Thursday, March 22, 2007

Lamb Shanks in a Red Wine, Rosemary and Mint Sauce

This is the first recipe that I've posted. I'm a great fan of trying new recipes and, where necessary, making them up from first principles. This is a recipe I tried a couple of weeks ago - we decided to treat ourselves to lamb, and thought that we'd try the shank. The recipe book we have suggested a sort of tomato ragout to go with it, but I decided instead to try a traditional restaurant classic, the red wine, rosemary and mint sauce. It turned out fantastically; really really rich and tasty, and would be a fantastic sauce to make as a gravy if you prefered chops. I have to say, though, the natural fat in the shank makes it an ideal cut, plus it looks really impressive! The sauce made the right amount to casserole two shanks; if you're doing more you may choose to use larger quantities to enable the shanks to remain covered with sauce whilst cooking.

Ingredients:
1 lamb shank per person
1 onion
2 cloves garlic
250 ml beef stock (made with, for example, Bovril)
150 ml red wine
6 tsp mint sauce
1 tbsp dried rosemary
1 tbsp mixed herbs
2 bay leaves
250 g passata (sieved tomatoes, you can buy them in most supermarkets)
Worcester sauce
Salt and pepper

Method:
Brown the lamb shanks in a frying pan over a moderate heat for around 20 minutes. Place them on one side whilst cooking the sauce.

Skin and finely chop the onion; skin and crush the garlic. Fry over a low heat until soft. Add the stock and the wine, and simmer for a couple of minutes. Add the mint sauce, rosemary, mixed herbs, bay leaves, and passata, and cook fairly hard, stirring reguarly, until the sauce is reduced. Add worcester sauce, salt and pepper to taste.

Place the lamb shanks in a casserole. Pour over the sauce. Don't worry if part of the shank is uncovered, however in this case turn the shanks over every 20-30 minutes during cooking. Cook on a moderate heat for three hours. If necessary, reduce the sauce further post cooking to the consistency you desire; it should, however, be fine as it is.

Enjoy!

[Sauce contains 7 syns on original or green Slimming World eating plans]

Friday, March 16, 2007

House of Lords 2.0

Web 2.0 is, apparently, defined thus:

"the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them."

In other words, it's all about user generated content, and probably the best known example is Wikipedia, where users can create and edit online articles about pretty much anything. But its influence is spread around the interweb, from reviews of books at Amazon through to the video sharing monstrosity that is YouTube.

And it's put forward as the future; which, indeed, it may well be. And that's fine, and possibly dandy, and we can all enjoy watching timeless classics such as "My Cat Falling Off the Table," starring Tiddles and directed by Mike from Lewisham. Wonderful.

And providing I'm not made to watch it, I have no problems with this. We'll leave to one side the questions of legality, copyright infringement and censorship for another post. In general, I'm ambivalent. The web is all but infinite in size and hosts content from all manner of individuals and organisations. If you want to post your thoughts online (as indeed I do here), why, be my guest. Have fun.

The problem comes in with the question of authority. In particular, what authority does information presented as fact have when the author of that information is unaffiliated with any particular source? Do you want to trust - can you trust - what Bob from Slough says about a film, a book, the debate on fox hunting, Trident, or indeed any other topic that is outside his immediate expertise?

Now I have no problems with people having opinions. I have them myself, from time to time. But I strongly hold that policy should not be made by people who know nothing more of the issue than what is presented in the media. It's why phone-ins drive me mad. It's why I snarl at the radio when I hear the phrase "why not let us know what you think about this. Our message boards are now open," or "text us your views on 80116." I'd far rather listen to informed experts offering their opinions and, that way, I can make my own. For a different example, it's why I'd rather read what the Bible has to say on something than to consider what Joe thinks about what he percieves as being the general Christian attitude to something. It's a problem, also, (albeit not the main one) with liberalism in the church. If authority comes from man, why should we listen? After all, I disagree, and I'm at least as qualified to speak about this as you are.

Which all brings me, in a round-about sort of a way, to the proposed-come-underway reform of the House of Lords. The Commons were recently asked to vote on a number of options, from 100% appointed members through to 100% elected. The rationale, it seems, is that for the house to have "credibility" with the public, the public must have a say in its composition. But this misses the point. The only possible advantage of having a second chamber in the first place is that it offers a place where bills proposed by government can be examined in greater, largely non-partisan detail. Hitherto unforseen ramifications can be identified, inconsistencies with present laws spotted, and amendments which, in general, improve matters imposed.

By what authority do the Lords do this? Because firstly they have no major political axe to grind. The majority of Lords are unpaid and cross-bench. They do not aspire to higher political office - they will never be PM or on the front bench. All of which means that, if they believe something to be a bad idea, they tend to say so. Secondly, the house tends to be able to call on true experts in the field of discussion. GM? Let's call on a scientist. Asylum? Let's call on a lawyer.

