Not to be too dramatic about it, but I have two financial crises on the horizon. Well, they used to be on the horizon, but have now climbed my neighbour’s fence and are currently drooling onto his dahlias. My fixed-rate mortgage is going to end in September, and it’s going to go up a lot. And come next February I’ll have a large tax bill to pay. I’ve been living fairly close to the edge for a while now and it’s been ok, but I haven’t a hope of coping if nothing changes, so it is therefore time for me to get a proper part-time job. Which is fine and will be a blessed relief. It’ll also give me a little extra capital, and it’ll be nice to buy books without feeling guilty.

I’ve applied for jobs at the local library before, and as it happens they recently announced two full-time vacancies. But, I can’t pull that off once my university course starts in whenever (I haven’t heard anything since the acceptance letter, which is getting worrying). Happily there are a couple of other options. Today I applied for insanely cool dream job. Really, it would be fantastic. I’ve no clue what my chances are, but if I have no luck I’ll apply for a part-time post at the local Jessops. I was going through all sorts of I’m-24-I-should-be-past-retail-work silliness for a while, but I now think it’d be a good job, particularly if I’m doing the photography degree at the same time. It’s within walking distance and I’d at least have some idea of what I’m talking about. And, you know, discounts

Radio DJ: So I’m reading in an email that Mars is going to be incredibly close to the earth in August. What does this mean for us?
Radio Astrologer: It means some people will believe anything.

Oddly, this morning’s horoscope warned of my irony gland exploding.

What do you think of email disclaimers? The kind that say things like:

This confidential e-mail is for the addressee only. If received in error, do not retain/copy/disclose it without our consent. You must delete it immediately and return it to us. Please do not infer from this communication that we like you. We are not responsible for any damage caused by a virus or alteration by a third party after it is sent. Outgoing attachments are scanned prior to leaving our server but they are opened at your own risk and you are advised to scan incoming email for viruses before opening any attached files. Don’t think we won’t sue your ass. We give no guarantee that any communication is virus-free and accept no responsibility for virus contamination or other system loss or damage of any kind. Nothing you do is our fault. Nothing that happens is anything to do with us. Emails are not necessarily secure. Opinions held within this document and/or attachments are those of the author and not necessarily those of the company. We as a company operate under a groupthink principle, and no advice or help given by an individual is of any use whatsoever. We as a company take no responsibility for anything, but demand money nevertheless. Even this disclaimer is not to be trusted. It may have been altered by a third party. Any advice given herein should not be followed without consulting appropriate legal counsel.

I hate them. They repeat themselves, clog up inboxes, are normally all HTML, make email conversations ridiculously hard to follow, must take up insane amounts of bandwidth and have the air of businesswank. I also find them dubious. I send an email to the wrong person, and my telling them to delete it actually has any legal bearing? And surely there must be rules regarding the liability of a virus-laden email - does saying ‘it might have, but it’s nothing to do with me’ make any difference? I am not a lawyer, but that sounds dodgy. Research suggests that they’re advisable rather than legally binding, but nevertheless it seems OTT.

One of my clients has been told to put these ridiculous things in their emails, and it looks dreadful. I’ve recommended they put a link to disclaimer text hosted on their website. It’s still a bit of HTML, but far better than all that kak. Of course, nobody’s going to read it. But nobody reads it anyway, so what’s the difference? But maybe I’m wrong - any opinions?

Last night I saw the director’s cut of Donnie Darko. Bizarre. It’s one of my favourite films, but this added a chunk of religiosity and sci-fi exposition, and I think I prefer the more enigmatic original. The score was also different, and sometimes came close to overpowering the dialogue (on a small tv, anyway). Abi hadn’t seen it before and certainly enjoyed this telling, though, so maybe it doesn’t detract much from the film.

