Perhaps appropriately/inappropriately, given David Carradine's just died, but these posters amused me. Via Gawker

Relatively minor issue, but I've not written here for a week, which is kind of going against the point of having a blog! Even more stupid as various thoughts have occurred to me, I've just not put them into words. I think in part it's because I feel if I've not got huge amounts to write (like the Angels & Demons thing) then it's not worth it, which is faintly ridiculous. Was just reading this article on the BBC site - the voting stuff generally is a bit dull, but the point I'm referring to is people complaining that some parties aren't visible because the ballot papers are folded.

Really? Is this what we've come to as a society, that folded paper presents that much of a challenge to our basic functions? Just unfold the fucking paper! There's actually another layer of idiocy here, as people would only know that parties are hidden from view if they actually unfolded the paper and realised that there are various options on the ballot paper. If they don't see them, how do they know they're there to complain that they're hidden?

This implies either people complaining on behalf of other idiots ("I know I saw what had happened because I'm a genius, but what about morons in the world who can't unfold paper?"), or else people who are expecting to see a certain political party, can't, but rather than taking the effort to glance at the ballot paper for a millisecond to work out that perhaps there's a flap of paper they've not moved, just immediately complain. And I know full well that once someone pointed out there was a fold they hadn't bothered moving, rather than say "ah yes, I see - what an idiot I am", they'd be committed to the bluster, so would have to switch their complaint to "well that's just impossible to work out" rather than having the balls to admit that they've been a bit stupid.

We all have moments of stupidity, some more than others, but having the courage to just say "I've been stupid" and move on, I hate it when people try and evade responsibility in every way possible. Morons.

Watched Angels & Demons tonight for the second time, and found myself intrigued by how much is real and how much is fake, having got into a debate with someone who was arguing it was almost all fiction, including some of the locations. Where they got that information from I have no idea, as a moderate amount is demonstrably factual - the locations, for a start!

Antimatter. Yes, this exists, but in nowhere near the quantities used in the film. I'm also relatively sure that there's not enough present in the container to cause an explosion that large (1kg of antimatter colliding with 1kg of matter would have an equivalent energy potential to a 50ish megaton nuclear bomb, although lots of that energy would be lost). The movie explosion isn't anywhere near that size, but it seems to be far too small an amount even for the size of explosion we see. Anyway, the basics are valid - antimatter causes big explosions if you've got enough. Actually storing anything like the amount we see is pretty much impossible though, although the method they use (electromagnetic) is right. Beyond a certain quantity though, the particles of antimatter are repelling each other, so would start overcoming the magnetic storage. Short version - while antimatter's being created, it's so enormously expensive and hard to come by/store that there's no bomb threat on the horizon. Part fact/part fiction.

The Illuminati - while a group called the Illuminati existed for a while, formed in 1776 (after the alleged events of La Purga from the film, which I'll come to), it was basically just a group of philosophers, scientists and the like, with no anti-church sentiment. Any information beyond that dives into conspiracy theory with no evidence either way, so anyone stating with certainty that the Illuminati definitely exist and are trying to control the world/overthrow the church/anything else is basing it on next to nothing. Pretty much the only thing used in the film that's verifiable is the name - dates and activities are at best conjecture, and most likely just made up. And why not - this is fiction, after all. Fiction.

La Purga, as I mentioned before. In the film this is stated as being in the 17th century (I think) when the Catholic church branded 4 Illuminti with a cross and executed them. There doesn't seem to be any evidence for this whatsoever - not least, as stated above, the Illuminati didn't exist at this point. Yes, yes, you can start throwing arguments around like "maybe they existed secretly", but then you're getting into pure conjecture, and that's not what this is about. If you want to start making use of the word "maybe" then why are you after distinctions between fact and fiction? The facts are facts, the fiction may be something that really happened in secret, but it's not based on actual evidence, hence...fiction. So anyway, the Catholic church didn't take on the Illuminati, BUT that's not to say that over its history it hasn't had the occasional period of taking on scientists generally - the Inquisition tortured and killed a few, and people like Gallileo and Copernicus had great problems with their scientific work coming up against the teachings of the church. So plenty of conflict, but this specific incident didn't happen. Fiction.

