly to the developing conditions of 9 January had their mindset been one of applying strategy W3. Ascertaining the practical result of acting more quickly also is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the modelling; but again, the possibility exists of at least some improvement in the flooding outcome for Brisbane and Ipswich.Here's how Thomas interprets this:
Supreme Court of Appeal judge Catherine Holmes SC found that "the possibility exists of at least some improvement in the flooding outcome for Brisbane and Ipswich" if the dam had not been mismanaged. This is a departure from earlier findings made by the inquiry's expert witness, hydrologist Mark Babister, that the flood engineers had achieved close to the best possible result in mitigating the flood.I don't see how it is a departure at all. As I understand it, Babister did not change his advice to the Inquiry between his two appearance - his modelling on different scenarios indicates that, for large parts of Brisbane, the flood might have been capable of being reduced by 30cm to a 90 cm (see page 526 of the report). The Inquiry notes the modelling has considerable uncertainties, and the scenarios they asked Mr Babister to model are not even all "realistic".
Of crucial importance is this paragraph - talking about what would have happened even if you started with the dam at 75% capacity:
It is important to note that even at these lower river heights, major flooding would still have been experienced in Brisbane. The Bureau of Meteorology defines a major flood as one which peaks above 15.5 metres at Moggill and 3.5 metres at Brisbane city1028 (the Port Office gauge). Scenario 4, which involved an initial lake level of 75 per cent of full supply level and W strategy trigger levels reduced by 25 per cent, resulted in a modelled height of 16.3 metres at Moggill and 4.0 metres at the Port Office.To remind you,the measured height of this flood at the Port Office was 4.46m (although another gauge indicated only 4.27 m - see page 522 of the inquiry report).
So let's get this clear - the modelling of the independent hydrologist, based on starting at a dam 75% and with lower "trigger points" for releases would have resulted in a flood in Brisbane city of about 50 centimetres less.
Contrast this to what Hedley Thomas was writing on Feb 14 2011:
THE clearest official acknowledgment that the devastating flood in the Brisbane River was avoidable has been the decision yesterday to let go 25 per cent of the water stored in the Wivenhoe Dam.Sorry, Hedley, Inquiry says "no".
Or what about the headlines given to his continual promoting of the idea that the dam management caused the flood:
- The great avoidable flood: an inquiry's challenge [22 Jan 2011]
- Engineer bores a hole in dam untruths [19 March 2011 - a piece promoting the engineer Michael O'Brien's figurings given the title "Brisbane Flooding January 2011: An Avoidable Disaster".]
- Damages to flow from Wivenhoe Dam breach [17 March 2012] even though the body of the report contains the caution from Maurice Blackburn lawyers: "If the action proceeds, it is likely to be the largest class action Australia has ever seen."
The inquiry's expert witness had previously asserted that close to the best possible result was achieved; however, independent engineers consulted by The Australian have calculated that almost all of the flooding could have been avoided.Well those "independent engineers" obviously aren't good enough for the Australian based litigation lawyers. In fact, if you look at Michael O'Brien's report, which Thomas was promoting in the report note above, O'Brien's work experience has been in building gas and oil pipelines, but he has had "to assess the impact of various rainfall events and to interpret and rely on flood mapping for the design and location of process facilities." Colour me unimpressed. His entire paper appears to be a mere series of "what ifs" in terms of when water might have been released if you had perfect knowledge of the rainfall that would arrive in the next few days, and is not (as far as I can tell) based on hydrological modelling at all.
The detailed modelling necessary to determine this will be conducted by overseas experts engaged by law firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon, which yesterday described the finding of the breach and the cover-up as "crystal-clear".
Here's the thing: Hedley Thomas decided early to go hard with the story that this was a "preventable flood" that was the fault of dam operations. This was based on some hunches of a couple of engineers, and Thomas and the Australian has, in a long series of headlines and articles continued to foster this belief.
In reality, the Inquiry and the independent modelling it used has shown it was not an "avoidable flood" at all. Different timing of water releases may have made a relatively small difference to flood levels to most areas, but it still would have been a major flood even if you started at a 75% dam level and had lower triggers.
Given this scenario, my hunch is that it is rather unlikely that overseas modelling is going to be certain enough to allow for liability to be legally established for anyone. Certainly, the inquiry modelling would indicate that no one (in most of Brisbane, anyway) with more than about .5 m of water through their house is going to have any hope of blaming their damage on dam management.
