Thursday, 18 February 2010

Oh boy, I love that Streisand effect...

I just got to get me some of that Streisand effect action.

You hear the one about the Naturopath who got a blog removed because they questioned his right to call himself a doctor?

No?

Well, you can, here, and here.




Wednesday, 17 February 2010

Whoa!


Feeling nasty tonight, apparently. So to nice things up, some swans.

I took this before the bird 'flu, just in case they all died.

It's OK. They didn't.

Lent - practice for the rest of your life.

Why don't you give something up? Anything. I don't care. Talking, for example. Go build some character, why don't you?*

Introduce a hole in your life, in order to be more whole. Seek a positive out of a negative.

You'll appreciate it more when you get it back.

So give something up. But not anything hard. Chocolate is always a winner. Or sugar in your coffee. You don't want to be like those Ramadan girls, clutching the radiator all day at work, white knuckled, grey faced, wobbling into the newsagent at sundown for anything to get the blood sugar up.

No; that's to much like sacrifice. God knows, life is hard enough and we need these little extras to get through the day. The cappucino in hand getting off the train after the morning commute, the OK/Hello/Heat magazine, the new shoes/jeans/accessories. The just went into town and I saw it and I just had to have it. The flat screen, the MP3, MP4, new sofa, new car, new house.

New face cream. New face. Because you're worth it.

New credit card.

New bank statement

New debt.

New job. Where am I going to get a new job at a time like this?

New perspective; is bankruptcy an option?


Lent - practice for the rest of your life.**


*No, of course I don't mean you.

** I'm just being bitter about bankers. Ignore me, please.

Monday, 1 February 2010

Harking back, again.

Posted by Picasa

Being a scientist

I was watching an interesting programme on BBC 4 about chaos.

The narrator, Jim El-Khalili, was describing how Russian scientist Boris Belousov repeated and repeated an experimental result until he was certain of a result. Now we were all told during our training that when something didn't work according to expectation, or indeed works better than expectation, we should repeat it. I also remember getting potted histories of certain major discoveries, such as the structure of DNA. What I don't remember getting was elucidation and discussion of best scientific practice, beyond the simple mechanics of an experiment and new methodologies for it.

I wonder why?