Generalism

It has been called a “disaster”, “silly”, “ridiculous” and “a bad idea”, but is putting age ranges onto the back of books really all that bad? Apparently 86% of consumers asked said “not at all, we like so we do!” but perhaps such polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, isn’t it possible to get results to say whatever is required of them to say?

So what were the drivers for such a far-reaching change? Consumer demand? Author demand? Increased engagement? No, nothing so prosaic. Publishing director of MacMillan’s children’s division said that they were aiming at “increasing consumer confidence and sales”.

The confidence I can kinda understand and kinda not. On the one hand there really are a lot of books out there, and it can be a real pain trying to figure out what to buy your little ones when out shopping. On the other hand if you wait until you get to a shop before figuring what books to buy, and then rely purely on a number on the back, you’re in real danger of leaving your child disinterested, or heaven forbid, put off reading for good. These days there’s far too much rubbish out on the shelves to ever go in unarmed, irrespective of the ages plastered on the back.

And let’s face it, in this technological age there are no excuses for struggling to figure out which books to buy. Setting the capabilities of the shop staff aside (which are generally outstanding it must be said), most people have access to the internet, and even a cursory viewing on Amazon will give a wide selection of consumer reviews to influence purchasing decisions and help draw up a list of great books for little Molly. Sure they’re not always to be trusted, but a book with 50 customer reviews giving 4 or 5 stars is likely to be a safe bet compared to a random pick.

Setting the confidence issue aside though, we get to the real kicker, the “increase in sales”, and this is where my hackles really start to raise. We all know companies live or die based on profits, but how many ill-conceived changes have been foisted on us in the past with the sole-aim of increasing sales? A horrible reason for making such a far-reaching change.

Why far-reaching? Because, setting aside the encouragement of a more haphazard purchasing decision through less prior investigation, and less staff interactions, it opens the doors to all sorts of stigmatization. Would 12 year olds want to read a book with 8 on the back irrespective of their reading ability or the book’s content? And how many children typically want to be doing things older than their abilities will let them? And for that matter, would I have read Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials trilogy in my thirties, on the tube, with a big fat “5+” pasted on the back, fantastic though they were. We could see ourselves going back in time to the days when we all used to re-cover our books to protect them, and now to cover up our reading deficiencies.

So MacMillan, I put to you, what’s wrong with the age recommendation being inside the front cover? Or perhaps on the internet? Or even in a nearby book catalogue? And furthermore, why not encourage talking to the shop workers not just for age recommendations but for subject matter, for recommended reads, or perhaps setup your own website for parents to create lists of fun and engaging books to read and really focus on getting children engaged for life?

Unfortunately that all sounds far too sensible, practical, and long-term to stand a chance of hitting this year’s profit forecasts.

So it looks like the Democratic election campaign has finally drawn to a close over in the US this week. It’s been a close-run thing, and I for one wouldn’t have liked to call it either way. And in fact I have to say I kinda like both candidates. Obama seems passionate, capable, and as potentially strong a world leader as anyone I’ve seen in a while, whilst Mrs Clinton has the kind of grace, poise and razor intellect that only a woman in high office can have. I’d have been happy with either candidate; the narrow margins suggest I wasn’t alone.

One thing that surprised me somewhat was just how long Hilary kept up the fight, refusing to admit defeat until the very last yard. Admirable I’m sure, but I actually wonder if the winner was as much the Democratic party as it was Obama. Y’see, with everything that’s been in the news over the past few months, even someone like myself that only casually followed the goings-on, now knows both candidates and what they stand for, at least in a general sense. Right now I couldn’t even tell you who the Republican party candidate is, let alone what he looks like or the substance of his policies.

So, the question I ask myself is, did Hillary keep going, not to win, but to secure what has surely been an unprecedented amount of media air-time for her party? The conspiracy theorists could have a field day suggesting that Hillary actually had no intention of winning, and in fact knew she wouldn’t from the start, but deliberately refused to bow down purely for advertising’s sake. Okay, so maybe stretching reality a touch, but it’s an interesting thought.