The Australian, and Hedley Thomas, have been largely uninterested in reporting this level of detail of the Inquiry and its modelling, and have been more interested in campaigning for a interpretation of the event that actually isn't holding up to scrutiny. Personally, I think the the misunderstanding in large parts of the community that they have fostered for a year about the nature of the flood easily outweighs any benefit of having successfully made a few engineer's lives a further misery.
Finally, it's interesting too to note the connection between climate change skepticism (for which The Australian is well for promoting) and the "avoidable flood" meme. On both subjects, people like Andrew Bolt have been happy to promote the Thomas line without actually looking at the detail of the Inquiry. Same as his ignoring the fact that more intense droughts and floods have been predicted by CSIRO for years, Andrew Bolt has shown no sign of informing himself of the Inquiry's detailed findings as illustrated in this post.
Increasingly, I have been noticing how "pop" climate change skepticism thrives on laziness, and not looking into matters in enough detail. These "fake skeptics", as some call them, are easily conned in all sorts of ways, and The Australian is always there to help.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
They never saw it coming...
It's not a volcano, it's a limnic eruption, with lots of dead animals below the carbon dioxide emitting crater lake in Africa.(Year 6 "natural disaster" science project. It looks better in real life as the mist flows down over the huts. Dry ice is fun.)
Actually, I never knew that those cases of deadly lake out-gassing in Africa in the 1980's were called "limnic eruptions". My son found out about them on the net, and it's a more interesting thing to make than a plain volcano. I suspect he'll be the only limnic eruption in class.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Catalyst returns
In previous years, when Getaway used to be on Channel 9 on Thursday nights, watching attractive people have good holidays in beautiful parts of the world used to win out over watching Catalyst on the ABC. Now that Getaway has skulked away (I thought it had finished altogether, but it seems to be a half hour show on Saturdays now?) I should be able to catch Catalyst every week this year. Wait a minute - there's normally a child to pick up from Scouts on Thursday nights at 8.30. Dang.
Anyway - last night's Catalyst was really interesting.
The first story was about psychopathy and its childhood signs, and research projects aimed at whether it is possible to "re-wire" callous and unemotional children by the way their parents interact with them. That involves lots of getting the kid to look into their eyes, and telling them they love them. Apparently there was a paper published about this last year. Sounds kind of simple, and I would expect you would have to start really early, but it's an interesting idea.
The second story was about the difficulty in getting reliable communications with Antarctica, particularly the inland bases. I have wondered about this, because last year I unsuccessfully searched to see whether any researcher from that continent kept a regular blog. The reason is, it seems, that communications are currently via some rather old satellites in less than ideal orbits, and bandwidth to the place is therefore limited and not always reliable.
Australia is building a couple of microsatellites to fix this. They are really small (20 cm square!) but apparently will greatly improve communication to the place.
There is also this extended interview on the website in which the guy building the satellites is asked "how come these as so cheap, and the NBN satellites will be so expensive?)
And the final story was on a new, very cool, flight and motion simulator at Deakin university that looks like incredible fun to try out.
What a great show.
Anyway - last night's Catalyst was really interesting.
The first story was about psychopathy and its childhood signs, and research projects aimed at whether it is possible to "re-wire" callous and unemotional children by the way their parents interact with them. That involves lots of getting the kid to look into their eyes, and telling them they love them. Apparently there was a paper published about this last year. Sounds kind of simple, and I would expect you would have to start really early, but it's an interesting idea.
The second story was about the difficulty in getting reliable communications with Antarctica, particularly the inland bases. I have wondered about this, because last year I unsuccessfully searched to see whether any researcher from that continent kept a regular blog. The reason is, it seems, that communications are currently via some rather old satellites in less than ideal orbits, and bandwidth to the place is therefore limited and not always reliable.
Australia is building a couple of microsatellites to fix this. They are really small (20 cm square!) but apparently will greatly improve communication to the place.
There is also this extended interview on the website in which the guy building the satellites is asked "how come these as so cheap, and the NBN satellites will be so expensive?)
And the final story was on a new, very cool, flight and motion simulator at Deakin university that looks like incredible fun to try out.
What a great show.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
You could see this coming
Controversial study promoting psychic ability debunked
I'm sure I have posted here about the precognition study that has now failed to be replicated. My lousy search function is failing me, though. I'll look for it later.
I'm sure I have posted here about the precognition study that has now failed to be replicated. My lousy search function is failing me, though. I'll look for it later.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Space news times three
* Weightlessness may not be so good for the eyes and brain.
