Chips for the Eyeballs

As in microchips.  But before I get on to that...

I've lost.  Again.  But at least this time it was only a loss by one post, not by 8 or 9 or something ridiculous.  Congratulations, Tim - and happy birthday for tomorrow!

Anyway, I'd decided to save the most interesting one for last - Question 6: If you could add one piece of tech to your body, what would it be?

So many choices!  Rocket boosters in the heels?  Super-strength grip equipment threaded through the arms?  Coffee dispenser attached to the side of the head?

No.  The details are a bit hazy at this point (I'm hoping to clarify them for myself as I write my way through this post), but I'm pretty clear on the general area of interest: optics.  It'd have to be something to do with visual perception.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's ever looked at a scene and wished there was an easy way of retaining the current retinal image for subsequent review and dissemination, without needing to pull out, calibrate and activate an external camera.  In short, some way of hitting 'save' on whatever you're seeing at a given moment.  A device attached to the optic nerve to read and transmit its signals, with a remote gadget which can 1) activate the save function, and 2) serve as storage for the image(s) - preferably with advanced biometrics built into the controls, to stop anybody else being able to hack it and use it to snoop on my retina.  That's one of the most appealing options.

A variant on the theme, however, would be a device which did much the same thing (generated a computer-readable image out of my nervous system), but working in reverse, i.e. extracting images coming out of my brain instead of ones heading into it.  I suppose I could summarise what I'm thinking of as a GIMP / Photoshop variant built into, or at least controlled by, the visual part of my imagination, again with an external USB-compatible storage device.  Something that would enable me to author whatever image I want just by thinking about it.

Another variant which occurred to me would be to have the brain-controlled thingy, but attached to a live projected output as well as / instead of the storage device.  But then again, I'm not sure if that'd be much of an advantage relative to having the storage version and then plugging the storage unit into a computer with a projector attached to it.

Perhaps I could compromise and have a device which allows you to record from your optic nerve and/or use thought control to generate images, with a remote USB gadget which can either store the images for later, or feed them directly into your computer with its specially-adapted version of the GIMP.  Is that too much power to fit within the remit of "one piece of tech"?  If not, then that's my answer.  If it's too much, then I think I'd settle for the one that lets you record from the optic nerve.

So there you go.

You all thought I'd go for the cigarette lighter built into my thumb, didn't you?  Well, gotcha.


The final stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 10 down, nil to go.  Second place.
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
• Latest music listened to: I can't remember
• Latest edible item eaten: cream cake
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook, Firefox (tabs: Tim's games post from last week; Blogger Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post)
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1479

- The Colclough

The Penultimate Question

One of the downsides to writing our questions for this challenge without knowing what questions would be coming the other way, is that one or two of the questions overlap a bit.  This is a case in point - Question 3: What's your favourite online game? - since Tim has already answered a question about which computer game he considers to be the best.

Well, in the version of the question which I have to answer, the field is narrowed somewhat, as it specifies an online game rather than the more general 'computer game'.  And since I don't play that many online games, this query could prove a tricky one to answer.

I like Portal.  So it would seem logical to say my favourite online game is Portal: The Flash Version, which is very very similar except in 2D instead of 3D.  Only problem with that is, it isn't my favourite.  It has problems.  Or at least, I have problems with it.  The main issue I have with that game is the difficulty curve - out of its 40 levels, I can walk through the first 30 with no trouble at all.  The next five are a bit more of a challenge, but nothing insurmountable.  Even the one which is labelled "may cause frustration!" isn't as hard as it looks, once you've assessed it and figured out the portalling sequence.  But then comes Level 36 - and as far as I'm concerned that's where it all goes to pieces.  I've attempted that level numerous times, and never passed it.  This coming from someone who's beaten the final boss levels in both of the official Portal games multiple times each.  The near-impossibility of getting through the last five levels leaves me deeply reluctant to cite this game as a favourite.

I've dabbled with a few other online games, but to be honest, most of them don't manage to hold my attention beyond a handful of levels.  A lot of them seem to fall into an awkward middle ground, where their basic logic is more complex than that of, say, Minesweeper, but without feeling as intellectual and without reaching a degree of complexity where it actually feels like a properly complicated game - if that makes any sense?