Anyway, fanciful diversions aside, I wish both of them all the best for the future, and hope that not only does Obama go on to become a great American President, but also a fantastic world leader. Right now that’s certainly something we could all benefit from.

Now this is going to get tricky, so concentrate. Can you spot all five subtle differences between the two people in the photographs below?

Y’see, that’s one of the fundamental problems with cycling. It’s all very well for the breakfast news to bleat on about how important it is for people to get out of their cars and off public transport and get some exercise on the British roads, but unless you’re going to carry your self-respect in your oversized rucksack along with your crumpled up suit and shoes, I think the chances of there being a mass exodus border on nil.

Oh sure, they state that there has been an increase in cycling in some cities of up to 50%, but put in perspective, that’s a massive increase from two people to, well, three, and that’s only because Mr and Mrs Jones have finally managed to convince little Billy that buses aren’t painted red because they’re dangerous, and that if you wear Klingon ridges on your head you simply bounce back up onto your bike every time you get knocked off. Which will be a lot.

I applaud the efforts of improving safety by putting cycle lanes around the cities, I really do, and at some point when they install the roofing to fend off 98% of the British weather, things might look a little rosier. Except that I’m not entirely sure how they’d setup roofing on some of them. Perhaps some kind of marquee…?

But on reflection maybe I’m being a little harsh. after all cycling is good for your health, and for that matter your wealth. And maybe it is actually possible to cycle safely to work, without getting covered in sweat, having to look like a Klingon or for that matter needing to know what a “cycle clip” is. After all, this lady doesn’t seem to be having any difficulties…

This last couple of weeks has seen another landing on Mars on the ever-present search for life, another Shuttle flight to the International Space Station to fix the toilet (with the delivery of the Japanese lab as a crucial side-mission), and today the sighting of the smallest planet outside our solar system, roughly three times the size of Earth. The speculation surrounding it’s characteristics is many and varied, but really at such a distance and current levels of technology we have little chance of finding out much more than its mass and location.

It did however lead me to look at how planets such as our newly found friend actually come about.

The best guess to date, and it really is only a best guess considering the millennia taken for such an event to come about, is through a mechanism called “accretion”. According to the dictionary, accretion is the process of growth or increase in size, typically by the gradual accumulation of additional layers or matter, often under the influence of gravity.

In laymen’s terms, it is suggested that every piece of matter in the universe, irrespective of size, has a gravitational force, and therefore attracts other pieces of matter; tiny particles have a very small attraction, large masses such as the sun have large attraction. The experts therefore assert that what starts off as clouds of particles orbiting a sun inevitably “clump” together through these attractive forces to create larger and larger masses over time, until they begin to take on the properties of what we know as planets.

And what’s even more incredible is that this very same gravitational phenomena can be found on a shopping trip down to the local Asda. Any human stood still for more than five seconds will begin to exert a powerful gravitational force, attracting other people to whatever they’re stood in front of. Even moving to a different location only gives a brief respite before the gravitational forces come into play again, no matter how mysterious the shelf contents.

Left unheeded, this accretion of human bodies can begin to compact and coalesce, taking on the properties of what scientists currently call protoplanets, blocking all isles and preventing any hope of reaching the tills.

Perhaps scientists should spend less time looking for answers with a telescope, and more time shopping for their answers…

I’m pleased with some of the news this week, happy that the erstwhile Economist agreed with my reflections on the short-term pain of high oil prices ultimately being worth the long-term gains of replacements that they will inevitably force.

But the thing I don’t seem to be able to escape at the moment is the constant groaning about what the press calls “gas guzzlers” - big engined cars, constantly linked to any issues that surround oil, global warming, and rage. And it made me wonder why people actually buy and drive such big cars.

Now I don’t think for one minute that it’s engine-envy, or for that matter a childish game of top-trumps where my 450bhp V8 beats your 400bhp straight-six, thereby winning your card. And actually, how many people actually understand what bhp really means anyway?

