Fishing for Clues

Well here I am again

2010-07-05T20:52:00.003+01:00

Now my University life has ended permanently I intend to get back on this blog again...

Pleasingly, the last article I wrote is still being discussed in the news so I have an easy follow-on.
An independant inquiry by the Dutch parliament says that the IPCC's findings were accurate, but that they should have been more transparent.

Source

This is effectively what I said at the time: They should not be including information that has not been independantly peer reviewed and accepted. This kind of thing needs to stop if we are to have any hope of changing peoples' behaviour.

Climate Science...

2010-01-19T20:49:00.002Z

Climate scientists really need to get their acts together. First there was the “Climategate” scandal (much as I cringe when the word “gate” is automatically appended to every new debacle that comes along), and now the IPCC have had to admit that their report contained unverified opinion that had not been subject to peer review.

Source

This needs to stop. People are already sceptical or apathetic about climate change, and stupid errors like this only make things worse.

Personally, I think that this is what happens when politics gets involved in things, as we saw with the exaggerated intelligence reports in the Iraq dossier. Scientists need to keep their goals in mind and not be distracted by what might or might not sway public opinion – otherwise it ceases to be proper science. They definitely can’t start accepting “findings” that have not been analysed and peer reviewed through the proper channels.

The 50 Best Protest Signs of 2009

2009-12-10T13:37:00.000Z

Pretty hilarious

China finally sets some emissions targets...

2009-11-26T13:54:00.000Z

BBC

Times

Well, it’s nice to see that China, fierce opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, has finally set some emissions reduction targets.

However, these targets do not go very far. China is measuring its emissions against GDP, and since China’s GDP is likely to continue rising faster than their emissions, it will be easy for them to meet this target while still emitting more carbon. A 40 to 45% reduction may sound like a lot, but it doesn’t mean they will emit less carbon, just that they will emit less per unit of GDP.
The USA is also going to announce it’s own cuts – 17% on 2005 levels by 2020. This sounds like a lot, but most other countries have already agreed to 20% reductions, and that is on 1990 levels. Because emissions in every country have risen significantly between 1990 and 2005, this means that a 2005 baseline is much higher and therefore much easier to achieve.

Still, it is nice to see the world’s top 2 polluters making some attempts to slow or stop their rate of pollution. Hopefully this means that their economies will grow in a more efficient way in the future. Also it means that other countries, businesses and individuals who continue to cite the fact that America and China continue to pollute as reasons not to act may change their attitudes.

Attack of the kangaroos!

2009-11-23T14:05:00.000Z

Source

Nooooooooo......

Some people are just stupid...

2009-11-22T13:58:00.002Z

Source

Yeah... Apparently some people still believe that the LHC is going to kill us all, despite repeated assurances that it won’t. Most of the scientists involved will be at CERN, and it’s obviously in their best interests for it to not blow up in their faces.

It’s to be expected that people might be a little concerned, but this is ridiculous. This is symptomatic of the mistrust of scientists by many people. People don’t like what they don’t understand, and very few understand what CERN are doing (at least, not in any great detail). However, this kind of attitude towards science as a whole is detrimental, as evidenced by the David Nutt affair of a few weeks ago (which should have been a much bigger deal than it was). We need to let the physicists and engineers do their work, especially since all that money has been spent on it already, it’d be nice to see some results at some point.

Belle de Jour

2009-11-17T00:53:00.000Z

Sample article about this.

I know everyone is talking about this a bit in the news, but I thought I’d add my thoughts.
I’m going to ignore the whole debate on the morality of prostitution; I think that has been and is being covered in enough detail elsewhere.

The key point I wanted to make (that hasn’t already been ground to dust) is that this sort of thing reflects very badly on the state of PhD funding in the UK. If female students are forced to turn to prostitution to fund their studies, surely there is something wrong. According to the main article in the Times on November 17th, many other women are also selling themselves to fund their doctorates. If this is true, then it represents a very sorry state of affairs for British students.

This woman is now a research doctor at a hospital. It seems ludicrous to suggest that there shouldn’t be enough cash available for her to complete her studies.

New Top Gear

2009-11-16T21:36:00.002Z

Everyone is probably aware that the new series of Top Gear started last night. In one of my early posts I said that the end of last season wasn't very good and that I hoped this season would be better.

Well, it looks like they listened, because yesterday's episode was more or less exactly what I want from an episode of Top Gear - Fast expensive cars, a few jokes, exotic locations and some car damage. They need to keep going like this and have a decent "road trip" special in the series and I'll be happy...

Double fees for Students?