I've dabbled very briefly with some of the ones Tim mentioned in his post earlier this week, and one of them might emerge as a new favourite, but I haven't played any of them enough to make that sort of call yet.

So in short, at least for the time being, the answer is that I don't have a favourite online game.

Sorry to be so disingenuous.


Stats, for the next-to-last time:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 9 down, just 1 more to go
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: The Apprentice series 8 episode 8
• Latest music listened to: Requiem by Karl Jenkins, unless you count whatever was on Radio 2 earlier today
• Latest edible item eaten: chicken nuggets
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook, Firefox (tabs: MatNav 6.1; Blogspot Create Post)
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1477, Fort Paradox Episode 112

- The Colclough

Speaking of Genres

May as well get the two questions about bad film and telly out of the way at the same time - Question 5: What is the naffest film genre?

To my mind, there are two principal contestants here.  But I'll come on to that in a minute.  For starters, I'd like to explain why I'm not choosing some of the ones I'm not choosing.

Unlike the other question, we're now dealing with whole genres in broad strokes, and some of them simply contain too many cool films to count as collectively naff.  Science fiction, for example, would include Logan's Run (which was a pile of incoherent drivel), the two Matrix sequels (which were sloppily written, and unnecessarily confusing even by the brain-warping standards of their parent film), and Star Trek movies I, V, X and XI; but on the other hand, it includes Star Wars, Star Trek II and IV, Jurassic Park, and the original Matrix, which means that the genre, considered collectively, is still very cool.

There are various other genres which have their fair share of creakingly awful movies, but a compensatory (sometimes more-than-compensatory) collection of really good ones:

• the Action genre - cursed with all sorts of brainless dreck (I had so much fun reading the scathing reviews of Abduction earlier this year), but redeemed by a healthy enough clutch of other films.
• the Comedy genre - there are several people out there who seem to think that 'comedy' consists of being crude and unpleasant, and the net result is (to me at least) very offputting.  But then there are other films which really are funny, from The Princess Bride to Galaxy Quest.
• the Drama genre - some examples are really slow and boring, and To Kill a Mockingbird was dragged down by, of all things, the fact that its three child actors had quite literally the most infuriating accents I've ever heard coming out of the mouths of human beings.  But then you get the likes of 12 Angry Men - most of the film is about 12 men bickering in an office-ish room, but they're the jury on a murder trial and the whole thing is much more engaging than you might expect.
• the Superhero genre - cursed with Superman III, Batman & Robin, X-Men: The Last Stand, and  Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer; but redeemed by the likes of Nolan's Batman, X-Men 2, Thor and The Avengers.

Animation is not a genre.  Brad Bird (arguably one of the greatest animation directors of all time, what with having made The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille) has threatened dire consequences on anybody who says otherwise, and I really don't want to get dire consequenced by an angry version of Brad Bird.  But even if I was rash enough to risk Bird's wrath by calling animation a genre, I'd never dream of calling it "the naffest genre" - after all, it's got Brad Bird's work to bouy it up.

To me, the two naffest film genres are Horror, and Romance.

• Horror, because I don't like watching people get stalked / dismembered / bled copiously / all that other gruesome stuff tht horror films trade on.  I don't see the point in going to see a film just to get scared, and my mean streak, although existent, is nowhere near wide enough for me to want to see a film which is primarily about people suffering.  Therefore, Horror is a bad genre.
• Many films have a romantic subplot, but it's usually the most pointless and annoying aspect of the movie, and I can't think of many (if any at all) which were solely or principally about the wuv, which weren't atrocious.  I mentioned The Princess Bride above - yes, it's a fairy-tale love story, but it's equally a comedy, and the 50/50 blend works.  What doesn't work is a movie which is entirely about how s/he's so very cute, and... um, yeah, s/he's really cute.  That's not why cinema was invented.  Cinema was invented primarily for dramatic spectacle, and if soapy wuv stories have to exist at all, then they should be confined to the small screen.  Therefore, Romance is a bad genre.