The Great Castration, as I believe it's referred to in the movie, is the removal of visible genitals from statues by Pope Pius, and their replacement by figleaves. While the specifics may be up for debate, there's definitely a history of paintings and statues having their genitals covered up by figleaves, and occasionally being restored to their original appearance later. So while Pope Pius might not have actually hacked off a load of penii (there's a word I don't often use), the odds of him or someone going around doctoring statues to a greater or lesser extent carries a degree of weight. Fact (loosely)..

The Vatican Archives got debated too - a point I couldn't really see the argument with, as even if they're a fictional creation, so what? Hardly the most offensive thing in the world, and well within the realm of general movie construct. Regardless, turns out the Vatican does have extensive and well-documented archives (around 52 miles of shelving - they've even got their own website, from where the picture comes), some of which are open to the public (well, scholars, if you know what you're after), while there are also some secret archives not publicly accessible. Many documents are sealed for 75 years to protect the information within them, or the people they refer to. While the actual appearance of the low-oxygen rooms is movie-ised to make for a decent escape sequence, it's within the realms of possibility that rooms like that exist to protect more delicate documents. Fact.

Galileo's "Dialogue" - it's a real document that was banned by the Vatican for about 200 years. While Robert Langdon might need to see the original for any clues to the path, I can't see any reason why he'd have problems finding a copy as research for his book, as it's now freely avaiable in a variety of forms. Fact.

Locations and statues - this was the point which set me thinking, after my debating partner alleged the movie made up a church or two. This seemed wrong, but not knowing for sure, I felt I should check. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all locations and statues in the movie are genuine, and are recreated faithfully (recreated because the church denied filming in the actual places after The Da Vinci Code controversy - one or two places might be bigger or smaller than reality due to the constraints of set size and the need for fitting in filming equipment). The Chigi Chapel, where the "earth" victim is found, does have the floor mosaic we see in the movie. Not sure whether it's a cover for a crypt below or not. The image of the wind in Saint Peter's Square is a real thing, as is the Santa Maria della Vittoria, where the "fire" victim is found, and the Fountain of the Four Rivers where the final cardinal is saved, is genuine too. Even the hidden passage between the Vatican and the Castel Sant'Angelo is real - the Passetto di Borgo. Constructed to look like a defensive wall in 1277, but it contains a corridor linking the two buildings. Fact.

Last but not least, tied into the locations and the "Dialogue": The Path of Illumination. Pure fabrication - while the statues exist, with arrows, fingers, etc. pointing in the directions we're shown, there's no evidence that there are clues in Galileo's book to start people on a secret path, or that a path exists. To be honest, the idea of creating a "secret" path which is actually relatively well documented seems self-evidently a bit ridiculous. Fiction.

I think that's most points - I would say raise any questions in the comments section, but I still haven't got one. All in due course. Hopefully this has proved relatively elightening, and the next time you get into a debate with anyone who's trying to argue Angels and Demons is based on real events, you can let them know the difference between the fact and the fiction. Personally I enjoyed the movie and can't see why anyone would be offended by it, as it doesn't invent or change anything particularly dear to anyone. Even the official Vatican newspaper didn't take offense - dismissing it as "harmless entertainment" and complimenting the recreations of areas off-limits to filming as "magnificent."

The one exception might be any particularly religious surviving relatives of Bernini, who's portrayed as a secret Illuminati, conspiring against the church, when in reality he was most likely just a gifted sculptor. Then again he died in 1680, so perhaps they should let it go.

Only a brief musing, because I've written nothing here this week - not really in the habit yet. Just caught a tiny fraction of an Outer Limits episode with Heather Graham in it - don't know which, or when it was, although obsessive researcher that I am I'll now have to look it up...

It was called "Resurrection", and was broadcast early '96, so right around the time Heather Graham started getting famous. She's always an example I use of someone who's been around far longer than you expect - did you know she played the twins' mother in Twins? When giving birth, obviously, not the old ladt at the end. I didn't even have to look that up - that's how detailed and sad my film knowledge is.

I digress. The basic premise is that humanity's wiped itself out, leaving a few hundred androids on earth, getting by as best they can. Reading the plot summary online there's more to it than that, but it's that bit that piqued my interest.