The notion of having elected peers will largely lose the first advantage. To be elected most nominees will have to be affiliated with one of the major parties. The Lords will attract career politicians rather than interested and informed observers. The expertise gained by appointment will be sacrificed for the "accountability" of public election and enhanced scrutiny. The Lords will become, in all but name, an inferior Commons.

We may as well go the whole hog and settle all debate by text vote (possibly at a premium rate. We can always make the decisions first, and just take votes for profits. After all, if it's good enough for Blue Peter...). Maybe we could call it Lords 2.0.

I'd love to know your thoughts. Text them to me.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Lent: Why all the fuss?

I've discovered the website of the Church of England this week. I was wondering what I would discover in the news section - in particular I was curious as to whether recent media reports describing proposed reunificaion of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church were quite as I'd made out. However, when I got to the news section, my eye was drawn to the story entitled "Your first action for Lent: Make someone laugh." I'd heard about this also (for I am an avid Radio 4 Today programme junky) so I thought I'd give it a glance.

I know I'm old-skool. I don't really go in for the whole "let's wave our hands in the air thing" (I kind of object to the sentiment, but am reminded of the question posed in Adrian Plass' An Alien at St Wilfred's "why are those christians surrendering to God?"). But I have to confess: an eyebrow was raised when I read about "a range of other initiatives designed to raise a smile [including] a training course for vicars in stand-up-style performance skills." Will, I ask myself, we see our dear Vaughan sitting on a bar stool at the front of Ebbes, pint (of something non-alcoholic, no doubt) in hand, givin' it large? "There was this vicar, right, and..."

I feel it's unlikely. But does this, in fact, have anything to do with Lent? A trip to livelent.net suggests not. By all means, let's be nice to each other - and if you feel like leaving money in a shopping trolley, letting a car out in the queue in front of you, or whatever, then do so. Maybe this comes under "love your neighbour as yourself." But, surely, Lent is so much more than this - it's a chance to consider Jesus as he faced and overcame the greatest and most human temptations over a course of 40 days; evidence of His divinity in His humanity. Let's not reduce it to a time of giving up chocolate and being nice.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

William Wilberforce on "In Our Time"

Did you manage to catch "In Our Time" on BBC Radio 4 this morning? If not, you missed a treat. I knew nothing about him, but hearing the story of William Wilberforce was inspirational.

Wilberforce was born in Hull in 1759. He attended St John's College, Cambridge where, basically, he partied hard, and left with a degree without honours. Becoming a politician aged 21, he experienced anew his semi-forgotten religious conviction, joined the Clapham Sect (a leading evangelical Anglican group) and was influenced by a number of people including Thomas Clarkson who encouraged him to take up a "mission" in life, and that of the abolition of the laws in England legalising the slave trade eventually became his overriding passion. It took him two decades in the face of stiff opposition from those who made their fortunes from the slave trade, but eventually an act of parliament was passed prohibiting the slave trade.*

It's hard to belive that many politicians of this age would stand firm in the face of such opposition to support a largely unpopular cause over 20 years. But wouldn't it be great if they did. Let's not allow the truth the be glossed over, either: what Wilberforce did was right, and maybe would have eventually occurred witout his input, but his motivation and the source of his conviction was unquestionably his Christian faith. He was a man who didn't only listen, but also acted.

====

* Source - mainly from the BBC

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...

Slightly belated, but doesn't the snow make everything look fantastic! Check out the view from our study window (and yes, we did make the snowman. Before going to work. At 8 am. That's what I call dedication).

Oxford's beautiful in the snow, but it's amazing how it slows one down. I seem unable to walk down the road without stopping to build mini-snowmen (all of whom had melted by the time I returned home from work). And it brings out the child in all of us - well, in me anyway. There's something peculiarly satisfying about being the first person to leave footprints in the pristine whiteness. It's a human thing.

I think I'm done on being profound for the moment. Have fun, all!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

2 Timothy 3: A Sermon

I gave this sermon at Stokes Poges Free Church last year, and thought I'd reproduce the text here.

The Lord's Servant

I wonder if you’ve been watching the new Dr Who TV series that’s been on recently? I have, and one of the things that’ve struck me is how great it’d be to have my own Tardis. Wouldn’t that be great? Dr Who’s Tardis, for those of you who don’t know, looks like one of the old Police boxes - a bit like a blue phone box. And there’re a couple of things that are remarkable about it. Firstly it’s far, far larger on the inside than it is on the outside – which would be handy – and secondly, and to my mind more importantly, it’s able to travel in time.

