My 30-day trial of Abode Lightroom just ended, and I was looking at pricing for the full version. I can’t afford it, sadly, but was interested to note that buying a direct download is a whole 74p cheaper than having the boxed product shipped to you. Wow. I just picked up a new memory card that came with a license for Capture One LE. It’s no Lightroom, but seems pretty good at handling RAW files and should be effective in combination with Picasa.

Abstinence-only sex education, much favoured by the Bush administration, doesn’t work:

WASHINGTON — Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students _ 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Their response?

Officials said one lesson they learned from the study is that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years to truly affect behavior.

Yes, that’s certainly the obvious lesson. Is there any non-religious reason to think that casual, safe sex is a bad thing? Other than the obvious problems with ’safe’?

Closer to home, a ’sex theme park’ will open in London later this year. It has, disappointingly, ‘no rides’. Not even a bouncy castle. Or a carousel. Or a log flume. It does, however, include plenty of attractions designed to get you in trouble:

The theme park will include life-sized silicone-made models [?] which visitors can touch to discover erogenous zones.

People will also be able to build their ideal partner from a series of body parts

The aim of the park is to “give you all the information you need to become a fantastic lover”. I think letting already-attached men build their ideal partner might guarantee them no sex for a long time.

And, since we’re on the subject (kinda):

Not really all that safe for work.

Julie Walters will play Mary Whitehouse in a BBC drama detailing her extended battles with Director General Sir Hugh Greene. The executive producer says the story is ‘often very funny’. Also bizarre, apparently:

She once called him “the devil incarnate”. He responded to her criticisms by commissioning a painting of her naked with five breasts to hang in his office.

*blinks*

My sixth mystery is now up at the Kids’ Mysteries site¹. This one’s set outdoors, in a generic location to make it easy to stage, and has clues that can be hidden around the area. It also has ten characters rather than the usual eight. Blurb from the site:

Many, many years ago, when the town of Buccaneer Valley was just a tiny settlement, a band of pirates and thieves pulled off the most daring theft of its time. The men got away with a fortune in jewels. With the enraged citizens hot on their trail, they had no choice but to split up. Arguments quickly started. What would they do with the loot? When would they each get their shares? The leader of the group, a dangerous man named Dylan Quint, decided to bury it. Everyone agreed to meet five years later to dig it up and divide it. Legend says that Quint had strange powers and was able to place a frightening monster nearby to guard the spot until they were back together again. Yet, no one ever returned. The Quint treasure is rumored to be buried somewhere still in the woods near Buccaneer Valley - and the monster is keeping watch over it even today.

The site owner describes it on the front page as “the latest offering from popular writer Andrew West”. Popular writer! Me! I am chuffed.

I don’t think I’ve mentioned how these work. All the mysteries are $24.97² for an instant download of a pack containing full-colour artwork, player sheets for all characters and scripts to read out. They’re not specifically set in the US, but that’s the major market and the dialogue is localised accordingly: ‘candy’ rather than ’sweets’, for example; I doubt the kids would even notice, but it’s only fair to point it out. The mysteries are entirely age-appropriate, and structured so that a large number of kids can be ‘investigators’ and figure out the mystery by asking each character questions, so the party doesn’t require a fixed number of people. I’ve been writing them for two years now, and am quite proud of the results.

1. affiliate link - well, you never know [↩]
2. really, really cheap on today’s exchange rates. As the writer this has certain downsides, but that’s not your problem [↩]

Holy shit.

“She peeked out into the hallway, and saw the shooter, so she immediately closed the door. Three other students moved a table that was in front of the room - it seats approximately 40 students at capacity - and barricaded it against the door.

 A few seconds later, the shooter tried to open the door, but my classmates kept it well shut, as they held the table against it from floor level.

“The shooter shot the door twice at chest level, which resulted in two holes in the door, one of which hit the podium in the front of the class room and the other continued out the window. At this point he reloaded, shot the door again - this shot did not penetrate - and moved on to the other classrooms,”

I cannot imagine coping with that.

I recently told somebody to pick up a Netgear DG834G router to set up their wireless network. They duly went into PC World, asked and were given a DG834, then couldn’t get the wireless working. I was helping them over the phone and couldn’t understand why the settings didn’t exist, then discovered that the G-less DG834 is non-wireless. What a dumb naming convention. I wish I’d known that beforehand.