Assuming we get to the point of realistic AI in the future, or maybe even to genuine "I", just in an artificial lifeform, I find it hard to imagine that they'd be too bothered about self-preservation. Let's start with the premise that life is ultimately pointless. I really need to get comments working on this blog, because people will probably disagree, but I'll explain.

If you're religious, then broadly speaking life is a gift from God (or gods, or whoever, but we'll keep it simple) that you should be grateful for, worship appropriately, etc. If you're not, then that's not a factor. For either camp, however, life is largely self-preservation, enjoying yourself, fulfilling responsibilities to others, etc. Whether you're religious or not, the day to day necessities boil down to that. I felt I should mention religion because it's an obvious factor given our culture, but given that both groups generally get on with life in much the same way, it's clearly not a significant difference.

The end is different, of course - you could argue that believers are playing the long game, hoping to do well enough in this life to prove themselves worthy for the next. By contrast the non-believers, with nothing to aim for after death, don't have to worry about specific behaviours beyond the laws and conventions of wherever they happen to live. Which by and large match up with religious behaviours anyway.

I'm digressing to cover bases. From a non-believer's viewpoint, life is ultimately meaningless. It's a fascinating experience, of course, with plenty of things to appreciate, people to love, etc. etc., but there's no end result, so arguably what's the point? Of course we can answer that - we have human experiences, pain, pleasure, all sorts of things. However fleeting or good/bad our lives may be, the vast majority of people want to see them through to their natural conclusion, otherwise as soon as we could string a thought together we'd think "it's all the same in the end, might as well kill myself now".

Perhaps that's what some suicidal people think - I'd argue that's perfect clarity (or impatience), but I'm fairly sure if that ever happens, those people are a tiny tiny proportion. Anyway.

My point is that in the Outer Limits scenario, androids are essentially in the non-believer position, but hampered by computer-like logic. These aren't robots many generations down the line which have evolved, developed, formed their own culture and forgotten about people, hence, their origins. These are relatively recent creations, left with no "masters".

Given that, I find it hard to imagine that they'd bother carrying on. They're intelligent, rather than just programmed to behave a certain way, they know there's nothing awaiting them after death/shutdown, but equally there are no earthly pleasures, for want of a better phrase, to particuarly entertain them on earth. As such, knowing the futility of pretty much any actions they take, I'd imagine they'd just deactivate themselves after the last human died, rather than continuing on as best they can.

That's perhaps slightly nihilistic, and the thought that's just occurred to me won't change that - perhaps they just keep on going through fear of the unknown. Given they're alive/functioning, provided it's not too unpleasant there's no real need to stop. Which could well apply to lots of real people too. There's a cheery thought...

This is a day of bizarre news - Dollhouse has been picked up for a second season, as has Better Off Ted, and also Castle. 3 shows which I love (well, thoroughly enjoy - as with all relationships, I've found it hard to entirely commit when I've been worrying they'll leave me at a moment's notice), all coming back for more. Hurrah!

This is really the sort of short media announcement which belongs on my sister site Reality Avoidance, but I've not written anything here for a few days, so felt I should keep the ball rolling. As such, here's a quick summary of those three shows, together with anything else which occurs to me while I write it.

Dollhouse is Joss Whedon's newest show, creator of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly. Firefly was cancelled prematurely, but subsequently built a decent fanbase on DVD, and was followed by the movie Serenity (which just about made back its budget, but was critically acclaimed and loved by everyone I know who's seen it). Dollhouse started averagely - an interesting premise (short version - a secret facility hosts people who have artificial personalities uploaded into their brains for the use of exclusive clients) was wasted for the first few episodes with generic "assignment of the week" plots, but by episode 5 or 6 a bigger arc developed, with secrets emerging, assumptions being challenged, and things kicked up a gear. The finale tied up a few loose ends but left them plenty of places to go, without an irritating cliffhanger - a suitable end if that was the last ever, but now I'm keen to see how a second series works. Now if only it gets moved from Friday nights it might actually get an audience, which would shut up the naysayers.