Paradoxically, I'm told that certain films (e.g. Shaun of the Dead) have combined these two bad genres, infused with a sizeable dash of irony, and managed to turn up something good.  But I haven't seen one of those, so I can't comment.

I'm honestly not sure that I could say which of those two is actually naffer, but given a choice I'd take the wuv story over the splatter flick, mainly because it'd be less likely to induce grisly nightmares.  So if you insist on me distilling this down to a one-word answer, then Horror.


Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 8 down, 2 to go
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: The Apprentice series 8 episode 8
• Latest music listened to: Requiem by Karl Jenkins, currently on speakers
• Latest edible item eaten: jambolaya
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook and Word 2007, Firefox (tabs: MatNav 6.1, twice; Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post), Windows Media Player 11, Windows File Browser
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1476

- The Colclough

The Baddest of the Box

I've still got two questions about bad film and telly, so I ought to get at least one of those out of the way, not to mention that Tim's just answered a question about telly and I may as well follow suit.  Which means it's back to the beginning, with Question 1: What is the most ghastly mainstream TV show of modern times?

97% of my soul wants to say The X Factor.  You might have gathered from my previous posts that I'm no fan of pop in general, so any show that actively promotes it has got to be a bad thing.  In particular, a massive show that drags umpteen million people into its audience and persuades a lot of them to part with a heap of cash to make phone votes on an 0900 number is a very bad thing indeed.

Plus, of course, it's one of the ghastly brainchildren of Simon Cowell, who is (not committed, just is) a crime against humanity.

But I'll admit that that's just a kneejerk reaction.  I'm just throwing that answer out there without thinking about it much, and I suppose I should really do some brainjuicing and make sure I didn't miss something even worse.

I'm sure that if I were to spend any length of time watching CBBC or (shudder) Ceebeebies, I'd come across all sorts of brain-numbing drivel vomited forth in the name of keeping the little ones entertained.  Keeping them braindead, more like.  I've had the misfortune, while passing through the living room, to catch snippets of several recent children's shows which have left me with no desire at all to see any more of the shows in question.  However, I suspect the 'mainstream' aspect of the question might disallow kiddie programming.

If you were to slightly rephrase the question and deal with entire genres of shows, then it'd be easier - and, rather curiously, it would eliminate the show which stands as my kneejerk choice for worst show ever.  If you assess reality / talent shows as a whole, then granted you have the ilk of The X Factor and Big Brother, but you've also got things like The Apprentice, which while not perfect has nevertheless been keeping me amused over the last few weeks.  I think I'd have to say the most irredeemable mainstream TV genre is probably the soap opera, as Tim already pointed out earlier this afternoon.  There may be the occasional decent reality show, but there are definitely no good soap operas.

However, the question wasn't about genres, it was about a specific show.  And, while the soaps collectively are a vile and repulsive waste of broadcast bandwidth, no one of them taken individually is quite foul enough to knock Cowell's pop 'talent' hunt off of the top spot, in my opinion.

I'll probably think of a better answer to this question either five seconds after hitting the 'publish' button, or else at nearly two o'clock tomorrow morning.  But for now, I'm going to stick with my gut feeling and go with the answer that 97% of my soul wants to give: the ghastliest mainstream TV show of modern times is, after all, The X Factor.


Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 7 down, 3 to go
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: The Apprentice series 8 episode 8
• Latest music listened to: Diamond Music by Karl Jenkins, currently on speakers
• Latest edible item eaten: jam tarts
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post; MatNav 6.1), Windows Media Player 11
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1476

- The Colclough

Battle of the Battle-Proof Thingies

Okay... I'm half-way through Tim's "Last 10 for 17" challenge, so I think it's time to repeat the question list and colour-code the ones I've already answered and the ones I haven't:

1. What is the most ghastly mainstream TV show of modern times?
2. Cheese or democracy: which would you go without for five years?
3. What's your favourite online game?
4. If a=9, b=30 and c=25, what does x equal?
5. What is the naffest film genre?
6. If you could add one piece of tech to your body, what would it be?
7. What's the worst pop song you've ever heard?
8. If, overnight, you could be bestowed with grade 8-level ability on any musical instrument you liked, what would it be?
9. If you had to join the armed forces, what department would you choose to serve in?
10. Who would win if the Galactic Empire fought the Borg, the Daleks fought the New Arpathian Principality, and then the winners went on to fight each other?