Wouldn’t you just love to be able to travel in time? I would. I wonder where – or when – you’d chose to go? Maybe you’d like to go into the future, and find out how England are going to do in the World Cup. Will we be there, lifting the trophy high in the air – or will our game against Sweden mark the beginning of the end? Well, I’ll leave it to you to decide which of these is more likely. But maybe you’d prefer to go back in time – to that day when you got the results from those exams, and found you’d got just the grades you were hoping for. Or maybe you’re married, and you’d like to go back to your wedding day, and relive the moment when the doors open and your bride walks down the aisle. Doesn’t she look beautiful – and wouldn’t you love to be able to live it again?

Maybe you’d rather go back further – perhaps to the 17th century, and be able to go down to Portsmouth and see all the tall ships – the time when England really did rule the waves. Or maybe back even further, to the time of the Roman Empire, to the 1st century. Wouldn’t it be great – to see all the buildings in their splendour, and to hear the people speaking Latin? You might be able to find the Apostle Paul – and wouldn’t that be amazing? Wouldn’t it be awesome to be able to ask him for his message to the church here, in the 21st century, here in Britain, here in Stoke Poges – and to be able to hear his answer in his own words, spoken directly to us?

Well, the remarkable truth is that, as we read this passage, we can hear Paul’s answer, in his own words. As we read this letter to Timothy, we can look over his shoulders, and learn exactly what Paul’s message was to him, and what his message would be to us too.

Now, before we look at today’s passage in detail, it’d be good to note the background to this letter. Paul’s in prison, having been arrested in a wave of anti-Christian persecution, probably under the reign of the emperor Nero. And it seems that he’s going to die a prisoner. Since Paul became a Christian – it’s described in the book of Acts – he’s travelled around the Mediterranean, teaching the Gospel and setting up churches. And he’s desperately concerned that when he dies, the churches won’t. So, in this letter, he writes to Timothy, charging him to take over the leadership of the churches in his place. And so as we read of Paul’s concern for Timothy and the churches then, we can learn what his concern would be for the church now.

I think we can sum up Paul’s concern for Timothy in a couple of words from the end of chapter 2 of this letter, verse 24 – the Lord’s Servant. Paul writes that Timothy should live as the Lord’s servant. Well, “how should Timothy do that?” is the obvious question, and in chapter 3 Paul explains just how he should.

We’re going to look at chapter 3 under two headings – “Live as the Lord’s servant facing people’s opposition” – verses 1-9, and “Live as the Lord’s servant following Paul’s example”, verses 10-17. Facing people’s opposition, and following Paul’s example.

We’ll start with facing people’s opposition. I wonder what you imagine the 1st century would have been like? Well, of course, in many ways it would have been very different from today – no mobile phones, no cars, the buildings would be different. But I think the people would be very familiar. Paul writes in verse 1 “But mark this: there will be terrible times in the last days.” What does he mean by “the last days?” Well, don’t turn to it, but in Hebrews 1 the writer explains that “in the past God spoke to us through our forefathers, through the prophets at various times and in various ways”. In other words, that’s the time of the Old Testament. He continues “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” The last days are the New Testament period: the time after Jesus has come, died, risen from the dead and then ascended into heaven, but before he comes again at the final day of judgement. We’re living in the last days. And so was Paul.

Look at what Paul says characterises the last days – verses 2-5:
People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of Godliness but denying its power.” Sound familiar? Paul wrote this letter 2000 years ago. He could have been writing about today, couldn’t he?

It’s a terrible list, isn’t it? Because it’s a description of what opposition to Christ looks like. Primarily, it’s caused by misdirection – misdirection of our love, towards ourselves, rather than towards God. Putting other things in God’s place – that’s what the Bible calls sin. And it’s not restricted to people who deny Christ completely – did you notice that, in verse 5? It also applies to people who “have a form of godliness but deny its power.” In other words, to some people who would call themselves Christians.

Now, it’s not clear exactly who Paul’s talking about here. It seems that when Paul was writing there were people who were taking every opportunity to sell people what they were calling Christianity, but what was very different to the Christianity of the Bible, and of Paul. We see that their methods are suspect. Instead of presenting their message in a reasoned manner, they “worm their way into homes” – verse 6 – where they target the vulnerable. Here, it seems they’re focussing particularly on women, probably on those who were very new Christians, or who were interested in Christianity, and looking for the answers. And sadly, their attitude is one that’s not unfamiliar today.