Better Off Ted feels reminiscent of Arrested Development, in part at least. That may be due to the presence of Portia de Rossi, but it's also a dry comedy with no laugh track, in a semi-documentary style. Well, ish. It's set in a large corporation, with the main character (Ted) being an upper-middle manager, and Portia De Rossi as his boss. Andrea Anders works in the testing department, and there are also two bickering lab techs. A sample exchange: "We need a mouse that can withstand temperatures up to 195 degrees." "We can do that. Uh, computer mouse or live mouse?" "Computer mouse." "Easier." There are apparently more episodes in existence than the 7 which have aired thus far, but no word yet on when the rest are going out - keep an eye out for them. I'm glad it's coming back - it's a fairly unique comedy at the moment, and hopefully it'll build.

Last but not least, Castle. Well, probably least. On many levels this isn't anything special, which sounds more damning than I mean it to. It's almost a modern update of Murder, She Wrote (which ran until 1996, I recently discovered) - Nathan Fillion plays Frank Castle, a crime writer who in the first episode is called in by the police for advice after a murderer starts using his books as inspiration for killings. After solving that case and enjoying the process, plus taking a shine to the female detective he was working with, he calls in a few favours with the mayor and starts joining in on cases as research for his next book(s). It's basically a generic police procedural, but the chemistry between the two leads is good, with Castle being a likeable womaniser, with a mother and daughter to look after. After Firefly and Drive both being cancelled (the latter after about 4 episodes, which was criminal, given its interesting premise), Nathan Fillion deserves to have a series last longer than a few episodes, so I'm glad he's got that chance.

In case you've missed this (in which case congratulations), a "baby shaking" application was recently available on the Apple App Store - a baby cries, and you shake your iPod/iPhone to shut it up. Hardly in the best taste, but considering everything that goes on in the world, it's not exactly bringing about the decline of civilisation. That hasn't stopped large numbers of people objecting to it, eventually forcing Apple to remove it from the store and apologise. But...

When did freedom of speech/expression stop meaning anything? It's not "freedom of expression unless you're offending someone". Of course there should be limits if harm is being done, and I realise that different people will have different definitions of "harm", but this is my blog, so we're going with mine - suck it up. Being offended is not being harmed. If someone is being offensive to the point of encouraging activity which would have wider negative implications on society, then that's probably over the line too. Looking into the limitations of freedom of speech, I've come across John Stuart Mill - a British philosopher born in 1806 whose name I've only ever heard as part of the Monty Python "Philosophers Song". My education may be questionable. Anyway, he wrote about freedom of speech and made a very similar point to the one I made above about what's over the line. I wish I could claim an equal level of intellectual brilliance, but it's most likely just because his musings have filtered through the generations.

Anyway. He believed "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He also noted the distinction in terms of what qualifies as harm, along the line that expressing an opinion against someone in a newspaper was one thing, but expressing that same opinion to an angry mob, armed and ready for blood was something else. The first wouldn't cause harm, the second might.

Some people argue that a baby-shaking application will whet the appetite of all the keen potential babyshakers out there, making it tantamount to the "angry mob" argument above. Which seems to overestimate the number of people just waiting for an excuse to give a baby a damn good shake. Plus that attitude assumes that people can't really differentiate between a small electronic rectangle and a living child. Of course actually shaking a child is an appalling thing to do, and I have every sympathy for those affected by that, but that's an entirely different thing from a stupid game which references such behaviour. I'm not advocating that the application should be made available until the first baby dies as a direct cause of its release...although I'll admit that's how a very small bit of me thinks, protected quite strongly by the firm belief that no baby will be shaken as a result of this game - if anyone uses that justification they're either lying or such a rage-fuelled moron that they'd have done it with or without the game. I just worry that this is a slippery slope, which to be honest as a society we've been on for quite some time - the belief that anything which has the potential to cause harm must be prevented, lest it ever cause harm.

Of course the problem with that is that we end up in a hugely sanitised state where nothing remotely risky is ever allowed. It's easier talking about things like this in abstract rather than up close and personal, but I recall someone making the argument not too long ago that a few children dying as a result of playground accidents was a worthwhile price to pay for the benefits which playground activities bring to all those children who manage to live through them (ie. 99.99%). Of course on a basic human level that's a fairly unpleasant thought, but aside from the knee-jerk reaction of "a child's life is priceless" I challenge anyone to disprove it. Not that children should be sacrificed in the street, but life involves risk, and while you can reduce that risk you can't eliminate it without losing a lot more.