Meanwhile, Tim was (at last check) half-way through his questions as well, so I'll repeat those with the same colour scheme:

1. Let's cut through the myths and rumours: what's actually your favourite food?
2. What's the best computer game ever, and why?
3. If you could take over one TV show and fix its problems, which one would you pick?
4. Various things are supposed to end this year, including (some say) life on planet Earth - which ending are you most looking forward to?
5. If you were to leave Wales, where would you go instead?
6. What's your favourite cartoon?
7. Who is/was the greatest composer of all time, in your opinion?
8. Hamsters or Goldfish?
9. If I had a child (yes, I know... just pretend, ok?), what name would you LEAST want me to give it, and why?
10. Which character or story, out of all the ones that you've written, are you most pleased with, and why?

 So far, the contest has involved Tim gaining a 1-answer lead, and then me equalising - five times in a row.  Let's see if I can get my sixth out before he manages his!


Since I just answered Question 8, and then Question 9, it seems logical that my next step should be to deal with Question 10: Who would win if the Galactic Empire fought the Borg, the Daleks fought the New Arpathian Principality, and then the winners went on to fight each other?

To clarify what the question is about for the benefit of those suffering from sci-fi ignorance (or at least suffering from incomplete initiation), and to set the scene for the ensuing tiff:

• the Galactic Empire are the baddies in Star Wars, powerful enough to rule an entire galaxy all but unopposed for decades.  Mostly runs on clone troopers, with assorted AT-AT walkers, speeder bikes, and other nifty battle tech.  Oh yes, and they have Darth Vader as their conveniently angry, asthmatic, lightsabre-wielding figurehead, and a Death Star, just in case they ever feel like wiping out the odd planet here and there.
• the Borg are those cyborg types out of Star Trek who are virtually impossible to defeat because as soon as you use a weapon on one of their drones, the rest of the collective learn from the 'mistake' and instantaneously adapt their armour to become impenetrable to the weapon in question.  Also fond of assimilating people, which basically seems to be a fancy-pants way of nicking their soldiers and technology.
• the Daleks are those ones out of Doctor Who which look slightly like oversized pepper grinders with a bad attitude and a deadly toilet plunger thing on the front.  But you wouldn't say that to a Dalek, because they're much more dangerous and deadly than their appearance (especially the New Paradigm's appearance) might suggest.
• The New Arpathian Principality, which I suspect most of you didn't know about until now, are the primary villains in the latest phase of the history of Universe XGT, equipped with a massive superiority complex (like the other three groups mentioned here, I guess), and more importantly a vastly advanced system of medical/regenerative technology which makes them very nearly immortal.

I think I can, at least, make a pretty confident statement as to who would be in the final.  Allow me to explain...

Semi-Final One: the Galactic Empire vs the Borg.  First off, I'd like to point out that I'm much more into Star Wars than I am into Star Trek, and part of me wants to leap to conclusions and say the Galactic Empire would win.  However, that would ignore the vitally important fact that the Borg can assimilate stuff and develop immunities with frightening rapidity.  No matter how good your clone troopers and their blaster rifles, you still only get one shot before the Trekkie cyborgs adapt and render them useless.  And it's no use saying "Aha!  But the Empire have a Death Star!", because the same principle applies on spacecraft level - the Death Star might get to take down one cube, but next thing you know all the other cubes have adapted, become immune, and then figured out how to return fire in kind, reducing Tarkin's magnificent battle station to a fireworks show in a few seconds flat.  Again.  The Borg win.

Semi-Final Two: the Daleks vs the Arpathians.  I think this would be a similar story - sure the Daleks could kill some Arpathians, but the Arpathians in question would then be revived.  It would be a war of attrition for the most part, but the nature of the Arpathians' "Revival Matrix" would mean that Arpathian casualties were only temporary, while any Dalek losses would be a tad more permenant, so the angry pepper mills would lose in the end.  The Principality wins.