2009-11-09T14:17:00.001Z

Source

Does anyone else think this is a bit far? I’m already going to be in nearly £30,000 worth of debt when I graduate (on a 4-year course). The report is apparently expected to say that people from low-income backgrounds have not been put off applying to university. Well, if a 4-year course resulted in £60,000 worth of debt, maybe they would... I’d certainly have thought twice.

Nuclear Waste Storage versus Clean Coal

2009-11-09T14:06:00.001Z

This is a little bit different to what we usually talk about, but I think that it is important nonetheless.

The Government thinks it will be spending £18 billion on our nuclear waste storage from the ten new reactors planned for Britain, despite the fact that a storage site has not yet been chosen.

Source

To put that into perspective, the US has spent $96 billion between 1982 and 2133 (when they think it will close) on storing waste from their current 47 reactors, which isn’t actually all that bad. However this doesn’t include any new reactors that may be built.

Source

My argument was originally going to be that our Government is clearly underestimating the cost of this, but looking at it, I’m not sure they have. It seems like a pretty reasonable estimate.

New nuclear stations will cost roughly £2.8 billion each, compared to an estimated £1.9 billion to build a new clean coal power station (Source).

The biggest current problem with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is that no one really knows how much it will cost. Most likely it will be pumped out to our oilrigs in the North Sea and buried in old oil or gas reserves. However, it is only just becoming clear what potential costs and environmental impacts this may have.

The problem with nuclear here is that this still does not constitute a full solution to our nuclear waste storage problems. This nuclear waste will remain hazardous for 100,000 years, and burying it underground does not mean you can just forget about it.

Anyway, I don’t really have an argument here either way, but there is a general lack of understanding on this subject and there has been a lot of hot air about it recently.

Conservatives on the spot...

2009-11-03T17:59:00.002Z

The Conservatives have been promising a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for a while now. But recently they have been backing away from this, to the extent of saying that they won't offer one if the Czechs pass the treaty.

Well, now we're at the stage where the Czech government is about to pass it.

And it looks now like Cameron is going to have to drop his guarantee of a referendum entirely.

They can't heckle the government on the one hand about transparency and "sleaze-free politics" and then start going back on all their promises on the other.

Don't vote Conservative.

David Nutt and scientific freedom

2009-11-02T10:35:00.003Z

Like many others, I've often thought that alcohol and tobacco both present far greater health risks than many illegal drugs. If a tablet or joint produced the same effects as alcohol - nausea, blurred vision, inability to speak or think coherently, disorientation, loss of balance, vomiting, lack of inhibition... then its users would be shunned. I have to stress of course that I haven't studied this matter in any great detail, and that this is mere speculation. I am, as they say, no expert.

But what if I was an expert? Say, for example, I was the chair of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs. Well that would make things a bit different.

The Home Secretary's firing of Prof David Nutt for his comments on certain drug policies may be a more controversial issue than it is being given credit for. There is an incredibly important point to be made regarding freedom of speech, espescially in science. Objectivity, and drawing conclusions from evidence rather than fitting evidence to a predetermined conclusion are cornerstones of good scientific method. Prof Nutt also has a responsibility to accurately inform the public about the dangers of drugs. In this regard there is absolutely no way in which government policy should have any effect on the publication of scientific results.

Now personally I'm sufficiently attached to free speech to accept this point as conclusive and leave the issue there. However, there is an alternative perspective that hasn't really been presented well. Prof Nutt is a well respected authority in the field, his opinion and findings will have an impact and force. Imagine that a similarly regarded scientist discovered a gene in a specific ethnic group that could, in certain circumstances, make them more inclined to rape and murder. I still don't think that research should be stifled, but how it is delivered, and to what initial audience would be an important issue.

Whatever the scenario, it certainly shouldn't be up to the Home Secretary or government policy to decide on scientific 'fact', nor what it is good for the public to hear. Whilst I don't accept my own opposing argument, I do think that there is good reason to be wary of allowing authority figures free rein in how and when they present potentially dangerous findings to certain audiences. Scientific evidence that cannabis should not be a class B drug, if presented badly and to the wrong people, could sound worryingly close to 'cannabis is perfectly safe'.

Free Private Healthcare???

2009-10-31T14:22:00.001Z

According to the Times, patients who have waited over 18 weeks for treatment will now legally be allowed private treatment for free.

Source

I can’t believe that Labour has introduced it, especially since it was Labour who created the NHS all those years ago.

This is going to be a very expensive venture, as private healthcare doesn’t come cheap. Both parties are going to cut budget growth for the NHS anyway; it seems obvious therefore that paying large fees to private companies will come at the expense of NHS services. They would surely be better off putting the money that this will cost towards increasing the quality and speed of NHS treatment. I know the government has been going choice-crazy recently (schools etc.), but this is likely to be too far for many people.