And it's not like we don't already condone certain risky behaviour - cars kill people on a daily basis, and yet they're so vital to daily life and the economy that anyone claiming they should be banned or that they should be limited to crawling speed anywhere near pedestrians is ignored. Obviously the beneficial effects of this application are minimal, if that, but it's representative of my general irritation at people drawing connections that don't really exist, or having reactions which can't really be justified once you stop and think.

And if you're now convinced that I'm some baby-hating freak who wants to see children killed off at every available opportunity, a few points. Firstly you're clearly the sort of person who has knee-jerk reactions to what you believe a point is, rather than the actual point. I encourage you to read more carefully and think things through, rather than just blindly reacting to what you feel the tone is. Doing that often will serve you well in life. Secondly, I'll add comments soon, so you can share your thoughts. Finally, I direct you back to John Stuart Mill, who said "There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Which neatly brings me back to my original point - no matter how distasteful you may find something, that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

OK, that's now 3 separate TV shows that have used the device of someone hallucinating, leading to the realisation they're suffering a serious medical condition. Grey's Anatomy led the charge with the Denny/ghost issue (caused by...cancer or something - I tend to only half watch it), then House brought back Amber, induced by his vicodin addiction, and now Bones has given Booth a brain tumour (as in the show, not the character - Emily Deschanel cursing him with magic would be taking it in a new direction). This has led to him hallucinating Stewie from Family Guy - a bit of a stretch already, even before you throw a brain tumour into the mix.

Being generally more clued-up on film goings-on than TV stuff, I'm used to this happening in movie world. Armageddon/Deep Impact, Dante's Peak/Inferno - there are loads of examples of movies covering the same topic at the same time, but I've not really been aware of TV shows doing it until now.

Trouble is that this is a very specific device, rather than just a broad plot - at least with an asteroid, or a volcano, you can approach it from different directions, both literally and figuratively. In the two pairs above, one took a more cerebral approach, with the other being more balls out. Whereas a character hallucinating then discovering a medical condition is pretty one-note. Grey's Anatomy at least built up to it - the Denny thing obviously wasn't real, but there was no indication of a serious brain condition (because of course in TV-land, seeing things can generally be explained away as a story device or a brief mental lapse). As such the realisation that something was seriously wrong with her, followed by her looking into it, telling her friends, and now being treated, carried a decent amount of emotional weight.

House seeing Amber was an interesting digression, for a couple of episodes, but served no real purpose, and the awareness that Grey's Anatomy had already trodden that path upped the annoyance factor. And now Bones, a show which I like a lot, just throws this curveball in towards the end - I'd heard about the Stewie thing in advance, and while it had sounded tiresome, it was apparently going to be stress-induced. Fair enough, I figured.

But to tie it into a medical problem, giving them a way to end the season with a cliffhanger (although not that much of one - chances of Booth dying and being written out are fairly minimal), just seems like a massively lazy plot device. Irritating in itself, even before you factor in the fact that at least two other shows are doing the same thing at the moment. Pah.

This will be no surprise to many people, but I wanted a rant, as I've just spent...far too long fiddling around with code on another site, desperately tweaking and prodding it so it does what it's meant to in IE. In every other browser it works fine and looks great, but IE insisted on adding an 8 pixel margin for NO REASON WHATSOEVER, which was a bigger pain than that sounds. As it turns out, because what got broken was being generated via javascript it was relatively simple to detect the browser, and if it's IE adjust the sizes to compensate for the extra margin, but it's still a pain in the arse.

I've not yet played with IE 8, which is apparently more standards-compliant, but no doubt that'll have its own range of problems. Apparently they've had to include a legacy mode within it, because so many sites have an IE-specific setup that when loaded in IE 8 they then break. Bwahahahaha. Serves MS right - why it's so hard to make something that sticks to the accepted standards is beyond me. Opera forever.

Reading this article about larger bras costing more, and customers being up in arms (which feels like the wrong phrase, but I can't think of a better one), has given me several causes to witter. Firstly this specific situiation - for those who can't be bothered to RTFA, M&S (big UK retailer, for overseas readers) charges £2 extra for bras larger than a DD, and this has pissed off campaigners, accusing M&S of discriminating against them. M&S has come back with the arguments a) larger bras involve more detailed work because of the extra support, and b) shut up. Both seem valid to me.