The Independent wants to know whether mobile phones are killing bees. They claim that bees are disappearing all over the world, and that studies have shown mobile phone radiation may be sending them astray. According to an entomologist on the radio this afternoon this is based on a study where a mobile phone transmitter was placed directly inside the hive, and has rather dubious real-world validity. But that’s not what I wanted to mention. The last third of the article trots out a lot of unjustified hysteria over mobile phone radiation:

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

You can just about read this as objective, if you stand on your head and squint your eyes a bit.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

No it didn’t. Here’s the abstract from the International Journal of Cancer:

We found no evidence of increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use (odds ratio, OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68, 0.91). No significant association was found across categories with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. When the linear trend was examined, the OR for cumulative hours of mobile phone use was 1.006 (1.002, 1.010) per 100 hr, but no such relationship was found for the years of use or the number of calls. We found no increased risks when analogue and digital phones were analyzed separately. For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn.

There was no evidence of increased risk in the vast majority of their studies. The only worry is a borderline statistically significant result indicating that people who’ve used mobile phones for more than ten years, exclusively on one side of the head, are more likely to get a tumour on that side of their head. I’m not sure whether this is actually increasing the odds of getting a tumour, or saying that if they get a tumour in the first place, it’s more likely to be on the side of the head they use their mobile phone. From the phrasing I suspect the former. Either way, the numbers are really, really small, and that the side of the head is reported in hindsight by people already with brain tumours (and therefore possibly suspicious of mobile phones) certainly doesn’t warrant drawing any conclusion beyond ‘further research is necessary’. It’s definitely not enough to make sweeping statements like the Independent has. This isn’t a case of the result probably being true and scientists just being picky, it’s a genuine lack of evidence to make any kind of conclusion. My grasp on statistical methods is fuzzy, but I’m also willing to bet that an odds ratio of 1.39 isn’t the same as being 40% more likely, in this case. Back to the Independent:

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today’s teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

In rats. Assuming they’re talking about a 2003 study. There is no evidence to suggest that mobile phone radiation damages human brain cells. It’s known that mobile phone use can affect the brain, but no damage has been detected. Again, this isn’t a matter of it probably being true in humans too - plenty of tests on animals simply don’t apply to humans. At most it’s a reason to continue researching and isn’t enough to draw a conclusion, especially one so nutty as ‘today’s teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives’. Where the hell did that come from?

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of “text thumb”, a form of RSI from constant texting.

RSI? You’re bringing up RSI in a piece about the supposed deadly effects of mobile phone radiation? I’m perfectly willing to believe that somebody could get RSI from excessive texting. Quick, call the Pope. As far as I can tell, the sperm count studies seem to indicate that people who use mobile phones for many hours a day have smaller sperm counts. But it’s not thought that the radiation itself is causing the problem - there’s no real theoretical mechanism for this, for a start - more likely that it’s a substitute for some other factor. If people are on the phone for so long, are they sitting down the whole time? What kind of lifestyles do they have? What are they eating? How much exercise do they get? Studies need to control for these things before such conclusions can be reached.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

No he didn’t. He said, in his 2000 report:

If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head (paragraph 4.37), and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged.

He recommended that children be discouraged from using mobile phones not because of any evidence of adverse health effects, but because if any are discovered they would affect children more than adults due to the differing physiologies. This seems reasonable to me, since there’s little reason for under 8s to be regularly using mobile phones anyway. The precautionary approach detailed in the report is laid out on the basis of possible future discoveries, with effort put into finding a reasonable balance between caution and outright paranoia. The final sentence of the Independent report is useless without any details, and I can’t be bothered checking to see whether every recommendation has been implemented.

The health effects of electromagnetic radiation are the subject of huge amounts of research, as you’d hope. If there are any dangers to using a mobile phone, I want to bloody know about it! But with the evidence not suggesting anything to worry about, the Independent article is nothing more than scaremongering, and doesn’t help anybody.

While walking around Charlecote yesterday, we took the following amusing picture¹. Seems innocuous enough, right?

I didn’t notice something at the time. If we look more closely:

It’s back! I blogged about Smart Water a year ago. I am no less creeped out by the concept today. Back then the sign was a long way from me. This is only five minutes drive from my flat! It’s coming to get me! I’m batting down the hatches and readying the sawdust.