And finally, the Final!  (My goodness, what a rotten pun I just did.)  The Borg face off against the Arpathians - and as far as I can see, this is the point where it all starts getting a bit less obvious.  The assimilators face the immortals.  I'm going to have to think through this slowly, one step at a time.  Borg kills Arpathian - Matrix activates and Arpathian revives.  Arpathian kills Borg - Collective adapts and becomes immune to Arpathian weapon.  Borg attempts assimilation - Matrix registers this as a death, and reverts the Arpathian to their original state, cancelling assimilation.  Um... to be honest, as far as I can see, those are the only three moves worth trying, and they're all useless, so it might be a stand-off.

Net result (unless I missed something important?): the whole quad-continuity war ends with a bunch of Borg and a bunch of Arpathians glaring at each other across a room/field/whatever, absolutely unable to do anything about each other's continued existence, and getting annoyed.

So maybe it's just down to who walks away first from sheer frustration?


Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 6 down, 4 to go - I'm ahead for the first time in the whole race!
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: still Logan's Run, but I plan to change that soon
• Latest music listened to: Adiemus I: Songs of Sanctuary by Karl Jenkins, currenlty on speakers
• Latest edible item eaten: Pineapple and Coconut Sponge Pudding
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post; MatNav 6.1), Windows Media Player 11
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1475

- The Colclough

Jobs with Explodey Stuff

This is one of the harder ones, but once I've done it I'll be at the half-way point of this little challenge - Question 9: If you had to join the armed forces, what department would you choose to serve in?

Up front: none of them appeal.  I really don't think the life military would suit me.

However, the question does make it pretty clear that this isn't about volunteering; it's about conscription.

Am I allowed to pick the propaganda department?  I'm not that great at moving fast (except for the odd very short sprint), especially not at moving fast with any precision, and would be unlikely to be of much use in the heat of battle; meanwhile although it may not be the sort of thing one goes around admitting to most of the time, I suspect I might not be that bad at manipulating the truth into propaganda, so if I could get away with making motivational posters and doctoring the headlines for morale-boosting purposes, I would probably be able to make myself much more useful than would be possible if I was out on the front line making "do I shoot that thing right now or don't I" decisions on the spur of the moment.

That would be my first choice.  But since this post is still on the short side, let's assume I can't do propaganda and I actually have to be out on the front doing something a bit more directly battle-ish.

Eek.

I think I'd have to write off the navy straight away, not for any emotional reasons, more because I've never really tested myself for seaworthiness, but there are some bad cases of seasick-prone-ness in the family, and it's as likely as not that I've inherited some of that.  I wouldn't write off the RAF quite so instantaneously, but I suspect the RAF would write me off without a moment's hesitation, as my driving is (I admit it) somewhat bumpy, occasionally aggressive, and with a whole third dimension to go wrong in, chances are my piloting would be absolutely abysmal.  Not to mention that when you're scooting around the stratosphere at 1000 mph in some super-jet, you have to make critical decisions blisteringly fast, which I think I already mentioned I'm not good at doing.  Too prone to panic under pressure... as you'd already know if you've ever been in the car with me driving on the motorway...

Which kinda leaves the infantry, and heck knows I don't like the sound of that.  However, I've already brought up the topic of driving - since the army are supposed to be tough as nails, that should mean they can withstand my dodgy motoring, so maybe I should join the logistics corps and punish a truck.

For lack of a better answer, that's where I'll leave it for now: I think I'd be a driver and beat the tar out of an army truck.


Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 5 down, 5 to go.  Half-way there, but once again I'm re-equalising with Tim.  Haven't managed to be ahead yet!
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: still Logan's Run
• Latest music listened to: some ghastly mess I overheard on Radio 2 at the shop
• Latest edible item eaten: Pineapple and Coconut Sponge Pudding
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post; MatNav 6.1)
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1475

- The Colclough

Those Tunes I Don't Know

Time to tackle Question 8: If, overnight, you could be bestowed with grade 8-level ability on any musical instrument you liked, what would it be?