Not only are their tactics wrong, but so is their content. Far from preaching the Gospel, they’re opposing its very message. Paul draws a parallel with an episode from Israel’s history, described in the book of Exodus. Israel – God’s chosen people – were being held as slaves in Egypt. So God told Moses to go to Pharaoh, and demand the Israelites’ release, and He also performed miracles through Moses to demonstrate his power. But Pharaoh summoned his magicians, according to Jewish tradition known as Jannes and Jambres, to oppose Moses and, in so doing, to belittle God. And Paul says that in the same way as they opposed God all those years ago, these people who “have a form of godliness but deny its power” oppose God today.

Well, it’s a grim picture. Paul advises Timothy to have nothing to do with them, but how should Timothy recognise who they are? Well, Paul gives him some words of encouragement. “Don’t worry,” he says, “they won’t get very far. Their folly will be clear to everyone.” Don’t worry, he says, they’ll be obvious, they’ll be easy to spot. They’ll be the ones opposing God, those leading their followers away from God, rather than guiding them towards Jesus.

Well, it’s a matter of supreme importance that Timothy knows how to spot these false teachers. As the leader of a young church it’s vital he makes sure that the teaching the people are getting is centred on Christ. But I think it’s a matter for all of us today. For example, you may be aware that there’s deep controversy within the Anglican communion at the moment, between those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, and as such has authority, and those who don’t believe this, and think that, on certain matters, the Bible is wrong. It is that simple. And Paul has a clear message to us today, for all Christians, whether or not we’re members of the Anglican church. Are our leaders pointing us towards Christ? Are they teaching the Bible? Or are they opposing God, and leading people astray? Surely we should be praying for our leaders – praying that they would be teaching faithfully, that God would inspire them to understand His word and to pass it on helpfully, praying that they would always be pointing towards Jesus.

It’s a message for those of us who have some form of leadership. Do you lead a small group, a bible study? Are you involved in youth work? Are you a parent? Do you mentor a younger Christian? You have, to some degree, a leadership role. And Paul’s message is, if anything, even more essential for us. We must make absolutely certain that we’re not, even unwittingly, one of the people Paul is describing. We must make sure we’re loving God, not ourselves, or pleasure, or money, that we’re not being boastful, proud, or unholy, and that we’re not denying God’s power by opposing Him, but instead acknowledging the truth of the Gospel.

It sounds like a mammoth task, doesn’t it – it sounds nearly impossible. And I’m sure it sounded equally difficult to Timothy. But Paul continues his letter with some practical advice. How do you distinguish yourself from those false teachers, Timothy? By following my example. And that’s the heading we’re going to take as we look at verses 10-17. Live as the Lord’s servant following Paul’s example.

They say a picture’s worth a thousand words. No matter how carefully we try to describe something, no matter how much detail we go into, it’s never quite as good as actually seeing it. So, for example, I could describe my sister to you. I could tell you that she’s 18, that she’s quite tall and very slim, that she’s got long, dark brown wavy hair. I could tell you the colour of her eyes, and describe the type of clothes that she wears. But if I asked you to draw a picture of her, I can guarantee it’d be quite different to the photograph that I’ve got of her – it wouldn’t be anywhere near such a good likeness.

Well, if it’s true for pictures, it’s just as true for actions. I work in a chemistry lab, and I’m quite often asked how to do something, maybe a particular type of experiment. And I usually start by trying to describe what to do – you take this piece of equipment, and you do this to it. But invariably, it’s far quicker, far easier and far clearer if I take the person who’s asked me and show them how to do it.

And this is much the same situation as we find here. Remember why Paul’s writing. He’s described a grave problem – a problem in society in general, and within the Christian church in particular. He’s described how people are teaching in a manner that opposes God, and he’s told Timothy, the one he’s chosen to lead the church in his place, to have nothing to do with them – nothing to do with their message, and nothing to do with their methods. And we can almost hear Timothy replying to Paul “That’s fine, but on a practical level, what should my leadership look like?”

Now, Paul could have written a long list of instructions and advice to Timothy, going into great detail, and describing what every aspect of his life should look like. But he doesn’t, and instead he gives Timothy an example – the example of himself.

See what Paul writes in verses 10 and 11. “You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings – what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured.” Paul tells Timothy to model his behaviour on the example Paul’s set for him.

Timothy should emulate Paul’s teaching, which, as we read the bible from Acts onwards, we can see has a sound theological grounding. It’s based firmly on what the death of Jesus means for all people, and how Christians in particular should live in the light of this. Timothy should follow Paul’s way of life – being willing to deny himself payment and luxury for the sake of the Gospel. He should be firm in purpose – living to teach the word of God, and, in doing so, he should be patient, faithful and loving. It’s worth noting here that Paul isn’t showing off – he knew himself, as an Apostle, to be following Christ, and therefore doesn’t hesitate to tell Timothy to follow his example. In 1 Corinthians 11, he writes “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”

But Paul also makes it clear to Timothy that living to follow Christ doesn’t endear people to you. He makes it very clear that living wholeheartedly for God will bring persecution and suffering. He describes events from his past that Timothy was familiar with, describing the response he got when he spoke in Antioch, Iconium and in Lystra, and we read in Acts chapters 13 and 14 that this culminated in the crowd stoning Paul, dragging him outside the city, and leaving him for dead. Yet Paul kept his faith in God throughout these times, and he tells Timothy how the Lord rescued him.