* Jupiter is good protection for Earth against some comets, but new simulations suggest it is not all that benevolent:
* Jupiter is good protection for Earth against some comets, but new simulations suggest it is not all that benevolent:
Jupiter’s role seems confused. It definitely sends asteroids and comets our way and, in any given year, more than 90 percent of all objects crossing Earth’s orbit are asteroids, so the protection Jupiter provides us from long period comets, or by eventually removing short period comets, is of lesser importance. Hence Jupiter is not the friend that it has been perceived to be. However, things could be far worse: were Jupiter to have a mere 20 percent of its mass, the impact rate would skyrocket. Obviously for any denizens on a planet in the target zone this is bad news, but in the grand scheme of things are impacts a positive or negative factor on the overall evolution of life on a planet across billions of years?* Some scientists still have grand plans for a maglev rail track to space. The report sounds half plausible when it is talking about a cargo system (the track can run up the side of a mountain and cost about $20 billion - which is only a few years of NASA budget), but it sounds a bit loopy when it comes to the human rated system:
According to their plans, the Generation 2 magnetically levitated track would run about 1,609 km (1,000 miles) long, heading upward to an altitude of about 20 km (12 miles). While the track would be securely tethered to the ground, it would be held in mid-air completely by magnetic levitation. The entire track would be enveloped in a vented vacuum tunnel to avoid sonic shock waves that result from the spacecraft's hypersonic speeds of up to 9 km/sec (5.6 miles/sec). Once it exits this track, the spacecraft would be in position to reach LEO.Sounds a tad implausible, no? But the guys talking about this (see the Startram website) are not nutters. Just wildly optimistic, by the sounds.
More smart rat news...
Rats match humans in decision-making that involves combining different sensory cues: study
Here at the Dominion of Opinion, we* like to note news showing about the intelligence of rats:
* me and my crack team of contributors includes myself and I
Here at the Dominion of Opinion, we* like to note news showing about the intelligence of rats:
A Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) study that compared the ability of humans and rodents to make perceptual decisions based on combining different modes of sensory stimuli—visual and auditory cues, for instance—has found that just like humans, rodents also combine multisensory information and exploit it in a "statistically optimal" way -- or the most efficient and unbiased way possible.Apparently, this is significant for further studies of autism, in which people combine sensory information in a not normal sort of way. Unfortunately for rats, this sounds rather like their brains going under the microscope more often than before. If they were really smart, they would start to act dumb during some of these tests.
* me and my crack team of contributors includes myself and I
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Nuclear pessimism
Nuclear power: The dream that failed | The Economist
They do go on to mention that small, modular nuclear might make a difference, but there is not a market for it yet.
In any country independent regulation is harder when the industry being regulated exists largely by government fiat. Yet, as our special report this week explains, without governments private companies would simply not choose to build nuclear-power plants. This is in part because of the risks they face from local opposition and changes in government policy (seeing Germany’s nuclear-power stations, which the government had until then seen as safe, shut down after Fukushima sent a chilling message to the industry). But it is mostly because reactors are very expensive indeed. Lower capital costs once claimed for modern post-Chernobyl designs have not materialised. The few new reactors being built in Europe are far over their already big budgets. And in America, home to the world’s largest nuclear fleet, shale gas has slashed the costs of one of the alternatives; new nuclear plants are likely only in still-regulated electricity markets such as those of the south-east.
They do go on to mention that small, modular nuclear might make a difference, but there is not a market for it yet.
Right wing ghosts, and more
I don't read Ace of Spades, although a lot of right wingnut types seem to.
But I do check in on Michael Prescott, and he noted this entry at Spades in February about how the blogger is convinced the house he has just left was haunted by an obnoxious ghost.
Interesting.
This also reminds me, I was talking to a friend on the weekend about the conflict between Freud and Jung, and how the former saw his task as one involving a crucial cultural fight against "the black tide of mud" - occultism. Jung couldn't accept this: he was always interested in paranormal stuff. One of his early studies was to do with a spiritualist medium. He went on to be too interested in too many esoteric things, though, for my taste, and his thinking about it always seemed to be too woolly. Still, I have much more sympathy for his approach than that of Freud.
What I forgot to mention in my Saturday night conversation was that the current version of the purely scientific materialist view of the universe that most people hold is actually pretty fragile when you think about it. I mean, if you have just one personally convincing paranormal experience, this "black swan" of an event should really shake up your idea that only white swans exist.
Of course, people could always dismiss the event as a trick of the mind, and some are no doubt easily dealt with that way. (Sounds in the night are easily mis-interpretted, as are fleeing glimpses of movement and light.) But living in a house that seems persistently haunted, particularly with things involving physical movement, like lights being turned on when it was clearly impossible for a person to have done it (which Ace of Spades seems to be saying happened) - wouldn't that be a "black swan" for most diehard materialists?