As background factoids for those who don't already know, I studied the piano up to grade 4 (along with music theory up to grade 5), but gave it up when I started sixth form.  I never really looked back - much.  I decided that I'd prefer to invest my efforts into forms of expression which stay when you've finished them, e.g. drawing, painting, animating, writing.  The trouble I had with music was that I'd play the piece right once, but then when I tried to repeat it five minutes later it'd all go hideously wrong.  That got extremely annoying.  The hard-earned performance goodness never stuck around for long.

But what if, as Question 8 suggests, I could cheat the system and instantaneously gain grade 8 skillage on any instrument of my choice?  Which one would I pick?

Well, obviously it would make sense at face value to say the piano, since I already went there once.  That would lay to rest those occasional minor moments of regret which I just claimed not to have.  I do have one once in a very long time, but only once in a very long time.  And there remains the fact that I still regard the piano (and certain relatives) as the most logical of all musical instruments, in the sense that each key makes one note, and each note has one key.  That, and you don't have to breathe any specific way, which is the main reason I'd be unlikely to pick a woodwind or a brass instrument.

However, the piano does have certain drawbacks, the most obvious being its size.  The piano is hardly the most portable thing ever invented, and I suspect that if I could play an instrument at grade 8 level, then I might want to carry it around with me sometimes.  To Root Hill, maybe (yes, sheepbaa, I'm looking at that flute).  I know ThePianoGuys have managed to get their instruments into all sorts of obscure and inaccessible landscapes, but most people can't afford that sort of logistical undertaking for their Broadwood Grand, can they?  There is also the small issue of having something like 200 strings to worry about at tuning time.

So if it wasn't going to be a piano... hmm.  *strokes beard*

I've thought occasionally that I might like to play the harp or the marimba.  But those thoughts never got thought out much, just idly toyed with.  And they still have size and weight issues.  If I was going to pick a wind instrument, it'd be a woodwind - I like the sound of woodwinds better than brass, generally speaking, and at an uneducated guess, I'd say probably not as heavy.  This is probably where Tim tells me they're actually heavier...

But all that aside, I suspect I mind wind up in the string section.  The violin has the attraction that you can use its case, in conjunction with a big coat and the right kind of hat, to pretend you're in the mafia and you're going to kill people in seedy bars (yes, I admit it, my mind is mildly warped... not that I'd really kill people in seedy bars, you understand).  Or I might just pick the cello, purely and simply for the fact that Tim's spent several years slaving over that instrument and I wouldn't have to.  Mwahaha.

Although there are certain rules to which Tim and I subscribe, and which have a certain intricate connection to the fundamental fabric of the universe, which means that me cheating my way to grade 8 on the cello might be a slightly ill-advised thing to do...

So for now, I think I'll stick with the piano.


Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 4 down, 6 to go.  Nearly half-way.
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: still Logan's Run
• Latest music listened to: Somewhere Over the Rainbow cover by ThePianoGuys
• Latest edible item eaten: Biscuit
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Create Post; YouTube)
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1474

- The Colclough

Cheese or Democracy

This is probably one of the oddest questions I've ever been asked, so I should have fun writing up my answer.  Question 2: Cheese or democracy - which would you go without for five years?

Of course, the good responsible citizen's answer would have to be "go without cheese".  To say that you value your toasted cheddar sandwiches above your political freedom would be to disregard the sacrifices of those who... um... sacrificed stuff, to earn the vote for the rest of us, and so on and so forth, blah blah blah.

But that sort of logic (while sound and patriotic) doesn't make for a very entertaining blog post, does it?

There's a case to be made for saying I can actually choose to keep the cheese, and it goes something like this: in between elections, we seem to have relatively little sway over our government.  We can jump up and down and complain that something's a terrible idea, and they just push it through anyway.  T. Blair was pretty good at that, as you may remember.  So with the current fixed-term parliament, you could argue that we're more or less going without democracy for five years anyway.