It’s unusual for me not to like a Director’s cut. Watching a film for the fifth time is a different experience from the first, and extra scenes that would have made an initial viewing tedious can be fascinating, especially if it’s a movie you love. I’ve liked the DCs of Armageddon, Gladiator and Superman. Blade Runner is another oft-quoted example, but I don’t think I’ve seen the non-DC version. I like the longer versions of the LOTR trilogy too, even if they do last forever. Sometimes DCs can be mental: The Abyss is a classic - the Director’s cut completely changes the story! And occasionally it goes the other way - the recent DVD DC of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is significantly shorter than the original.

I’m a little late to the Little Miss Sunshine party. It’s languised on my to-watch list for months, and last week I finally got around to renting the DVD. From the trailer and reaction I was concerned it might be another Life Aquatic - I’d see that it was interesting yet be unmoved - but, happily, I enjoyed it very much. Most reactions I’ve seen online seem to centre on the negative elements, usually quoting demonstrably untrue cliches about modern Hollywood films, but I thought it was heartwarming and touching, admittedly in a bittersweet way, and the ending was positively joyous. Lovely.

I have for over a week been meaning to start a Poddington Peas fan group on Facebook. Well, mainly for fans of the theme tune, which went like this:

Down at the bottom of the garden,
Among the birds and the beas,
A little lot of little people,
They call the Poddington Peas.

There’s Cree-pea, Black Eye Pea and Dum-pea.
Keep it a secret now please.
There’s Zip-pea, Hap-pea and there’s Sweet-pea.
And all the Poddington Peas!

The Poddington Peas!

This morning I went to set it up, and it turns out there are thirteen Poddington Peas fan groups on Facebook already. Thirteen. I had not anticipated this. It did, however, lead me to a surprisingly in-depth ‘Which Poddington Pea are you?’ quiz. I am P.C. Pod. Also: The Poddington Peas in 3D.

So much Poddington Pea-related excitement, so little time. Bravestarr, The Family Ness and Bucky O’Hare next, I think.

The scout master thinks they rock:

“They are a quite a model community for they respect their Queen and kill their unemployed.”

Also self-abuse - because you know somebody’s right in the head when they call it ’self-abuse’ - “brings with it weakness of heart and head and if persisted in idiocy and lunacy”. Monkeys.

Me: Huh, that clock must be broken.
She: Why?
Me: It says ten to twelve.
She: Andrew, it’s ten o’clock.

I have apparently forgotten how to tell the time.

I’m not normally one to complain about ticket prices - it’s a free market and things will always be more expensive than you expect, and it’s not something I can be bothered getting worked up about. That said, Abi and I went to Warwick Castle today, where a single adult ticket costs £17.95. £17.95!! That’s plus £3 for parking, £2.95 for a guide to the castle (you get a leaflet map for ‘free’), and an unknown extra charge for the non-permanent exhibitions. And then the weather was so bad they cancelled the jousting and trebuchet demonstrations. That’s just crazy money. A theme park, sure, but a castle? Thankfully we had a buy-one-get-one-free offer; I think we’d have balked otherwise. As it was, the rain was so heavy that we left after a couple of hours.

I’ve had some luck with my floods pictures from the weekend. BBC Coventry used a few of them this morning, and Yahoo News contacted me to express an interest. A shot of the dancing couple¹ hit #23 in the daily Flickr Interestingness, which I’m very happy about - I’ve never broken the top 200 before! It’s turning up in Explore and everything . I wish I’d been a bit faster with the geotagging, though - they were clearly looking for shots for the Flickr Blog today…

1. who’ve contacted me and are very nice people indeed [↩]

This is interesting: the results of a large electrosensitivity study will be published on Wednesday, and both sides of the debate are looking forward to its findings. Panorama recently cited it as positive evidence, despite its results not being available, and it’s been widely publicised as a consequence. The methodology is known, and (to my, non-expert) eyes seems to be valid:

We tested 56 people who suffered from EHS as well as 120 people who did not. In order to be scientifically valid, the study was conducted under “double-blind” conditions. This simply means that neither the person conducting the research, nor the person being tested knew when the base-station was “on” or “off”. Once we had completed the data collection phase (testing all our participants) we were able to “crack the code” and see to what extent the electromagnetic fields affected a variety of symptoms that people had reported, as well as measures of blood pressure and heart-rate.