I've never had a black swan experience myself, and it's kind of a sad thing that a person like me who would love to have one seems to repulse any hint of the paranormal. But who knows, it could happen yet.
But I do check in on Michael Prescott, and he noted this entry at Spades in February about how the blogger is convinced the house he has just left was haunted by an obnoxious ghost.
Interesting.
This also reminds me, I was talking to a friend on the weekend about the conflict between Freud and Jung, and how the former saw his task as one involving a crucial cultural fight against "the black tide of mud" - occultism. Jung couldn't accept this: he was always interested in paranormal stuff. One of his early studies was to do with a spiritualist medium. He went on to be too interested in too many esoteric things, though, for my taste, and his thinking about it always seemed to be too woolly. Still, I have much more sympathy for his approach than that of Freud.
What I forgot to mention in my Saturday night conversation was that the current version of the purely scientific materialist view of the universe that most people hold is actually pretty fragile when you think about it. I mean, if you have just one personally convincing paranormal experience, this "black swan" of an event should really shake up your idea that only white swans exist.
Of course, people could always dismiss the event as a trick of the mind, and some are no doubt easily dealt with that way. (Sounds in the night are easily mis-interpretted, as are fleeing glimpses of movement and light.) But living in a house that seems persistently haunted, particularly with things involving physical movement, like lights being turned on when it was clearly impossible for a person to have done it (which Ace of Spades seems to be saying happened) - wouldn't that be a "black swan" for most diehard materialists?
I've never had a black swan experience myself, and it's kind of a sad thing that a person like me who would love to have one seems to repulse any hint of the paranormal. But who knows, it could happen yet.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Aldi thoughts
There's a recurring thought I have most times I go into my local Aldi - "if only they had a modest range of clothes and foodwear, I might never need to shop anywhere else." I mean, it has all the basics, and the triumph of the good value Crystal Bay prawns bought for Christmas lunch has sealed my affection for the place for some time.
Anyway, I don't think I have ever posted about my run-down of what is good (and not so good) about Aldi supermarkets, so here goes:
The Good:
* toothbrushes. Dentex, I think the brand is, made in Germany, and excellent and long lasting quality.
* European biscuits, particularly the ones with dark chocolate on one side. I forget the name. Nearly all biscuits sold at Aldi are nice, anyway.
* Bathroom mould killer: a fair bit cheaper than Coles brand.
* canned smoked mussels: I like smoked mussels from a can, but for a long time, even John West ones came from somewhere in China (I think.) This has put me off eating them for years. But today I see they see "Danish" smoked mussels canned in Germany. This sounds a safer bet.
* Cheese. Your basic blocks of tasty cheese from Australia are pretty cheap.
The Bad:
* razors. An awful brand from somewhere in Asia if I recall correctly. But that was some years ago. Maybe the supplier has changed.
* bathroom cleaner: I'm pretty sure it was an Aldi brand that made literally breathtaking mist that required holding your breath and escaping from the shower ASAP. Avoid.
Not much else to complain about. Well, apart from the awful cheap turntable I bought on a whim.
One other thought I had today while in the shop: I noticed cans of champignon mushrooms for sale. People still buy these? What on earth for. I mean, go back 40 years, and there probably weren't even all that many mushrooms for sale in the average supermarket, and a can of champignons had some element of foreign flare about them for the pizza you made at home. But now? They are the most useless canned vegetable on the market, no doubt about it.
In fact, seeing this is already a boring post, I may as well compound that to give a run down of the worthiness of canned vegetables:
In descending order of worthiness:
Italian tomatoes: Essential to have 5 cans in the house at all times.
Chick peas: Another essential. Good for the now popular Moroccan
recipes, as well as making hummus at home.
Assorted beans: Quick and easy to use; saves lots of energy of cooking them
yourself
Water chestnuts: Lovely texture for asian dishes. Nice.
Corn kernels: They still resemble the taste of corn. Useful to have around.
Baby corn: Not much taste, but interesting texture.
Beetroot: Useful for one thing only - a slice on your hamburger.
Asparagus: Sometimes acceptable if only fresh asparagus is from
Peru and you feel guilty about the CO2 expended in
shipping it here.
Peas: Starting to scrap the bottom of taste and utility.
Barely ressembles the taste of the vegetable
Mixed carrot and peas : Carrots are forever available and always
cheap. Why would you bother?
Champignons: Rubbery bits of no flavour or utility whatsoever.
I'm sure you all feel much better informed for having read this...