Besides, cheese is integral to lots of other things.  You can't have a Staffordshire cheese and bacon oatcake without cheese, because otherwise it'd just be a Staffordshire bacon oatcake - which is still good, but not as good as the version with cheddar in it, in much the same way that a sponge cake is good but a sponge cake with jam in is better.  You can't have Wallace & Gromit without cheese, because Wallace's love of cheese (and his consequent propensity to make rash decisions for cheese-based motives every so often) is one of his most important character traits - after all, their first adventure was all about going to the moon to get some cheese because the moon's made of cheese, wasn't it?  And that leads me onto another important point: the moon is (at least allegedly) made of cheese, and therefore to go without cheese for five years would mean spending those five years without moonlight, and without any tides, which in turn would wreak havoc on the marine ecosystem (how can a turtle come to lay its eggs on the spring tide, if there aren't any spring tides?), and thereby possibly set up a domino effect leading to the collapse of all life on earth.

Therefore, on balance, I think I might actually say "go without democracy".  Even if I only do it for the sake of the turtles.

I'm deeply curious as to how Tim will vote on this one!


Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: 3 down, 7 to go.
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: still Logan's Run
• Latest music listened to: still that thing by Yanni, I think
• Latest edible item eaten: Chilli con carne
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post; MatNav 6.1)
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1474

- The Colclough

Implausible Extrapolation?

No, I'm not about to go off on a rant about the flawed logic involved in deriving a macroevolutionary hypothesis from the observable processes of microevolution.  I'm going to answer Tim's obscure mathematical query, Question 4: If a=9, b=30 and c=25, what does x equal?

Part of me just wants to say 42.

But despite the inherent sci-fi coolness of that answer, it might be cheating.

Also, I have a cleverer theory, and it goes something like this:

• For any given string of numbers, however random, you should be able to construct a triangle of differences.
• First off, the numbers themselves are 9, 30 and 25.
• Therefore, the differences between consecutive numbers in the sequence are 21 and -5.
• Therefore, the difference between the differences is -26.
• So we now have a triangle, like so:

9          30          25

21          -5

-26

• If each row is extrapolated towards the right, assuming the difference between the differences is a constant -26, we get something like this:

9          30          25         -6         -63         -146 ...

21          -5          -31          -57          -83 ...

-26          -26          -26          -26 ...

• Assuming a to be the first number, b to be the second and c to be the third, it seems logical to say that x must be the 24th, since it is the 24th letter of the alphabet.
• x, i.e. the 24th value in a sequence which begins with 9 and has a difference between differences of -26
• And if this line of logic is followed far enough, you can determine the value of the nth number in the sequence, for any n.
• I think the formula works out as...
• *insert a longish pause while I try and fail to boil all those numbers down to a simple equation*
• Well, what I've got so far is " n(x) = ( n(2) - n(1) ) + ", which isn't even a complete equation, and I'm pretty sure it would still be wrong even if I'd bothered to finish it.
• Stuff this for a lark; I'm going to fire up Excel and get it to calculate x for me!
• My helpful spreadsheet program tells me that the 24th number in this sequence, i.e. x, is -6086.
• x must therefore be -6086.  Because Microsoft Excel 2007 says so.
• Tada!

Okay, that was arcane.

Perhaps I should have settled for '42'?


Compulsory Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: neck and neck, each with 2 down, 8 to go.
• Latest book read: still The Kink and I
• Latest film/TV watched: Logan's Run - absolutely dreadful film; don't bother watching it!
• Latest music listened to: something by Yanni
• Latest edible item eaten: Smarties, and cinnamon hot chocolate
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook, Word and Excel 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post; MatNav 6.1)
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1473

- The Colclough

Gah! Trailing Already...

Tim has challenged me to a little blog race.  I won't bother repeating the intro, I'll just link you to his post.  We've only just started, and as of right now I'm already one post behind.

As per the Twenty Questions challenge I had against Hannah last summer, it's a "here-are-questions-now-answer-them"-type race.  The 10 questions which I need to answer over the next week are:

1. What is the most ghastly mainstream TV show of modern times?
2. Cheese or democracy: which would you go without for five years?
3. What's your favourite online game?
4. If a=9, b=30 and c=25, what does x equal?
5. What is the naffest film genre?
6. If you could add one piece of tech to your body, what would it be?
7. What's the worst pop song you've ever heard?
8. If, overnight, you could be bestowed with grade 8-level ability on any musical instrument you liked, what would it be?
9. If you had to join the armed forces, what department would you choose to serve in?
10. Who would win if the Galactic Empire fought the Borg, the Daleks fought the New Arpathian Principality, and then the winners went on to fight each other?