Paul goes on to describe that this persecution wasn’t particular to him. Look at verses 12 and 13. Paul says “In fact, everyone who wants to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” It’s no surprise that following Jesus leads to opposition – after all, Christ himself was persecuted, leading to him being put to death on a cross, and he promised that following him would be costly. Let me read from John 15, for example. Jesus says “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: “No servant is greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.

And at the same time, those who have rejected Christ are seemingly getting it all their own way. Not only are they deceiving others, but Paul says they’re deceiving themselves, verse 12. The more they tell people to ignore Christ and live for money, or pleasure, the more they start to believe themselves. Their only progression is as they go on “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” Their lives must have looked so simple – living each day for the moment, for the pleasure it could bring – so easy, compared to Timothy’s.

But hear what Paul writes to Timothy, verse 14, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

It must have looked hopeless. How could Timothy stand firm in the face of such opposition? Well, Paul gives two reasons. He says Timothy is to continue in “what he has learned and become convinced of, because he knows those from whom he has learned it.” Firstly, Paul reminds Timothy of their past – that Paul met Jesus face to face and is an Apostle of him – chapter 1, verse 1 – that he laid hands on Timothy at his ordination, verse 6, that Paul was appointed a herald and a teacher of the Gospel, verse 11. Timothy’s not being asked to trust in someone he’s never met; rather, Paul’s asking him to continue trusting in a person he’s known and believed for many years.

Secondly, Paul reminds Timothy of his faith in the word of God – the Old Testament. We read how Timothy’s known the scriptures since he was a child, and Paul reiterates that it is these very scriptures that are able to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Jesus. In other words, both Paul’s past and the scriptures back each other up, and both validate the instruction to Timothy to continue, even in the face of opposition.

Paul concludes this section by noting that the Scriptures aren’t just of academic interest. He says that they should have a real and significant impact on Timothy’s ministry. “All scripture is God-breathed,” he says in verse 16, “and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.” God speaks through the scriptures – through the bible. In contrast to the false teachers in verses 1-9, Timothy is to acknowledge the truth of the scriptures, and is to use them to teach and equip the church. Unlike the false teachers, he’s to be a lover of God, rather than a lover of pleasure. He must be willing to rebuke his congregations where necessary – to tell them that their actions oppose God’s will, and to instruct them how to behave. Only through the scriptures can Timothy, and through his teaching other Christians, be equipped for every good work.

Cast your mind back to where we were, standing at Timothy’s side, reading this letter over his shoulders. We’ve just looked at the message Paul had for Timothy. So, as we close, let’s think about what Paul’s message to us here today would be.

Maybe you’re not a Christian. You’ve come here with family, or with friends. Maybe you’re thinking “that’s all very well, but this letter has nothing to say to me.” Well, I think it does have something to say to you. Paul says that the scriptures – the bible – are the word of God, and are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus – back in verse 15. If that’s true, this has got to be one book you can’t afford not to take seriously. Why not read it, and investigate its claims for yourself?

Alternatively, maybe you are a Christian. If so, Paul has two messages for you. Firstly, are you facing opposition for your faith? Are you the only Christian in your school, your college, your office, your family? Do people mock you, exclude you, belittle you for what you believe? Well, take heart. Opposition doesn’t mean you’ve got it wrong – in fact, Paul says that persecution is natural for the Christian. And although he doesn’t say it’s easy, Paul does have a message for you. Continue in what you’ve learned. Keep trusting in the scriptures, because they’re the word of God.

Secondly, are we letting the word of God teach and rebuke us? Are we challenged by those first verses in chapter 3? Are we willing to change our behaviour in light of what God reveals to us through the bible? Are we willing to turn our back on that one thing we know we shouldn’t be doing, and devote ourselves to loving God? Or will we persist in loving ourselves, in his place? Let’s pray that God would help us to put Him first, and to trust His word’s ability to thoroughly equip us for every good work.

Father God, thank you for giving us your word, the Bible. Please help us to make sure that we are living our lives firmly grounded in what you have to say to us through it. Please help us to stand firm in the face of any opposition that we face, and to cling to you. Please help us to be willing to change for you, and to love you, rather than ourselves, or money, or pleasure. Please equip us to live in a way that pleases you. Amen.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Administrative Notice - Comments

The comments options have been updated. It is now possible to comment on any post without being a member of Blogger.com. Simply click on the link at the end of the post.