The other problem is that once it is free it's no longer private healthcare is it... It's effectively healthcare that has been contracted out by the public, which shouldn't be what the NHS is about, in my opinion.

The Conservatives plan to scrap all targets for the NHS when they get into power. Again, what is wrong with these people? Maybe Labour has introduced too much in the way of targets and beaurocracy across all sectors, but getting rid of all of them?
The political system at the moment is ridiculous. Both main parties appear to be scrapping over who looks best to voters, but they don’t seem to have thought any of this stuff through properly.

BBC BNP fallout...

2009-10-25T13:53:00.003Z

Somewhat inevitably, there has been a large amount of criticism directed against the BBC in the last few days after Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time.

Source

Some of the comments at the bottom are particularly interesting – many people seem to be of the opinion that the BBC mishandled the affair by setting up the show so that Griffin was attacked constantly.

This was always going to happen. OK, so Dimbleby wasn’t impartial, but he was never going to be. The BBC was in a lose-lose situation.

If they had just had their usual topical debate, which some people seem to think should have happened, the BBC would have been accused of avoiding the issues the BNP support. Nick Griffin would have also had the opportunity to appear reasonable by completely ignoring his policies and history.

The way they did it was more or less the only way they could have done it. His appearance was always going to create controversy and arguments in the studio, that much was completely predictable. They had to focus on his issues; otherwise the debate would have continuously derailed as the other panellists changed the subject to attack Griffin.

People need to stop criticizing the way the debate was handled and think hard about what Griffin actually stands for.

I leave you with this photo:

Nick Griffin at a National Front rally in 1983. With added racism.

The Conservatives are Retards

2009-10-22T13:07:00.000+01:00

It’s been common knowledge for a while now that the Conservatives want to scrap the European Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.
Whatever pretence they use to try and justify this, it should be clear to most people that they’re just jumping on a bandwagon here.

The Conservatives are supporting this idea because of a few well-publicised cases where the Human Rights Act has been made to look foolish (while ignoring the majority of cases where it works well).

It seems unlikely to me that a British human rights act would function any differently to a European one. In my opinion, any human rights legislation that tries to be comprehensive is inevitably going to be manipulated at some point along the line, and a Bill of Rights would be no exception. I fail to see how this could be avoided, and to date the Conservatives haven’t explained it either.

The only way a Conservative government (or any other government for that matter) can ensure that no decisions fly in the face of public opinion would be to intervene every time one comes up. Which would be heavily unconstitutional.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, suggested that getting rid of the Convention would be irresponsible, and put forward several good reasons why not (Source). Interestingly, the Conservatives responded by suggesting he be sacked (Source). Genius.

Please, don’t vote Conservative...
(Not that I support Labour, of course)

The BNP and Question Time

2009-10-19T10:43:00.002+01:00

This isn't exactly a new story, but as the BNP's first appearance on Question Time is due this week and Peter Hain has just questioned the BBC on the legality of the party it seemed like an appropriate time to talk about it.

First off I suppose it might be best (if probably unnecessary given the tone of this site) to stress that I in no way support the BNP or their policies. Their policies ARE racist and, by their own admission, currently illegal.

However, I find it highly disturbing that such a large number of people in this country wish to effectively ban the party from appearing on the programme. The BNP have elected seats and like it or not free expression of ideas to the public is a corner stone of a democratic system. Much as we may like to eradicate racist ideas, suppression of free speech simply isn't an acceptable method of doing it.

It can't be a matter of only suppressing clearly 'immoral' ideas, we simply don't have any position from which to make that kind of judgement. Look at the pro-choice/ pro-life debate. Those on the extreme end of the anti-abortion side view it is as outright murder of a defenseless child, and legalising it (I presume) as equally or more abhorent than disallowing citizenship to non-whites. I think most people would agree however, that letting them ban appearances from 'pro-baby murderers' would involve missing the point of the debate, and also grossly undermining free speech.

The BNP are a nasty and deceitful organisation who should be argued down and highlighted for exactly what they are. Pointing these facts out is the job of every rival politician and news organisation in the country and should be done so without hesitation. That said, repressing an established party's freedom to speak because you disagree with their politics is the gateway to a very, very scary road.

Homework and unfair advantages

2009-10-16T15:12:00.002+01:00

There's been a lot of talk about the Cambridge primary report and it has mainly focussed on whether or not to raise the age that children in the UK should start school. What caught my eye however was this slightly more subtle comment buried in The Guardian's coverage:
Many parents surveyed argued that homework should be scrapped and researchers said it gave an unfair advantage to children from more supportive, settled homes.