No, I think the issue is what actually comes with that big engine that doesn’t come with it’s smaller brethren, and this is where the energy-efficient light bulbs start to go on.

Taking an example at random, the Mercedes SL class. Comparing small and large-engine models, I see the large engine has, as standard, flashy wheels, active suspension, wood and leather trim, radar cruise control, audible parking sensors, remote boot closure, tyre pressure monitoring, surround sound, and leather trim. Now some of these are available as overpriced options on the smaller-engined models, but by no means all.

On reflection, perhaps Mercedes is not such a good example because of it’s rather more exclusive tastes, so let’s have a quick look at a more utilitarian model: A VW Golf. Looking at the top-range R32, I see it has 4-wheel drive, xenon headlights, DSG gearbox, flashy alloys, and leather trim as an option, again, as with the Mercedes, all lacking in the smaller-engined models.

So what are people actually buying when they go out to buy a gas-guzzler? Actually what they are buying is not necessarily the engine size, but the highest level of comfort, speed, safety and technology that they can afford. It just so happens that these specifications are directly linked to the largest engine sizes; the bigger the engine, the better the spec.

Because of this, I would predict that if the same levels of specification could be attached to a small engine, people wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Without it, it doesn’t matter how high petrol prices climb, there’s only one type of car that people are going to aspire to, and in this case, the biggest really is the best.

I’ve just been blown away. It seems to be happening on a regular basis at the moment, but that doesn’t make it any less powerful.

I caught the repeat of the final of Britain’s Got Talent today; ten different and wildly varying acts each trying to book themselves a place in the Royal Variety Performance to play in front of the royal family later this year. Not focused on any one talent area as with the X Factor and derivatives, just focusing on entertaining.

Now I don’t tend to watch reality tv shows any more; I’ll admit I lost my life to the first ever Big Brother, back when the entrants were actually fairly normal people, as did many others at the time. It was a fascinating insight into the human psyche when caged up in a box for 13 weeks. Since then though, the craziness factor has been dialed up to 11, and what was reality tv has since become unreality tv. Well, I can live without it.

But…

I am very very glad I caught this particular final. It was simply fantastic. I’m pleased for George Sampson, his dancing was energetic and infectious, and of course a worthy winner, but my guts were torn out by two acts that didn’t happen to make the top three.

Faryl Smith was the first. A 12 year old girl singing opera like no one I’ve ever heard before. Her performance in the final was sublime. I could not believe such a voice could come from someone so young. This can not be the last time we hear either her name or her voice as has been the case with so many runners-up in the past. Wonderful.

The second was Escala, and not simply because I play viola (badly). I just couldn’t believe that such music would have such an emotional effect. They blew me and the audience away with their Karl Jenkins recital in the final, and I was left quite speechless. I really really want to see these guys live. As with Faryl Smith, this simply must not be the last we hear of these ladies.

Anyway, enough of my babbling, as if you’ve been following the show you’ll have heard and read enough about it all by now. Just my two penneth though, and I hope you enjoy their talent (and the links) as much as I did.

I don’t know how long Orange’s cellphone plan advertising campaign has gone on for, but it seems like eternity. Ya see ya have yer basic dolphin, and yer common or garden cat, er racoon thingy, and I think that’s a pigeon there, and, well, whatever the hell that last one is.

But of course if you thought naming the things was the tricky part, then you were mistaken. That would of course be far too easy, and we all know they like to work you much harder than that. No, you better believe that every single floaty animal biscuity shape actually means something, so it does!

So, you have your pigeon, now that gives you 1500 texts, 10 free minutes and a direct line to your mother-in-law. But your cat, er, racoon, well, now that’ll get you 2000 texts, a woolly jumper, three free pizzas, and a date with this pretty girl here… Hmm, actually I might have remembered that slightly wrong…

And for those people that are hard of reading, if I didn’t make myself clear, and I have on many occasion been accused of being far too subtle, here it is in plain words. It’s crap. The animal biscuits are crap. What they stand for is crap. It’s all crap. And what’s more, it was crap to start with, and it doesn’t get any less crap if you put the adverts on every 5 seconds on every channel for how ever many years you mistakenly signed up for! And dammit if you haven’t just made me give you another free advert! Gah! Pox on you!!!