As per last time, some of these are going to be easier than others.  And just because it's the easiest one to answer, I'm going to start with Question 7, What's the worst pop song you've ever heard?

That's very easy.  Thanks to Radio 2, I now have a shortlist of most hated pop songs.  Most of them are ones the Radio 2 types have been playing ad nauseam over the last few weeks, and I hate them partly because of the horrific repetition, and partly because they're excruciatingly depressing.  Nearly every pop song I've heard seems to be about a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, and more specifically most of them seem to be about a relationship gone sour.  What a complete, pathetic lack of imagination.  Can't you think of anything else to sing about?  Why can't you sing about, say, science and cake?

I won't give you links to any of the songs.  The whole point of this post is that I hate them all and never want to hear them again, so it would be gratuitously cruel to give you a link and make it easier for you to suffer.

Anyway, the current shortlist is as follows, in reverse order:

• Somewhere around #6 or #7: We Take Care of Our Own by Bruce Springsteen.  Not too relationship-y, just hated for being really miserable.
• Tied with the above entry: American Pie by Don McLean.  Hated for being overly long, overly cryptic, pretty darn miserable and perhaps (if I heard the lyrics right) vaguely blasphemous.  Weird Al's Star Wars-themed parody is millions better, mostly because the lyrics make more sense and it's a lot more cheerful.
• Circa #4 or #5: Love Will Set You Free, as performed by Engelbert Humperdinck (what a name - he really must have had sadistic parents) and apparently intended as Britain's entry to the Eurovision Song Contest 2012.  For a song whose title revolves around love and freedom, it sounds really dismal, almost as though the composer and vocalist are both resigned to a life without love or freedom.  Unless the whole of the rest of Europe is even worse, or depression is in vogue with the Eurovision judges this year, then I can only assume the UK entry's committee are deliberately planning to lose.  Not that I follow Eurovision or care who wins, mind you.
• Circa #3 or #4: one that I don't know the title or composer of, but the chorus involves the phrase "I love you, I love you, I love you", moaned as if it was the saddest damn thing ever to happen.  I hate it for much the same reasons as Love Will Set You Free, except slightly more so.
• #2: Masterpiece by Madonna.  Apparently the song is written from the perspective of a lover to their beloved, but it's so badly done that the first few times I heard it I assumed that the singer bitterly hated the addressee and wanted to kill them.  Then I looked it up on Wikipedia and discovered that it's meant to be about Edward VIII from Wallis Simpson's point of view, and it started annoying me even more.  I mean, it's all very well for some silly American popster to write soppy wuv song about the cutesie romance of the king who gave up his throne to be with his darling, but my view of the whole affair is much more negative, more or less in line with The King's Speech, and I consequently find the song somewhat repulsive.
• #1: Somebody That I Used to Know by the implausibly-named 'Gotye'.  Probably the most miserable song I've ever heard, and infuriatingly prone to getting stuck inside the grey matter, and therefore the most hated.  If you've never heard it, don't go looking for it.  Just be grateful for your blissful ignorance.

So there you have it.  The list is open for revision, subject to the discovery of other, even more depressing songs, and/or to Radio 2's next choice of irrational obsession.


Compulsory Stats:

• Last 10 for 17 status: neck and neck, each with 1 down and 9 to go.
• Latest book read: The Kink and I by one James D Mallory Jr, M.D.
• Latest film/TV watched: All Creatures Great and Small series 1 episode 10
• Latest music listened to: Machinarium OST by Tomas 'Floex' Dvorak
• Latest edible item eaten: apricot and ginger pudding
• Programs and web pages currently running: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Firefox (tabs: Blogspot Dashboard; Blogspot Create Post), Skype
• Webcomics posted today: Cylinder and Miserable Episode 1473

- The Colclough