Well hang on... I'm not in favour of hindering children who are already living in less than ideal conditions, but the fact is that living in supportive stable environments should be an advantage. Good parenting is SUPPOSED to help your children.

Don't get me wrong, I am obviously against children who are already living in less than ideal conditions being put at a further disadvantage, but that doesn't mean hindering those who were born luckier. We don't hit those born more intelligent over the head before each exam in order to be fairier to those with less natural wit. We don't force the better athletes to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. If homework would help children in stable homes then they deserve to recieve the best education available.

Children whose personal circumstances mean that they underperform at school should be given extra support, or measures should be taken to help relieve those difficulties, but we should be lifting those children up, not pulling everyone else down.

Dyson Bladeless Fan

2009-10-13T15:04:00.002+01:00

What was wrong with blades anyway?

Plus it isn't actually bladeless - the blades are located in the base (like in his vacuum cleaners and the Airblade).

If anyone I know buys that, I'll slap them.

More Expenses BS

2009-10-13T14:29:00.002+01:00

The Times and Guardian front pages today: PM ordered to repay £12,000 of expenses.

On reading this, you naturally assume he's done something wrong, broken the rules. This isn't the case. He has not flouted any of the regulations that were in place at the time. Sir Thomas Legg, the retired civil servant who was given the task of auditing MP's expenses, has imposed a completely arbitrary retrospective cap on what MPs should have claimed. This is like changing the law and then penalising anyone who broke it before it was in place.

I'm all in favour of changing the system so that these limits apply in future, but penalising MPs for claiming benefits they were perfectly entitled to at the time by applying a seemingly random limit is totally ridiculous. Now MPs and ministers are trapped into repaying this money, because refusing will result in a massive media backlash.

Telling MPs to repay money in this way gives off the impression that they were doing something wrong, which of course reflects badly on them.

David Cameron has told his MPs that they must repay this money or face not being able to stand at the next General Election (source). They have every right to be upset, since they are having their reputations sullied for effectively following guidelines.

If they broke the rules, they should be sacked. If they haven't, they should obey the new rules in the future, not be penalised for the past.

Dan Brown and JK Rowling

2009-10-12T17:11:00.000+01:00

I’ve been meaning to write this for a while, but have only just got around to it...

Dan Brown’s newest novel, The Lost Symbol, created a massive furore upon its release, quickly becoming the fastest selling adult book of all time. Apparently they counted the last Harry Potter as a kid’s book, since it sold over 5 times more copies in its first day, even though Harry Potter is as likely to be on the parent’s bookshelf as the child’s.

This brings me onto my main point: Britain is fast becoming a nation of people who are familiar with only two authors, Brown and Rowling. Brown’s new book isn’t even meant to be that good (I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time reading it), and Harry Potter, I would argue, is hardly a stimulating read. Once you’ve read one there’s little more to be gained from the franchise, other than some forced plot twists and romances.
I think that particularly the films demonstrate this: however much they’ve improved since the truly awful first instalment, they still don’t hang together very well. Neglecting the fact that the film is never as good as the book, most films adaptations manage to keep a sense of flow.

I don’t really mind either author... other than the massive overrating they both get by the public. Even when critics give them mediocre reviews people still buy copies in their hundreds of thousands. Dan Brown has achieved this by cynically designing his books to give people exactly what they want, JK Rowling merely got lucky with her setting, which is fair enough really.

I just wish there were more variety on people’s bookshelves.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T17:41:00.002+01:00

So Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and this has sparked an unsurprising amount of controversy. The main issue being that he really hasn't done anything particularly obvious for world peace since his inauguration, and particularly in the twelve days of his presidency before the nominations closed.

Now first of all I will admit that these criticisms aren't unfair. Of course that doesn't mean that all criticism has been unbiased, with Fox news considering 'skipping church' to be the only thing the president did on two of those twelve days. Of course not doing something doesn't really qualify as an activity, nor does it account for what he actually DID do on those days.

The more important point however is that President Obama didn't pop into existance ex nihilo on the day he stepped into the most powerful office in the world. Casting a mind back to the months prior to him taking the post should give an instant reminder of the spirit of hope he brought not just to Americans but also to the world at large. Obama wasn't just an inspiration for black Americans. America is a country populated by people able to be persuaded that someone berated for attending a controversial church is a Muslim terrorist, or be suspicious of the fact he had an unfortunate middle name. The fact that the country was now going to be in the hands of someone who didn't strike fear into the hearts of those within nuclear striking distance changed attitudes towards America on a global scale.