One quick aside - beyond the general term "campaigners" there's no real indication in that article how many people really object that much. Yes they make reference to a Facebook group with 8,000 members (although a quick search turns up no such group - the closest one is "Bust For Justice (M&S) Share Price Drop?", which has 187 members), but a Facebook group is hardly a reliable indicator - the group "The Hardest Part of a Zombie Apocalypse Will be Pretending I'm Not Excited" has got over 61,000 members (myself included now I've just found it), but I'm fairly sure when that day comes most of those people (myself included again) will be soiling themselves, desperately trying to find the nearest concrete bunker. The woman who set up the group has bought a share in M&S so she can go to the AGM to confront the company directly - I'm fairly sure that the cost of the share, travel, etc. will probably outweigh the few quid surcharge she's going to suffer on a couple of bras.

I digress. One thought's just occurred to me, which is just to increase the cost of all their bras - that way smaller-breasted women pay a surcharge. Of course that's just as objectionable, just to a different group of women.

The cynic in me just wants to write off these protesters (however few or many of them there are) as whiners with nothing better to do. I'm sure it's not as simple as that, but I can't quite shake it. There are lots of legitimate issues to deal with in the world, and having to pay a small amount extra for something that almost certainly costs a small amount extra to manufacture doesn't seem worth kicking up a fuss about. Apparently the most popular bra size in the UK is 36C, so anyone who's into DD territory is significantly above average.

Now, being male (and not suffering from excessive moobage) I can't pretend to relate to large-breasted women (on several levels, more's the pity), but throwing the word "discrimination" around pisses me off. At worst the argument could be made that larger size clothing doesn't cost more, but I'd counter that while I'm not a bra manufacturer, I'd not be surprised that given the structural work involved in a bra, in order to make a good quality and well-supporting larger one, the design has to be tweaked a bit.

By contrast a larger shirt just needs a bit more material, which probably doesn't cost all that much given the volumes clothes manufacturers buy it in. Even if there is a difference, manufacturers clearly absorb it because it's small, or more hassle than it's worth given the range of sizes they have to sell. Now before anyone thinks "double standard", if anything that actually reinforces the point for me - the fact that they're charging more for bigger bras but not for bigger regular clothes seems like clear evidence that the costs involved are more significant. Or else the bra market so massively outweighs that for regular clothes that M&S feel they can make enormous profits just by milking large boobs. As it were.

Ahem. Ultimately having to pay more for something that costs more isn't discrimination, it's market forces. The fact that clothes companies absorb cost differences for regular clothes (or more likely just base prices on the cost of the most expensive size to manufacture, which brings me back to the idea of just charging more for smaller bras) doesn't mean they have to do that for everything if it doesn't make financial sense. Here's a radical idea - buy your bras somewhere else. If enough people do it then M&S will pay attention, and if no-one does then it's clearly not a problem enough people care about, so shut up and try addressing one of the world's many real problems.

I've resisted bringing weight into this post, despite desperately wanting to. I've got a degree of ranting built up on the subject, but will save it for another time. Thanks for reading...

Bike gears are a pain in the arse. You'd hope with all the technological advances in life that adjusting gears would be at best unnecessary and at worst involve moving a lever or two. But no. For the non-bike-riders among you, it's a pain in the arse. Front and back gears each involve two small screws, a quarter turn of which can have a surprisingly large effect. But wait, there's more. On the back there's an extra screw which adjusts the tension of the spring mechanism, and on the front shifter there's a manually adjustable...thing, which also changes the setup.

As such, the whole thing becomes a balancing act, and thinking about it I can't recall ever having a completely perfect setup. Either the back gears don't shift quite right, or something rattles, or there's chain noise, or....aaargh. Recently I've had an irritating chain noise in the position I use most often, and finally got around to fixing it. I say "fixing it" - fiddled with every possible screw and dial (by "fiddled", I mean "adjusted properly" - I've learned from bitter experience that if you try fiddling, turning a screw here or there, everything gest worse and there's no way to put it back to how it was).

And after about an hour, no more noise - but...I now can't shift from the smallest chainring to the middle one, at least without pushing the lever partway towards the next step up. But frankly that's a less irritating problem. Oh, and there's now a bit of chain noise in a different position too, but balls to it.