And my licence fee goes on this...?

I used to run a computer with the operating system Windows Millenium Edition. Don't worry about what that means if you're not sure (although for those of you are thinking "so do I!", you have my condolences). Windows ME had one major distinguishing feature. No, not System Restore. And not the slightly modified icons from Windows '98. Not at all.

In fact, the major thing that distinguished Windows ME from all previous versions of Windows (and most of the subsequent ones) was its ability to struggle like anything if asked to perform any simple task. No, seriously, it could, and usually did, crash when you turned the computer on. Or off. Or, if you by chance managed to get the machine up and running, when you tried to open a programme - even one that came with it, like Internet Explorer. Like all sulky teenagers, ME had an attitude problem. It simply didn't do what you wanted it to. Pleading, threats and even physical violence had no effect. It was, pure and simple, awful.

The main thing that used to haunt my waking thoughts was why? I mean, how did the conversation go?

"Have you tested the new operating system, Bob?"
"Yes, sir, Mr Gates, sir."
"And...?"
"Um... well, sir, I say tested, but in the end I had to be restrained by my colleagues to stop me throwing my machine out of the window. And you know we're on the 8th floor up here..."
"Excellent. Release it next week."

Actually, that may be dangerously close to the truth. But you get my point.

It's the same with so many things. Just becuase you can doesn't mean you should. And nothing exemplifies my point quite so well as BBC1's primetime offering from 7 'till 8 pm. Robin Hood. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

To say the script was bad would be to slight Australian soap operas of all time.

"What do you mean, Darleen - Jason didn't get killed by Darren, and he's now with Melissa? And Jody's going to have his child, except he thinks that she's with Micky?"

Genius, pure genius. Compared, that is, with the utter drivel spouted by M. Hood, Little John et al. And for sublety, it makes Ali G look like Jane Austen. Did you know that there were parallels to be drawn between an 12th century bloke in a forest and a 21st century war against suicide bombers? I didn't.

Oh, and before I forget, clocks which go "tick tock tick tock" didn't exist in the 12th century. They really didn't. It's like watching the Sheriff arrive in a Ford Mustang.

Please, please, BBC, stop wasting our licence fees on men in tights. Speed on the return of Top Gear, and let's all sit down and watch some caravans getting trashed. What could be better family entertainment than that?

Friday, September 29, 2006

On Straightness and Slugs...

There are many things in life that I find frustrating. I dislike mess, and things that aren't straight (pictures, table mats, etc etc). There is a natural order to things that, it seems to me, revolves, as it were, around the right angle. Similarly, things should be symmetrical, and centralised. This is why I choose to type using the justified paragraph alignment option selected, even though it does occasionally produce lines where the words are spaced a long way apart. It seems only natural to me that, for example when placing a settee against a wall, the gap on the left should be exactly the same size as the gap on the right. Otherwise, it's not, well, right. To quote Edward Monkton, "Those who do not believe in the Law of Straightness WILL NOT BE SAVED!" OK, I accept that it's unlikely to ever form the basis of my theological understanding, but the sentiment is one I approve of.

I think I would have made a good Roman. Never mind going around the hill, not when you have 100,000 men with stong muscles and nothing to do - go straight through it! Bring it on! Straight is good. If the quickest point is between two straight lines, then it follows that not only is building roads the Roman way good from the "time is money" point of view, but it also makes sense ecologically. The more direct the route, the shorter the resulting road, and consequently the less of our green and pleasant land becomes covered with tarmac, buses and Little Chefs. Which can only be a good thing.

Being ecologically considerate and caring about the environment is important to me. Don't get me wrong, I understand that sometimes things have to happen, and you can't necessarily rationally prevent ALL disruption to the countryside, but in general, I like it green and leafy. I buy free-range and am starting to think about organic (although to be honest, if the cow has a cold I might rather it was treated with antibiotics rather than honey and lemon and a Vicks VapourRub). But again, as a principle, environmentally friendly is good.

Which brings me to the most amazing invention I've read about today.* I'm not much of a gardener at the moment (it comes of living in a flat) but I like plants. And, also liking things straight and organised, I suspect that what I'm really going to want when I'm the proud owner of my very own piece of England, is something to ensure that nothing is going to decrease the symmetry of my planting scheme. Creepy-crawlies are, I understand, not respectors of modern design, which is why I shall be investing in a SlugBot. This wonderful machine uses a combination of GPS, InfraRed and UltraSound to locate slugs, a long arm to grab them, and a bio-fuel cell to convert slug into useful electricity, which in turn powers its on-board battery. It's green, sustainable, and will help me not to lose my precious plants to the slimy rascals. What can be better?