Full details here, including the power output of the ‘base station’.

The electrosensitivity blogosphere has apparently been making noises about this study, and skeptics-hero Ben Goldacre has proposed an agreement: everybody write their analysis of the methodology before the results are published, then commit to covering the results, no matter which way they go. Assuming they don’t reveal a load more information about the methodology tomorrow, this should make ad hoc refutations blindingly obvious, on either side.

There have been many studies of this kind before. According to Mr Goldacre negative studies outweigh the positive, and the latter are all either statistically flawed, contradictory or have results that can’t be repeated by the same researchers. But it doesn’t seem to have helped much, and more evidence is always good. Either way, the results will be interesting. Electrosensitivity, coupled with the supposed dangers of phone masts, are increasingly prevalent in the public consciousness, and if an effect really exists it would clearly be a major health issue. If it doesn’t, though, it needs to stop being bandied about by the media as a scare story. Also, people are clearly suffering with something, and more evidence of what is isn’t can only help narrow down what it is.

If you emit bright colours from your chest every full moon, are you a were-bear?

One of my photos made it onto BBC News! Yay

Original page here. I’m #2. Also check out #6, which was 2m away from me and I didn’t know.

The next person who says anything about the final Harry Potter being more ‘adult’ is going to get something thrown at them. What the hell is this supposed to mean? The storyline isn’t that much more complex, and, yes, the themes are heavier and it’s more emotional, but every kid of an age to read this type of book is going to have no trouble understanding it. Unless they’re drawing the ‘more adult’ line at there maybe being the odd moment a 9-year-old won’t understand, which there wasn’t¹ in the previous books, I don’t know what they’re getting at.

Are reviewers mistaking ‘books about young people’ for ‘books that are incredibly simplistic’? And now the characters are older it’s therefore ‘more adult’? Wouldn’t surprise me.

I’m not putting it down, by the way: I think there are many ways in which Harry Potter surpasses much of the literature aimed at adults, particularly in terms of complexity of storyline and emotional development. I sometimes think there’s a sneering attitude towards literature aimed at children, and it’s patronising in the extreme. “Look, here’s a book aimed at children that I enjoy! It must therefore be ‘more adult’.” Gah.

Similarly, although not as annoying, ‘darker’. We quickly found out that Harry’s parents were murdered in cold blood, as I recall. I could possibly be won over on that one, though.

Ok, rant over.

1. I think there was, actually [↩]

So yesterday’s plan to stay in all day reading Harry Potter didn’t go as planned. Stratford had a little rain overnight:

Here’s a before/after of the basin:

which is pretty bad, but further downstream it was crazy:

Not being one of the people who has to clear up, I found it very interesting. Plenty of kids, and some families, were having a great time splashing through the water on the main street, and the residents walking from their houses in wellies seemed in good spirits. These lads asked if I’d take their picture:

I emailed them a copy, although the initial address bounced back and I guessed at a correction, so hopefully they received it…I was also impressed by and jealous of this couple:

A passing child asked its mother why this was happening. The mother replied that it’s the kind of thing that happens after people have had too much to drink. Which might be true, although I prefer to think they were just having fun, but nevertheless they could actually dance. The cha-cha, unless I was mistaken. A salsa, I’m told. Isn’t that lovely? It was the best thing I saw all day

The BBC and various other organisations were filming, and there were crowds everywhere. I saw a canoeist set sail from the bandstand in the centre of town and finish a mile or so downriver.

Today the waters had receded from the main street, but parts of the basin and most of the far side of the river was still pretty bad:

and they were pumping out the Swan Theatre. My uncle lived here for ten(?) years and said he’d never seen the theatre flooded. I bet nobody thought it’d happen in July. Thankfully the waters didn’t quite make it to the Courtyard Theatre, so the RSC hasn’t had to close down completely¹. It hasn’t rained in the past 36hours that I’ve noticed, so hopefully the worst is over. The entire set of pics is here.

1. the main RST is closed until 2010; the Swan Theatre is in the same building, hence the flooding [↩]