Obama has been attacked constantly by his critics since long before his election, including Hilary Clinton's Democrat supporters. The fact that we now live in a world where the Bush legacy has become a faded memory and the world's only superpower can be seriously considered as a force for good is something brought about specifically by this man. He is by no means perfect, and his presidency has not delivered everything it promised. That said, the road to that presidency brought genuine hope of a sane post-9/11 America and thinking back just a few years should illustrate just how big an achievement that is.

Poor Marcus. Om nom nom.

2009-09-16T17:45:00.004+01:00

A school in Kent bought a sheep to teach the children where their food comes from. Fair enough, you might say. But when it came to actually killing him, some people disagreed.

BBC

He was bought with the specific purpose of teaching the children about where food comes from. Therefore everyone should have known that the day would come where he would have to be killed and made into delicious lamb chops. Not doing so would completely defeat the point of raising him in the first place, thereby making his life totally worthless. Nice one.

One mother said that her daughter had become a vegetarian as a result of this. So what? If you're not comfortable with where meat comes from, don't eat it. What has happened to this lamb is exactly the same as has happened to every other piece of meat this girl has ever eaten, with the possible difference that this particular lamb had a higher standard of living.

People need to get used to the fact that if you eat meat, cute fluffy animals die. Fact.

Marcus became a cause célèbre for the PETA crowd, who used the story to try and impose their anti- meat-eating values on everyone else. I sincerely doubt that this has had any effect on anyone other than the children themselves (because they're so impressionable), but I'll bet that the parents don't give a damn about killing animals for food, they only care about their children being aware of it.

Singling this animal out for saving, as some people want to do , is also stupid. O'Grady, for whatever reason, believes that once you personalise an animal you can't then kill it for food. WHAT?? Don't be so bloody sentimental. What is different about this animal that makes it so special? Nothing. You've given it a name, so what.

People need to shut up and get on with it.

Bet he tastes delicious with a bit of mint sauce and some roast potatoes though...

Take-Two $20 million Hot Coffee settlement

2009-09-02T19:17:00.002+01:00

Ack, alright I know this is a small amount of money for Take-Two, I also realise that stupid American lawsuits are hardly news. Still, this case exemplifies so much of the hypocrisy over sex and violence, as well videogames and other media that it does rile me up.

Take-two have come to a $20 million settlement in the lawsuit over the 'Hot Coffee' mod that was buried in the GTA: San Andreas code a few years ago. The basis of the controversy was that the game contained a sexual mini-game which was hidden from censors allowing the game to get a 'Mature' rating, rather than the less financially viable 'Adults Only' rating it recieved upon discovery. Apparently this was consumer fraud, and the deception exposed young children to this scarring imagery.

In reality, the mini-game consisted of fully clothed 'sex' between blocky characters which, although hardly a massive deal in itself, might cause reasonable concern if sold to children. Of course the fact that a mature rating puts the game in a recommended 17+ age bracket, meaning the people supposed to play it will usually be legally allowed to have sex themselves (fully undressed) slightly undermines that. More importantly, the mini-game was actually only availably by hacking the game. This meant that real effort had to be taken on the part of the user to access it, as well as using the game in a way unintended in its release form.

The real hypocrisy though comes firstly in the fact that this sort of imagery would be seen in mature rated films all the time, and a lot more graphically. Video games are still coming into their own in the mainstream community, and can get a lot more abuse than they should from certain areas. Secondly, the game the ratings board gave a mature rating to allowed players to drive around a city killing, drug dealing and stealing to their hearts content. Apparently its okay for 'kids' to be hacking up prostitutes with a chainsaw and a machine gun in a videogame, but consensual (fully clothed) sex is really something they should be protected from. Regardless of how relatively little $20 million is to Take-Two, its $20 million too much to pay for idiotic guardians who want their kids to be able to kill, mutilate and steal without the fear of them seeing people being too nice to each other.

South Park's Good Times With Weapons makes this point far better than I ever could. Its an old debate, but its one of those ones that really gets on my nerves.

Ray Comfort again... though scarier

2009-08-25T14:51:00.002+01:00

Okay, at the risk of coming across as a militant anti-theist I'm going to have to bring up Ray Comfort yet again in this blog. I'm a little behind on this one, but its something so incredibly under-handed and manipulative that I really need to say something. The creationist evangelist has decided that he'd go a bit 1984 in his tactics to spread the good word and has produced his own "abridged" version of Charles Darwin's Origin Of Species to be given out... at public schools.