Anyway, I don't think I have ever posted about my run-down of what is good (and not so good) about Aldi supermarkets, so here goes:
The Good:
* toothbrushes. Dentex, I think the brand is, made in Germany, and excellent and long lasting quality.
* European biscuits, particularly the ones with dark chocolate on one side. I forget the name. Nearly all biscuits sold at Aldi are nice, anyway.
* Bathroom mould killer: a fair bit cheaper than Coles brand.
* canned smoked mussels: I like smoked mussels from a can, but for a long time, even John West ones came from somewhere in China (I think.) This has put me off eating them for years. But today I see they see "Danish" smoked mussels canned in Germany. This sounds a safer bet.
* Cheese. Your basic blocks of tasty cheese from Australia are pretty cheap.
The Bad:
* razors. An awful brand from somewhere in Asia if I recall correctly. But that was some years ago. Maybe the supplier has changed.
* bathroom cleaner: I'm pretty sure it was an Aldi brand that made literally breathtaking mist that required holding your breath and escaping from the shower ASAP. Avoid.
Not much else to complain about. Well, apart from the awful cheap turntable I bought on a whim.
One other thought I had today while in the shop: I noticed cans of champignon mushrooms for sale. People still buy these? What on earth for. I mean, go back 40 years, and there probably weren't even all that many mushrooms for sale in the average supermarket, and a can of champignons had some element of foreign flare about them for the pizza you made at home. But now? They are the most useless canned vegetable on the market, no doubt about it.
In fact, seeing this is already a boring post, I may as well compound that to give a run down of the worthiness of canned vegetables:
In descending order of worthiness:
Italian tomatoes: Essential to have 5 cans in the house at all times.
Chick peas: Another essential. Good for the now popular Moroccan
recipes, as well as making hummus at home.
Assorted beans: Quick and easy to use; saves lots of energy of cooking them
yourself
Water chestnuts: Lovely texture for asian dishes. Nice.
Corn kernels: They still resemble the taste of corn. Useful to have around.
Baby corn: Not much taste, but interesting texture.
Beetroot: Useful for one thing only - a slice on your hamburger.
Asparagus: Sometimes acceptable if only fresh asparagus is from
Peru and you feel guilty about the CO2 expended in
shipping it here.
Peas: Starting to scrap the bottom of taste and utility.
Barely ressembles the taste of the vegetable
Mixed carrot and peas : Carrots are forever available and always
cheap. Why would you bother?
Champignons: Rubbery bits of no flavour or utility whatsoever.
I'm sure you all feel much better informed for having read this...
CGI'd to death
‘Ishtar’ Lands on Mars - NYTimes.com
The title for this story seems a bit harsh - John Carter got a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which isn't all that bad - but it seems the movie is doomed to financial failure, and the background of its problems in production makes for interesting reading. Premiere magazine, in the heady days of 1980's blockbusters following Spielberg's and Lucas' rise to power, used to do articles like this. I think the magazine is now defunct.
But back to John Carter: I know for one that as soon as I saw the trailers, the CGI reminded me of those in (I think) Star Wars 2. (It is a sign of the lack of permanent impact of the Star Wars prequels that I just had to check on line to remember it's actual title - Attack of the Clones.)
As I have noted many times, I also did not care a bit for the Lord of the Rings movies, and apart from my cynicism about the value of the story, I just couldn't find myself being impressed by the huge battle vistas which were all clearly made inside a computer.
Of course, I suppose people could cite Avatar in response. I haven't even bothered watching that all the way through no DVD.
Still, I suspect my theory of a public decline in interest in too much CGI, especially in protracted battle movies, might have something going for it.
The title for this story seems a bit harsh - John Carter got a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which isn't all that bad - but it seems the movie is doomed to financial failure, and the background of its problems in production makes for interesting reading. Premiere magazine, in the heady days of 1980's blockbusters following Spielberg's and Lucas' rise to power, used to do articles like this. I think the magazine is now defunct.
But back to John Carter: I know for one that as soon as I saw the trailers, the CGI reminded me of those in (I think) Star Wars 2. (It is a sign of the lack of permanent impact of the Star Wars prequels that I just had to check on line to remember it's actual title - Attack of the Clones.)
As I have noted many times, I also did not care a bit for the Lord of the Rings movies, and apart from my cynicism about the value of the story, I just couldn't find myself being impressed by the huge battle vistas which were all clearly made inside a computer.
Of course, I suppose people could cite Avatar in response. I haven't even bothered watching that all the way through no DVD.
Still, I suspect my theory of a public decline in interest in too much CGI, especially in protracted battle movies, might have something going for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)