1. amusing for perhaps three people, all of whom were there at the time. Let’s be fair, however, for them it’s damned funny [↩]

I have the first series of Jeremy Hardy Speaks to the Nation on tape, which shows how old it is. The comedian’s half-hour talks on important issues of the day frequently had me in stitches as a teenager. I knew there was a new series in the pipeline, but hadn’t realised it was being broadcast until Lisa mentioned it¹. The most recent dealt with ‘belief, both religious and secular’, then segued into political correctness where Jeremy gives an impassioned rant against those who spend the whole damn time complaining about it. I laughed out loud when he said (paraphrased somewhat):

When Derbyshire schools cancelled schools for safety reasons after heavy snowfalls, the right-wing press called it political correctness. That’s not political correctness, it’s the nanny state! You’ve only got two ideas, at least get them the right way around!

Not sure how much longer it’ll be available on the BBC site, but it’s worth a listen.

1. Life on Mars spoilers in that link [↩]

Three hours of dancing, a four-mile walk and a seventy mile drive is probably enough for a day. I was also at a party last night, at which a friend ordered a coffee and received this:

That’s one small beverage.

Go on you reds! OR the other ones! One of you! I’ve been to football matches, you know. Two of them. One time my Dad went to get me a hot dog, and when he came back I told him somebody had scored, and fifteen minutes later he found out it was offside and Villa weren’t winning at all. I have experience of the big game atmosphere. I can do chanting.

Foul ball!

That guy couldn’t pass muster!

I think the striker’s more of a linesman, if you know what I mean!

If you put as much thought into playing as you do into trying to cheat, you’d win!

Warren Beatty’s seen more of a net than you!

That shot was so bad, it deserved gaol more than goal!

I fit right in. I’m happy as long as somebody wins and Doctor Who isn’t pushed back to next week.

The ice-cream boat sank last week. There are various possible causes:

1. Somebody asked for a Mr Dippy

2. The magnums went off

3. They had too many ‘99 fleaks

One of those is admittedly pushing it.

My parents are visiting me, via the river. Currently moored up in the centre of town.

Kurt Vonnegut died I’d only just discovered that guy. I bought Timequake at a Torquay second-hand-bookshop in March and read it over the next week. It describes a quake in time, sending the universe back a decade during which everybody is forced to repeat themselves, but by the time free will kicks in again everybody is too used to coasting along without a care. As you may guess, it’s something of a metaphor I enjoyed the mixture of wisdom, wry observation and crazy story, and was looking forward to reading Slaughterhouse-Five etc.. I’ll probably get around to them sooner, now. I’m aware he was at times anti-science, despite being a humanist, and it’ll be interesting to see how this is argued.

Chapter 57 of Timequake sees the author waiting in a post office queue:

I put the waiting time to good use. I learn about stupid bosses and jobs I will never have, and about parts of the world I will never see, and about diseases I hope I will never have, and about different kinds of dogs people have owned, and so on. By means of a computer? No. I do it by means of the lost art of…

I thought ‘eavesdropping’. It said ‘conversation’. I was abashed. A paragraph later:

I go home. I have had one heck of a good time. Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don’t let anybody tell you any different.

Not a bad motto.

Later: Cory Doctorow has a lovely tribute on BoingBoing.

Later still: P.Z. Myers points out a quote I should have remembered.

The superb Escape Pod short science-fiction podcast just reached its 100th episode, celebrating with a 90-minute reading of Isaac Asimov’s ‘Nightfall’. From Steve’s introduction it seems the story is one of the most popular ever written, but I’d never heard it before. I listened to it while driving back from Nottingham this morning, and was highly entertained. A planet with six suns faces the prospect of imminent darkness, and is woefully ill prepared…

I have a soft spot for Isaac Asimov (along with Arthur C. Clarke) as I devoured his short story collections as a child, and the storytelling style is warm and familiar. I feel in safe hands, and Nightfall was as well-structured and intellectually stimulating as you’d expect, continually fracturing my expectations as the story progressed. It was also very well read, which I think is a highly underrated skill. While I’m talking narration, I should mention #98. It was a fascinating and clever story about chemical-based advertising - a dart hits your neck, and you crave a Big Mac - and the excellent narrator had quite possibly the sexiest voice I’ve ever heard. Worth checking out, for many reasons.

Happy century, Escape Pod. I’ll be listening to the next 100.