The front cover gives no indication of the fact that its a creationist propaganda version of what is essentially now a historical rather than strictly scientific text, instead claiming to be a 150th Anniversary Edition. Inside however is a 50 page introduction associating Darwin with racism, Hitler, hoaxes... the usual. As Ray puts it "It presents a balanced view of Creationism with information on scientists who believed that God created the universe--scientists such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Johannes Kepler." So you know, gives an educated opinion on evolution from all those renowned... biologists?

What concerns me more though, and I have to admit I haven't had a chance to actually get a hand on the book, is that this is an 'abridged' version - meaning its been edited. Whilst that might sound innocent enough, lets not ignore the fact that in Ben Stein's recent movie Expelled, they decided to edit Darwin's words to make him sound racist, and completely contradict what he actually said.

Now I don't know if Ray is quite as sinister as that, and frankly if he wants to use under-handed stealth tactics to cram creationist propaganda into kids hands, thats bad enough. But is he in ANY way qualified to be let loose with a cut-and-paste tools on a scientific textbook? Presenting two sides of an 'argument' is one thing, but handing out your own version of a historical work whilst maintaining the original authors name and only minimal indication that its been changed? That's a scary thought, and has a distinct 'Ministry of Truth' feel to it that really crosses the line.

Brainwashing kids with wildly innacurate interpretations of evolutionary theory has been a staple of the creationist movement for a long, long time. As has quote-mining. As I haven't read the book I can't comment on the faithfulness of the editing in this case (though I'd be stunned if it was actually accurate), but the idea that a primary source can be hacked up by people with a religious/ political agenda, keep the original author's name on the cover, then be handed out to kids is something I find frankly terrifying. Whilst I'm aware of the naivety in that sentiment, this is a much more overt case than might be found elsewhere and I do think it warrants concern.

Steven Barker and priorities of the press

2009-08-11T16:04:00.002+01:00

Okay, so anonymity has lifted on the Baby P killers, and yes that is a big deal. The media have spent the day broadcasting their names and discussing the reasons that they have been kept secret for so long. There have been comments on the safety of the trio, their background, and on the way that Steven Barker and his brother tormented their grandmother. The horrors inflicted upon young Peter Connelly had the nation in fury for months after they came to light, and it is of course a huge story, that deserves this attention.

What else deserves attention however, is the rape of a two-year-old girl. Everywhere in the media there have been mentions of it, but for some reason this act has somehow been relegated to that of an additional character trait of Barker's. The BBC in a long broadcast (including several interviews, discussions, on location filming and profiles of the trio) mentioned the rape once. It was a single sentence that came up in a list of 'details' that could now be revealed about the killers. On the BBC website, the written story mentions the rape twice. Once, again as an additional 'detail' about Barker, and once as a reason that Baby P's killers could not be named until now.

What happened to young Peter was horrendous, and the media should not do anything to lessen or cheapen that. This should not mean that the rape of a two-year-old girl should be treated merely as a 'detail' or, even worse, as a reason that those commiting the real crime could not be named.

Yes, Baby P is the main story. Yes, the law grants anonymity to victims of sexual assault and thus there are many details of the rape case that can not be discussed. Yes, the rape case extended the period of time the public had to wait to hear the names of the trio. But none of these reasons should reduce comment on the crime to a couple of sentences here and there. Steven Barker has been convicted of hurting more than one child, and his second victim, nameless or otherwise, deserves more.

Top Gear

2009-08-03T12:01:00.001+01:00

I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this, but Top Gear has gone downhill?

I know it's always been scripted, but recently it's been getting stupid. They used to at least pretend that the show was unscripted, but now it seems like they've deliberately chosen the most ridiculous possible things to do and say just for percieved 'entertainment value'. They don't need to be that extravagant to keep people interested.

This episode in particular felt like they were merely filling time. The advert-making feature would have been better, or maybe even good, had it not been half an hour long.

I preferred it when it at least gave the impression that it was unscripted. Who really keeps a scissor lift in the studio just on the off chance?

The whole series is now reminiscent of Clarkson's direction in the advert feature - Over the top, implausible and poorly thought out.

Hopefully next season will be an improvement...

thunderf00t vs Ray Comfort

2009-08-02T20:36:00.003+01:00

I don't know how many people in the real world pay attention to the explosion of Evolution vs Creationism debates happening on YouTube, but as someone who does I felt I should comment on the recent 'discussion' between thunderf00t and Ray Comfort.

For those not familiar with the YouTube battleground, thunderf00t is somewhat of a celebrity on the circuit, having produced a series of videos entitled "Why do people laugh at creationists?", and also legally bitchslapping a well known creationist YouTuber who was attempting a bit of DMCA abuse. What makes this meeting particularly exciting however is that Ray Comfort is not a YouTube celebrity, but instead a well known creationist Christian evangelist in real life, famous on the internet for presenting an argument for God which relied on the convenience of eating a banana.