Look, I just want to save us all some time and effort here, okay? If you just happen to like the biscuity shapes, then please go ahead and sell animal biscuits instead. At least those I might consider buying.

Oh good god, Microsoft, will you pack it in with the multi-touch screen photo and map demos already! I’ll tell you two of the things that I do least on my PC.

1. Manipulate photos
2. Manipulate maps

This continual insistence that firstly touch-screens are going to be the saviour of the PC, Microsoft, or for that matter Windows, is just so misplaced; touch screen technology has been around a long long time, and it has hardly rocked anyone’s world in that time. In addition, the same old demos of opening a photo, and, WOW! Hang on a minute! Did that guy just SPIN that photo around with… TWO FINGERS?! Holy mother of all that’s holy!!! Being able to use more than one finger at a time is not a killer app.

So poor old Microsoft now seems to think that the next version of Windows is going to be a world beater because of this touch-screen technology and two of the most useless capabilities known to man. They also seem to think that focusing on “Search” which, according to Bill Gates, is a great time and money investment, will help Microsoft’s plight. I’m sorry, but I have to take issue with that as well. Who cares about a better search than we have right now? More importantly who cares if Microsoft builds the best search? I mean, really?

Okay, so perhaps I’m just having a gray day, but this company has been around for, what, twenty years now, and grown to countless thousands of employees worldwide. In that time they’ve created two world-changing products: Windows and Office. Windows was stolen from Xerox, and Office was a copy of another suite of apps that happened to be in development at the time, and just happened to win the typical Betamax vs VHS race (though Office was arguably the better of the two). I guess with so much experience and so much money, I’m just hoping for, and expecting, so much more. Oh, and Bill, if you think pledging your full support behind this guy is ever going to make things any better, you and I should have a chat.

I wanted to do a quick addendum to my previous post as this article on Slashdot made me realize just how much is actually going on in the energy research communities that we simply never hear about.

Detailed technicalities apart (you can read the full gen here), these guys have theoretically proven the ability to create extremely cheap energy from a type of fusion reaction that utilizes hydrogen (from water) and boron (from sea salt) and expels only helium gas. And what’s more, the proofs for the technology have already been in front of a range of scientific brain-boxes, and been given a unanimous and rather excited thumbs up.

So, a garage-sized, non-nuclear reactor generating enough energy to power a small community at fifty times cheaper than current costs, all for $300k a pop? I have to say, my excitement levels could well be on a par with those scientists…

Well I suppose it had to happen. For the second time in recent memory, hauliers are protesting against fuel prices, now up to 130 / 135p per litre for diesel here in the UK.

For me, there’s two things that spring to mind. Firstly, there are simply too many lorries on the road all the time; the motorways are clogged with them at all hours (if you’ve ever been stuck in stationary traffic on the M1 at midnight, you certainly know what I mean), and they seem to be responsible for most of the accidents on the road, as well as most of the traffic snarl-ups. Recent business advances don’t help; “Just in time” processes save companies huge amounts of money, but in doing so essentially turn these lorries into portable warehouses, putting even more on the road more of the time. Companies tightly coupled to this strategy will really be hurting.

The other issue is that fuel prices must be high, and will need to be higher still, for real change to happen and real alternatives to appear. If fuel was 20p a litre, where would be the incentive to research and develop a replacement for this dirty and destructive liquid? In setting prices so high, the oil companies will score an own goal; the higher the prices, the more value there will be in finding a replacement.

Regardless of whatever happens in the near-term, the writing is on the wall for petrol and diesel as fuels, they simply won’t last forever. The protests will only result in a temporary price change (if at all), but I’m happy with anything that adds to the focus on alternative fuels, and for that I will add a hearty round of applause, wish them luck, and carry on my merry way.