Looking great. Definitely my most eagerly-awaited movie of the year.

I’ve recently been using Google Notebook to collate research images for an upcoming project, but there’s an annoying problem: the images all get weirdly stretched for GN’s interface. It keeps the correct height, but sets their width to 245 pixels. I’m not sure what the rationale is, but it’s pretty irritating.

I’ve found what seems to be a permanent fix, though: ‘pop-out’ the notebook, and in each individual note select the picture then click the ‘remove formatting’ button at the top of the window.

Now if only I could talk Google Docs into exporting said notes without timing out…

via ffffound.

I was wandering around central London with a camera last Thursday, and took this in Trafalgar Square:

I like the shapes, but the end result isn’t particularly special. It could do with some light on the foreground, um, baby column bollard things.

Now, lesser photographers would have whipped out an off-camera flash. Perhaps using a wireless setup, they would have placed the flash to the right and experimented with exposure until they achieved something respectable. Wusses.

Proper photographers have no need of such machinations. Having trained their reflexes for literally years, they simply set their shutter speed to 1/25 of a second, then press the shutter at exactly the same time as a passing tourist takes a snapshot:

No need for all that faffing. Sure, the light’s a weird colour and the picture still isn’t all that, but come on - that’s artistry, that is.

I liked that guy. He was very good at playing cool people. I mainly remember him from seaQuest DSV, in which he played a submarine captain; I’ve no interest in knowing whether that show still works as an adult - as a kid it was great. Well, at least until Neptune turned up and it went a bit weird. But before that, I loved it. The show’s Wikipedia entry suggests it had a fairly troubled production¹ and its first season must be the one I remember. Anyway, Roy Scheider was definitely One Of Those Actors You Can’t Help But Like. RIP.

1. but also reveals that Stephanie Beacham was in it, which explains where I’d seen her before Strictly 2007 [↩]

The six-week jive course finished this evening. It started off with 15-20 couples, but by today’s lesson was down to 6. This surprised me. We’ve been to similar classes for Argentine Tango and American Smooth and had the same thing happen, but they were both listed as for ‘beginners’. It’s not too odd that people would drop out of a beginners class, but the jive was ‘intermediate’ so you’d think experienced people would know what to expect…

Having said that, I found it tough. I failed spectacularly during the first week as the slower version of the dance confused the hell out of me, but I eventually figured out how it worked, and by the 3rd week it was coming naturally. We learnt a new, more difficult, step each week, and I struggled more than I expected. I think this is because I’m used to finding the jive easy - the moves we’ve learnt over the last few years are now so familiar that I don’t have to concentrate much. The short course threw a lot of new information at me in a short space of time, which came as more of a shock than I anticipated. This is definitely a good thing! I’ve been complacent in improving my jive, so a bit of shock therapy was definitely needed. The course culminated in a mental frenzy of spin that’ll look great if we can remember it at the next public dance.

The aforementioned Tango and Smooth classes were great, but we’ve forgotten the moves in the year since the course. I’m writing out the jive steps in language my teacher would balk at - spinny bit step-step underarm whoosh - so hopefully we’ll remember this one.

Neil Gaiman has (somehow) talked his publisher into releasing one of his novels for free, and which is up for public vote. I clicked Neverwhere as I think it’s his most accessible and a good introduction to his style, but any of the short story collections - M is For Magic / Smoke & Mirrors / Fragile Things - would be great too. American Gods is currently winning. I still don’t know what I think of that book.

Back to university yesterday. Yeah, I know, students get silly amounts of holiday - I can’t really disagree. Anyway, a new term means we receive the results of last term’s work. First came the essay I handed in just after Christmas. Its lack of depth worried me, as I’d realised too late how much research it needed, but the tutor liked it and gave me a 2:1. So yay.

Then, though, came the photographic project results - the work that really took up the time. The first was ‘Interaction’ - my Pumpkin Man images:

I originally presented them at a ‘critical assessment’ in November; here’s what I wrote that evening:

The group’s reaction to my project was generally favourable: they liked the idea and thought the second image (knife in pumpkin) was the strongest, but recommended I remove the last two shots as they were weaker (particularly the final one), just leaving the first three more abstract photos.

Once they finished giving their opinions it was opened to the entire class, who said some nice things, and then the two teachers. They immediately completely disagreed, suggesting that if anything I should remove the first three as they didn’t seem to add anything to the concept and weren’t as good as the much stronger final two images anyway. The course leader recommended I enlarge the two to A3 and present them as a diptych.

So I went with the teachers’ recommendation, blowing the final two up to A3 and removing the first three. They bloody hated it. Here’s why:

The project is based in a basic conceptual idea and its realisation needs refinement. You need a third image to complete the triptych. The 2 images are similar in style and atmosphere, but they lack conceptual depth. Maybe something along the lines of intruders or strangers threatening the privacy of the home might have been worth exploring - your conceptual approach seems too basic and simple. (…) The project would have benefited from a re-shoot and tutorial input.

I got a third. They slagged off my workbook too - the book worth 20% of the final mark that details my thought processes and development throughout the project - but that was completely fair as the workbook sucked. Still, I think I’m justified in feeling a bit aggrieved - I removed the context and ‘conceptual depth’ on the advice of the same teachers who marked the project. Hmph.