Anyway, after an intake of breath from the 'evolutionist' camp as they prepared for Ray Comfort to get his arse well and truly handed to him by a competent biologist, there has been quite a lot of feeling of disappointment at the actual result. Unlike thunderf00t's usually cool and cutting technique, we saw a slightly shaky and almost hesitant front. What saddens me however is that this is EXACTLY what he needed to be doing, and unfortunately a lot of people won't recognise it.

Dawkins, Hitchens and thunderf00t himself (amongst many others) have spent the last few years scolding the creationist community, and even engaging in multiple legal battles with them. This was all perfectly well and good to flash up a spotlight on the conflict, but the time for (literal) name calling is starting to pass. The 'discussion' between thuderf00t and Comfort was exactly the kind of dialogue that the battlefield has been crying out for; a friendly one. Heck, subtly buried as they were, there were actually far more answers given during the discussion than usually occur in more heated circumstances. Comfort openly acknowledged that he believed speciation occurred and also that, in terms of evidence and support, the only difference between his belief in God and a figment of someone's imagination was that his God was described in a book. Conversely, thunderf00t admitted that he would save his dog's life over that of a human enemy.

The point is that nomatter who 'won', both parties found something out about the other, and more importantly, the discussion was civil. If thunderf00t or Comfort had crushed their opponent with debate tactics, nothing would have been gained. Because both of them let the other speak they managed to progress the larger debate forward and encourage future interaction. This is a far more useful achievement than either of tham walking away with a 'point' for their team.

You can see the debate here.

The Blues Brothers

2009-07-29T14:06:00.002+01:00

The Blues Brothers was re-released in cinemas last week. This is one of my favourite films of all time.

So why aren't Vue showing it? Grr.

I own it on DVD and have seen it about ten times, but I would love to see it in the cinema. Preferably dressed up as the blues brothers.

Virtual Brain

2009-07-22T21:17:00.003+01:00

A scientist has claimed that we are only ten years away from creating a fully artificial brain.

This is awe inspiring

Apparently this would be useful to study mental diseases. But would it be able to think? Would it be able to create a 'self'?
I find that quite a scary proposition.

And in other news... Best headline ever? When I first saw it I thought it was a joke. It looks like 4 unrelated words!

No-fee degree for students at home

2009-07-21T18:58:00.002+01:00

Several newspapers have reported that the Government is proposing a no-fee degree for students who are prepared to live at home.

The Express

This is patently a badly thought-out idea.

Families with money will send their children to do the best possible course at the best possible university. Poorer students will end up going to the university closest to them, regardless of whether the course or institution is right for them.

This will result in many poorer students studying a course that’s not right for them at a university they don’t really like.

This would create a 2-tier system where the rich study their chosen degree at the best universities while the poor are stuck with whatever the nearest university can offer. We would have the same system as already exists in cities for schools – those who can afford to move to a better catchment area or go to private school, and those who can’t are stuck with the bad local schools.

Surely half the point of university is the experience of living away from home?

Being a student living away from home is a valuable experience. It is the unique position of living on your own and managing your own life, while still having access to support from your parents when everything goes horribly wrong.
On the other hand, living at home while studying would give no new responsibilities, and would be just like school.

One of the best things about studying away from home is meeting people from all over the country and from all backgrounds.
Living and studying at home would destroy the social integration aspect altogether.

I think a better idea would be to provide more or better targeted funding for poorer students.

England wins - Kickass!

2009-07-20T16:24:00.001+01:00

England have one their first test match against Australia at Lord's for 75 years. Excellent.

However there's still 3 tests left in this series so there's still plenty of time for them to lose the Ashes, don't panic.

Windows 7

2009-07-19T14:04:00.011+01:00

Windows 7 is now open for preorder.

According to the Times, it will retail for "about £49.99" for the basic Home version... But not on Amazon

Amazon is retailing it for £74.99, and claiming that this is a half price!

Surely the Times isn't that bad at estimates?

Or are Amazon profiteering?

In any case, let's hope it's significantly better than Vista, and that it is compatible with XP...
I'm hoping that the new version won't use half of your RAM and move things around for no obvious reason.

The release of Vista very much reminds me of the terrible Millenium Edition - An OS rushed out with bugs and technical problems that was very quickly superseded by another (in the case of ME, the now incumbent XP).

Whatever the case, it looks like the next off-the-shelf computers we buy will be running Windows 7, not Vista (and good riddance).

Unless Chrome is incredibly, improbably and miraculously good...

