Directly cribbed from Misty, but I don't think she'll mind.
1. Things that scare me
Bees & wasps & the like.
Creepy-crawlies.
The prospect of long-term loneliness.
2. People who make me laugh
The Two Ronnies.
Yes, Minister.
Actually, most people, really.
3. Things I hate
Bullies
Cruelty
Pettiness.
4. Things I don't understand
How to tell a joke.
Bigotry.
Women.
5. Things I'm doing right now.
Enjoying the day.
Writing this!
Waiting for the kettle to boil
6. Things I want to do before I die
See another eclipse
Learn to fly.
Travel widely.
7. Things I can do
Fix computers (a large hammer helps) & computer-type stuff.
Proofread / copyedit.
Get things done.
8. Ways to describe my personality.
Honest & loving.
Aspergers (near enough).
Different.
9. Things I can't do
Tell jokes.
Spend money recklessly.
Run - much (I'm far too unfit).
10. Things to which you should listen
Classical music.
Other people.
Nature.
11. Things you to which you should never listen
Anyone urging you to do ill.
12. Things I'd like to learn
Women.
To fly a plane.
To skydive.
13. Favourite foods
My mother's cooking
Tzatziki
Roast beef with all the trimmings.
14. Beverages I drink regularly
Coffee / Tea
Water
Wine
15. Shows I watched as a kid
Dr Who
Star Trek
Tom & Jerry.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Sunday, August 27, 2006
So I complained to Ofcom
At 21:02 the other night, I happened to switch on BBC 1, only to see full frontal female nudity - actually, a man in a fatsuit, but near enough. I felt it was a little too near the watershed for that sort of thing. So I complained. It will be interesting to see the reaction.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Bad drivers
I still haven't got my driving confidence back after I was rear-ended two years ago, and today didn't help. A nice short two and a half mile trip, and people don't bother stopping at roundabouts: two tossers shot out straight in front of me. I'm not in a hurry to kill myself but idiots like these make it just that bit more difficult.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Konáll Oakengoat
http://www.thequarter.org/Media/VikingName.php
Your Viking Personality: You're a fearsome Viking, but you aren't completely uncivilized. The other Vikings make fun of you for that. You are strong and tireless, frequently shouldering burdens that would tire lesser men. You might be able to hold your own on the battlefield, but you're no "berserker".
You might grumble a bit at the lack of amenities on board a Viking longboat, but you can handle it. Other Vikings tolerate your presence, though they're not quite sure if they can trust you to fight dirty.
People who've known you for a while don't always trust your word. You sometimes come off as a bit of a snob. Vikings are not snobbish people -- they either like you, or they kill you. Try to be more like a Viking.
Hmmm...
I must blog about the ballet soon.
Your Viking Personality: You're a fearsome Viking, but you aren't completely uncivilized. The other Vikings make fun of you for that. You are strong and tireless, frequently shouldering burdens that would tire lesser men. You might be able to hold your own on the battlefield, but you're no "berserker".
You might grumble a bit at the lack of amenities on board a Viking longboat, but you can handle it. Other Vikings tolerate your presence, though they're not quite sure if they can trust you to fight dirty.
People who've known you for a while don't always trust your word. You sometimes come off as a bit of a snob. Vikings are not snobbish people -- they either like you, or they kill you. Try to be more like a Viking.
Hmmm...
I must blog about the ballet soon.
Monday, July 03, 2006
The joys of Tech Support
A significant part of my job is tech support. So, I raised a ticket for one of my users with a helpdesk in forn parts. A little while later I get an email saying that the ticket has been cancelled. No details, of course. So I ring up and ask why. It's been referred to local staff, i.e. me. Who logged the call in the first place. Sheesh!
But rest assured, I screw up too. But that's a story for a few months' time.
But rest assured, I screw up too. But that's a story for a few months' time.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Wherein Quartz has a bit of an epiphany on same-sex marriage.
And proposes the concept of a solution which helps out with some other issues too.
First off, this is a bit of a broad brush: nitpickers can assume that trivial and minor issues are squared away by clever civil servants.
Same sex marriage is a perrenial subject here, one fraught with many difficulties - what if two straight people of the same sex marry? What about inheritance? And so on.
(Just to expand on two straight people of the same sex entering a formal relationship, consider the examples of two batchelors living together, like Holmes and Watson. Or two old war comrades. Or two brothers. Or two spinsters. Or...)
But I contend that these are all side issues, reflextions of the main issues: tax and tax allowances. How can you be fair to same-sex marriages while retaining advantages for other-sex marriages and promoting family values, so you don't get voted out at the next election? I contend that the answer lies in tax. First off, we seperate marriage from partnership - after all, the partners making up the partnership of a law firm aren't married to each other, are they? So marriage becomes a religious concept for those who so believe, and we have a legal concept of a monogamous partnership (sorry, Mormons and Muslims, that's a seperate battle) restricted to next-of-kin status etc.
Now, the key to what we do is permit tax allowances to be transferred one generation up as long as all are on the same property, or down any number of generations to a minor as long as all are on the same property.
In a typical family, we have parents, children, and grandparents. By parent I mean the legal parent (or guardian), not necessarily the biological parent. Currently, it's quite expensive to have a grandparent in the home, despite the help they can provide with children, because parents can't make use of their tax allowances. Equally, parents may be looking after a grown-up child or grandparent who has become incapacitated. So we're making it fancially easier for people to care for family members, thus reducing the strain on Social Services / Welfare and promoting the family to boot.