=====
* OK, it's not got a huge amount of competition, but it sounds more impressive than saying "the only invention I've read about today."

Friday, August 18, 2006

You wait for ages, and then two turn up at once...

There can be few frustrations in life to compete with it. It's enough to make grown men burst into tears and to make small children yell abuse at those around them. Or should that be the other way around?

I refer, of course, to that phenomenon known as Waiting For Buses. Now, I'm not exactly a true petrol-head, and if you were to ask me which I'd rather have out of the Vauxhall Something TDi or the Peugeot SomethingElse LX, I really couldn't tell you. I could, of course, express a preference between, say, a brand new Aston Martin DB-9 and my seven year-old Skoda Felicia. However hard we owners of such vehicles protest that, despite years of mocking, the Skoda is now a serious option as a car (rather than as a car-shaped lump of metal sitting on the drive), how the input of VW's engineering expertise has turned a farce into one of the best value for money cars out there, and how in recent years they've ranked highly in terms of reliability, improved in terms of style, and retained their low insurance group, we still find ourselves longing for slightly more than 47 bhp. It's not that it's insufficient for anything in particular, it's just that having, say, 325 bhp might be somewhat more fun.

However, I do know that, when faced with the choice between getting on a bus and getting into a car, I'd far rather take the car. I'd far rather take a bike, to be quite honest. I think it's something about public transport, and I've come to the conclusion that it's, well, the public. Now, don't get me wrong. In some places (preferably far away) buses may serve some useful purpose. They may be cheap, and cost less than the car (it's a novel idea, I know). They may not be smelly, and may be driven by someone who knows which side of the road the rest of the population will be on. They may stop and wait for you when you're three meters down the road in a thunderstorm, and they may not be populated by teenagers whose IQs are, even at their tender ages, outweighed by their shoe sizes. In this Utopia, such buses may exist. All I know is that it's not here.

But surely one of the cruelest torments about buses is the invention known as the timetable. Timetables are devices which serve two purposes. They force one to rush manically to reach the bus stop before the time at which the bus is due, and then force one to wait in ever increasing despondency as the minutes tick past after this time until the bus actually does turn up.

However, one thing about buses that you can rely upon is their ability to arrive in pairs. Like adolescent girls, they seem unwilling to travel alone, and prefer instead the companionship of another bus. And, of course, to prevent loneliness, both buses will be "serving" (note the irony) the same route.

So this is why buses are like spiders. Particularly three-inch wide black spiders with horribly hairy, well, things (I don't know - antennae?). I've lived in my flat for a year now, and despite having to face many creepy-crawlies of varying species, I've managed to stear clear of the arachnids. Until yesterday, when in the morning there was one in the bath, followed by, in the evening, one in the corner of my room.

Why? Don't they have timetables?

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Gosh, it's amazing how you two connect...

Wires.

I read recently that the combined length of the wires used in the manufacture of the new Airbus (the double-decker monster that makes a 757 look like a child's plaything) reached a grand total of something in the order of 500 thousand miles. Now, even accounting for the mass of circuitry that must be needed to let the captain know if the wing's about to fall off, and that needed to power the TV screens, that's a heck of a lot of wiring.

Which led me to thinking about connections. Train connections, even (please noooo...) bus connections, connections between people, connections between wires. In the same way that just one failure in the connections in the mass of wiring in the Airbus could have catastrophic consequences (Business Class could miss out on freshly ground coffee again), connections play a vital role in our day-to-day lives. Which, I suppose, is why we moan and gripe so much when they fail. That day the bus gets held up in a traffic jam, meaning we miss our next bus and arrive at work late for the meeting. When the trains all curl up and die because somewhere near Putney a small leaf has had the temerity to fall within 100 miles of the track, causing us to miss our best friend's wedding.

So imagine, dear reader, my frustration having spent the last six hours trying to persuade four differently colour-coded wires to connect to their opposite numbers, in a game called "Set Up The Equipment To Do A Day-Long Experiment." You'd have thought it would be simple, but through admitting this, you reveal yourself to be anything but an experimental scientist. For our equipment is notoriously unreliable.

Let's hope the Airbus is somewhat less temperamental.

Friday, July 28, 2006

When 150 characters just isn't enough...

Annoying, isn't it, when something you've spent time, love and energy on is rejected. When old friends meet you in the street with the warm greeting "oh, it's... well, anyway, how are you?" When your other half welcomes you back home from an arduous day at work with the words "the washing machine's broken." And when, after extensive training with catnip and the Rolled Up Newspaper of Retribution, your feline friend still belives that soft leather sofas make just the best scratching posts.