Cigarettes, Whisky and Wild, Wild Women

2009-07-18T14:20:00.004+01:00

Source, Britain's oldest man dies

This guy is a proper legend. When asked how he had lived so long, he said, "Cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women". Lad.

HOLY CRAP WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

2009-07-17T15:28:00.006+01:00

Swine flu alert no.2657, situation critical.

2 teachers and some students at my old school and sixth form are off with suspected swine flu.

Everyone below 14 is running around panicking, despite the fact that the death rate is below 0.5%, not taking into account people who haven't reported it.

According to news reports, in some cases people don't even notice they have it, and in others it feels like a minor cold.

I think it's probably best to get it now while there's still Tamiflu about and before people start rioting for the vaccine...

There are 60 million vaccines on order, and you need 2 jabs for it to be effective. And there are ~61 million people in the UK.

Let's hope the death rate stays low then.

Recent BBC article

I'm looking forward to the bonus reanimation stage of the disease where you get to come back as a pig zombie and terrorise your family and friends.

Free iPod Touch?

2009-07-17T15:25:00.001+01:00

Apple keeps emailing me with offers for students. This time they’re saying if I buy a Mac I can have a free iPod Touch. Sweet?

Macs actually get more appealing with time; I used to hate them. The OS still makes no sense to me but the new MacBook is very good looking. Plus they’re now allowing third-party companies to supply RAM. Plus you can run Windows on them and it seems to work well.

However I already own an iPod classic, so I don’t really want a Touch right now. And my laptop is still just about working. And they are still damn expensive for the specs. So, maybe not sweet.

Looking further into it, it still works out more expensive than buying a comparatively-specced laptop from another manufacturer.

What I want is other laptop manufacturers to take the same attitude to designing their laptops. My Sony Vaio is comparatively well designed (aesthetically at least) but is still nothing on Macs. The MacBook features a machined aluminium body, whereas my Vaio is made of plastic. Quite sturdy plastic compared to some laptops, but plastic nonetheless.

One last thing, does anyone else wish Apple stopped using shiny plastic for the back of their iPods? I’d much rather it matched the matte aluminium of the front...

The Pope and Harry Potter

2009-07-16T19:15:00.002+01:00

So according to the July 15th edition of the Times the Vatican’s official newspaper has decided that Harry Potter isn’t that bad after all.

This is exactly the approach the Vatican should have taken to begin with!

By condemning Harry Potter for supporting witchcraft the Church made itself look ridiculous.

The Church are trying to present the Bible as fact, or at least a viable code for life. Mixing it with what is clearly fiction only serves to make themselves less credible.

The official reason they gave for this change of heart is that Rowling’s books clearly divide good and evil, helping to establish morals in children.
I suspect that the real reason is that they’ve realised how backwards it made them look.

UK unemployment rises to 2.38 million

2009-07-16T19:12:00.000+01:00

Source: BBC

I figured my first proper post should probably be in some way related to why I’m here.

So unemployment has risen to 2.38 million in the UK, with a record rise recently. According to the official statistics, it’s particularly bad amongst young people up to 24 years old.

I should know; there’s no jobs anywhere!

Half the problem from where I’m sitting comes from people who have been made unemployed from other jobs looking for new, lower-paid jobs that are usually the domain of students and young people such as myself.
These people are often fairly well qualified workers from respectable positions and have no difficulty “taking” jobs from us.

(Cue South Park-style redneck impression)

Also graduate opportunities have fallen significantly too, except in Scotland where they rose 14% according to New Scientist.

Is it worth moving to Scotland?

Probably not.

First post. Incredible.

2009-07-16T17:59:00.000+01:00

This blog will mainly consist of news reviews and opinions (in case you’re wondering, I didn’t mean to put a comma in then).

I am a student who has just completed the third year of a four-year Masters course, and I’ve found myself unemployed for the first time in a holiday! Damn recession...

Anyway this has left me at a loose end for things to do, since I’m used to working full time in the holidays. New Scientist recommended writing a blog as one good way of staying occupied and sharp while job hunting, so here I am.

My main news sources are likely to be The Times and the BBC (and occasionally New Scientist). I suppose that probably makes me some sort of bleeding heart liberal, however I think I’m quite moderate. I regularly check out other news sources as well, such as Reuters who appear to supply everyone with news anyway.

In a couple of weeks I will be joined by a co-blogger who is currently teaching English as a foreign language to kids in England (how noble). He is actually a qualified journalist so you might notice the quality of posts sharply increase in about two weeks’ time.

The first few posts might seem a little behind the ball, due to the fact that I hadn’t decided to actually post this stuff when I wrote it. Plus I couldn’t think of a decent name for the blog.