Then came the Studio Photography project, for which we had to recreate an existing photograph then interpret it in some way for a second image. I recreated this Marilyn Monroe shot, and the interpretation was Lichtaffen Atomicus:

I explained in print and verbally how this was an interpretation of the recreation: the Monroe shot was in a series of jumping pictures, of which Dali Atomicus was the most famous and indeed representative of the whole thing because of its obsession with ’suspension’. This in turn had been inspired by Einstein’s’¹ atomic revelations. Einstein, also photographed by same photographer, called photographers ‘light monkeys’. Hence the tribute to the original using Einstein and monkeys jumping instead. But (accurately transcribed):

Your interpretation is based on another exsisting original and you could have developed and analyse the teechnical reproduction instead. However technically - stagging and setup as well as lighting - are well done.

I think this means they thought I was trying to recreate Dali Atomicus, and didn’t understand the interpretation aspect. At all. I scraped a 2:1 as they liked the workbook this time.

Sorry if this is complainy and/or adolescent. Just came as something of a surprise. I spent Friday mixing pissed-off with I-should-just-give-up, but I’m thankfully over that now. The latter, anyway. Happily, none of this year’s marks count towards my degree. Lessons learned are a) don’t assume the teachers’ advice has any virtue and b) don’t get too clever.

1. Einstein didn’t have all that much to do with the structure of the atom afaik, but his links with nuclear bombs apparently explain why Dali & Halsman focussed on him [↩]

Good stuff from Skeptico on the problems of arguing by analogy:

Here’s the thing - if I had to argue that racism is bad, I wouldn’t think of an analog to racism that we all agree is bad, and say “hey, racism’s the same”. No, I would explain why racism is bad. With perhaps some facts, citations, logic, evidence. Of course, I could do that because racism is, actually, bad, and so the facts logic and evidence are there to support the statement. Woos don’t have anything to back up their position, so analogy is often all they have.

I guess it’s a form of straw man, but I’d never thought of it this way before. The common example is: religion is like race, therefore criticising someone’s faith is wrong.

When someone argues by analogy, you can be pretty sure it’s because they don’t have any facts, evidence or logic to support their position. And all you have to do to debunk their argument, is find the flaw in the analogy.

In ways that are pertinent to the argument, religion isn’t like race. I guess analogy is useful when supporting a point, but it’s a weak way of making one.

Man, I don’t watch the news for 24h and things happen. The Archbishop of Canterbury apparently did something stupid and is facing calls to resign, though I haven’t read what he actually said yet so don’t know whether it’s quote-mining media hysteria. Having said that, the Archbishop’s ability to obfuscate his points to the point of abstraction is legendary - he’s good at making weasly statements that play to the faithful but give him an Out. I had to read last week’s talk on religious offence three times before I grasped what he was saying, but the blog post necessary to appropriately respond would have been insanely long - thankfully Ophelia and Martin did good jobs of demonstrating why saying something stupid in fancy language doesn’t make it any less stupid (he wants rid of the blasphemy law - yay! - but wants something more powerful in its place. Sigh.).

Also, what’s all this rubbish about acupuncture and IVF? Shall investigate.

I like learning Photoshop.

This dropped through my letterbox yesterday:

I didn’t want to open the envelope. Snail-mail has some advantages.

I want to send Superman stamps! Postage is so much more fun in the US. You can even use your own Flickr photos. I remarked on this to a friend, who promptly pointed out the Royal Mail Smilers scheme. I’m going to start sending more letters.

I could do with a decent zoom.

It’s the equivalent of a 5200mm lens. Can you spot the camera?

The brochure says it will let you see 18-32 miles. A BoingBoing commenter wondered whether the curvature of the Earth might be a factor at that kind of distance.

It would fit onto my 400D. However, the digital sensor is smaller than 35mm film, meaning all lens sizes must be multiplied by 1.6. That makes it a 8320mm lens. To further sweeten the deal, it’ll focus up to ‘only’ 120m away, and weighs a mere 100kg. Via Kottke.

I’m spending lots of time following the US elections, at least partly because UK politics is so embarrassingly stupid at the moment. To wit, David Davis on the MP bugging row:

“Why was this allowed to happen without ministerial knowledge?” he said. “When it was discovered in December, they didn’t tell Jack Straw or Jacqui Smith.

“These intercepts have broken a prime ministerial promise. They involve the intercept of the justice whip - someone who works with Mr Straw.

“This is a very serious issue. It’s a breach of a prime ministerial undertaking to Parliament, so it makes the prime minister a liar, basically.”

The undertaking was 40 years ago. I’ve no idea on the rights and wrongs of bugging MPs, but a breach of a 40-year-old prime ministerial pledge without Gordon Brown’s knowledge does not make him ‘a liar’. That is stupid. Is it possible there’s been a slow gas leak under Westminster Village for the past few weeks?

There’s a Midlands-wide shortage¹ of young male ballroom dancers. I may have to rent out my body. It’s the right thing to do.

1. link fixed [↩]