Imagine my frustration, therefore, to find that the extensive answer to the question posed when updating my profile for this blog was too long, and had to be cut to a mere 150 characters. I was really rather pleased with it. So I've decided to post it here.

The question was: Your aunt has just sent you a maple syrup dispenser shaped like a rooster as a birthday gift. Write a thankyou note to her.

So here goes...


Dear Auntie Mabel

Thank you so much for the kind gift you sent me for my birthday. It really reminded me of how much you mean to me, and ensures that, although birthdays may come and go, this present will always remain in my memory.

So, thank you again for the kind thought. And that reminds me, how is your eyesight? You were having trouble the last time I saw you - would I be right in thinking that you're no better? Do let me know how you're doing.

You'll be pleased to hear that the rooster can join the other menagerie of animal-shaped kitchen novelties you've sent me over the years. As you are aware, my flat is really rather minimalist, and the new chrome and marble kitchen I had installed last week was crying out for something to lift the monochrome.

Your loving nephew,

The Major

PS I completely forgot - it must be your birthday in just a few weeks now. I wonder what I should get for you? I must keep my eyes open - I'm sure I can find something even more individual than you did!

Thursday, July 27, 2006

It's simply H2O...

"Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink..."

So cries the Ancient Mariner (possibly... I never was any good at English: science is more my thing). And it's a cry that's being echoed across the wild, and currently parched, plains of Oxford after a building contractor accidently drove a crane through the mains water pipe into my building. Or something. Given this is Britain, and it's currently summertime, it could be that we have the wrong sort of water. Whatever.

For the point is, dear readers, that we have no water. None to drink, none to use in the bathrooms, and none for our experiments. Which is how I come to be writing this, as I wait for my water circulator (a device that, well, circulates water) to slowly warm up from 2 to 25 degrees centigrade. I would normally simply empty out a few litres of cold water and replace them with a similar volume of hot. Unable to do this, I could be here a while.

Which got me thinking just how much water we must use. Apparently the daily volume consumed by every single person in the UK is, on average, 160 litres: that's really rather a lot.

So I propose a solution to this problem, and the current climate-change-influenced shortages we're either currently experiencing, or which in the near future are guaranteed to turn England's green and pleasant land into something resembling the Sahara desert (although possibly without the camals). To paraphrase from that attributed to Marie Antoinette*, "Let them drink wine."

=====

* As mentioned, I'm not an English student and, unsurprisingly, one would be correct in assuming that, despite a decent grade at GCSE, I'm not much of a historian either. Consequently, I had to Google to discover who made this infamous comment. Imagine my surprise, therefore, to find out (from the font of all knowledge that is Yahoo!) that in all likelihood, Ms. Antoinette was in fact completely innocent of this heinous crime, a far more likely culprit being French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in early 1766! The things you learn when you start wasting time...

Friday, July 21, 2006

Hmmm...

Now I have a blog, I feel that really I should be publishing in it.

There's a part of me that suggests that this is maybe simply an excuse to do anything that avoids work. There's another part of me that feels that writing may be cathartic, or at least more amusing than endlessly browsing through BBC News online, the latest Yahoo! office attachments (they really are rather good, actually, and always worth a glance when one has a spare half hour or so over a tea break), and eBay.

So... what shall I talk about? I could go like my other half has done, and write stories to publish here. Only thing is, I don't have the imagination. I'm a scientist - I do numbers, and equations, and I sit in an office or a lab and spend most of my day prodding computers into something resembling submission. I've found that threats work well - proof positive, should it be required, that computers are more animate than many of the people using them.

Alternatively, I could use this space to try to be amusing, and to offer a brief word of clarity and humour into the humdrum existence of the everyday. Sort of "Thought for the Day" but without the "wouldn't the world be nice if we were all nice" aspect. Only thing is, there're people far better qualified than me to do this, and also I think that I, not to mention you, dear reader, would become bored with impressive speed. In the world 100 metres "lost all sense of interest in this topic", I think I'd be a stong contender.

So, I think I'll opt for the rant. No surprise really - I've been listening to Jeremy Clarkson, Marcus Brigstock and [reading] Bill Bryson for the last... well, many - years now, and it's beginning to rub off on me. Rather like wet paint - you don't notice it until someone else points it out and then it's impossible to remove.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Hello

So... a blog...

There must be a reason as to why I, like so many other people, feel compelled to get one.

I'm just not sure what it is.

However...

This is my blog. Will you enjoy it? Possibly. Will you be enlightened? Probably not. Will it drive you to abandon that crossword, head over to your PC and create your own? Could well be - however this seems to be true of all blogs so nothing unusual there...