So consider the canonical family of a working man, non-working woman, their two children, and one grandparent in an annexe. The woman can transfer her allowance to the children, as can the grandparent, who can transfer their allowances, plus their mother's and their grandparent's, to the man. The family's tax allowances are therefore concentrated in the hands of the breadwinner. Now consider the case of two people in a partnership, no matter the sex, with no children: they are no better or worse off financially than if they were not in a partnership, but still reap the other benefits and have the same responsibilities.Consider now the modern canonical dysfunctional family: a working man and a non-working or low-wage woman in partnership, several children of the woman by different men where the working man is not her legal partner. The woman can get the allowances from her children but the working man - and thus the family as a whole - cannot benefit because he is not the legal partner of the woman and thus not the legal guardian of the children and so much of the allowance is lost. So there is considerable financial encouragement to enter a formal relationship, thus enhancing family stability. This also encourages women who were in highly paid work to take time off to have children because their full allowances are put to good use. Again, consider a same-sex couple who have adopted two children: they are in almost the same situation as the first family (no grandparent). Now, the perspicacious will spot that a couple with children will benefit identically financially whether they're partners or not. This is indeed the case, but the couple will not benefit from being legally considered partners.
Inheritance tax? You follow a similar rubric: instead of a person's estate having a tax-free allowance, each inheritor (including the partner) has an allowance, and related inheritors can give other inheritors all or part of their allowances.
To me, this seems like a simple and elegant solution which not only squares the circle of same-sex marriage but promotes social harmony and welfare
Now, it hasn't been done, so I'm obviously being hare-brained and missing something, but what?
First off, this is a bit of a broad brush: nitpickers can assume that trivial and minor issues are squared away by clever civil servants.
Same sex marriage is a perrenial subject here, one fraught with many difficulties - what if two straight people of the same sex marry? What about inheritance? And so on.
(Just to expand on two straight people of the same sex entering a formal relationship, consider the examples of two batchelors living together, like Holmes and Watson. Or two old war comrades. Or two brothers. Or two spinsters. Or...)
But I contend that these are all side issues, reflextions of the main issues: tax and tax allowances. How can you be fair to same-sex marriages while retaining advantages for other-sex marriages and promoting family values, so you don't get voted out at the next election? I contend that the answer lies in tax. First off, we seperate marriage from partnership - after all, the partners making up the partnership of a law firm aren't married to each other, are they? So marriage becomes a religious concept for those who so believe, and we have a legal concept of a monogamous partnership (sorry, Mormons and Muslims, that's a seperate battle) restricted to next-of-kin status etc.
Now, the key to what we do is permit tax allowances to be transferred one generation up as long as all are on the same property, or down any number of generations to a minor as long as all are on the same property.
In a typical family, we have parents, children, and grandparents. By parent I mean the legal parent (or guardian), not necessarily the biological parent. Currently, it's quite expensive to have a grandparent in the home, despite the help they can provide with children, because parents can't make use of their tax allowances. Equally, parents may be looking after a grown-up child or grandparent who has become incapacitated. So we're making it fancially easier for people to care for family members, thus reducing the strain on Social Services / Welfare and promoting the family to boot.
So consider the canonical family of a working man, non-working woman, their two children, and one grandparent in an annexe. The woman can transfer her allowance to the children, as can the grandparent, who can transfer their allowances, plus their mother's and their grandparent's, to the man. The family's tax allowances are therefore concentrated in the hands of the breadwinner. Now consider the case of two people in a partnership, no matter the sex, with no children: they are no better or worse off financially than if they were not in a partnership, but still reap the other benefits and have the same responsibilities.Consider now the modern canonical dysfunctional family: a working man and a non-working or low-wage woman in partnership, several children of the woman by different men where the working man is not her legal partner. The woman can get the allowances from her children but the working man - and thus the family as a whole - cannot benefit because he is not the legal partner of the woman and thus not the legal guardian of the children and so much of the allowance is lost. So there is considerable financial encouragement to enter a formal relationship, thus enhancing family stability. This also encourages women who were in highly paid work to take time off to have children because their full allowances are put to good use. Again, consider a same-sex couple who have adopted two children: they are in almost the same situation as the first family (no grandparent). Now, the perspicacious will spot that a couple with children will benefit identically financially whether they're partners or not. This is indeed the case, but the couple will not benefit from being legally considered partners.
Inheritance tax? You follow a similar rubric: instead of a person's estate having a tax-free allowance, each inheritor (including the partner) has an allowance, and related inheritors can give other inheritors all or part of their allowances.
To me, this seems like a simple and elegant solution which not only squares the circle of same-sex marriage but promotes social harmony and welfare
Now, it hasn't been done, so I'm obviously being hare-brained and missing something, but what?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Bar review: the Peppercorn in Harpenden
Summary: don't bother.
I've just got back from dining at The Peppercorn. It's just been refurbished, so I thought it worth a go. The cider there is decently priced - £2.45 for a pint - but the interior decor is entirely unremarkable. I didn't notice anything of interest. The menu was short and expensive, with few of the usual bar staples. I ordered the lamb chops - £12.95 - and opted to eat outside since it's such a lovely evening. After sufficient time for two long phone calls, the food arrived: three modest lamb chops with a roundel of potato in the middle and a scattering of beans, spring onions, and peas. It wasn't hot. But it was moderately tasty.
Eating outside was a mistake: there was insufficient insulation against the road (granted I was sat next to the hedge, but I'd earlier sat further away with no difference). This is unlike the Old Bell, a few hundred yards up the road where you can sit outside and not be bothered. And the view from the Old Bell is great too.
The price of the food did not match the quality, nor the quality of the place. If you want to eat well in Harpenden, go to the Old Bell. you'll eat better in a better place for less. Likewise the Wyvern in Luton, which is in staggering distance for me.
I've just got back from dining at The Peppercorn. It's just been refurbished, so I thought it worth a go. The cider there is decently priced - £2.45 for a pint - but the interior decor is entirely unremarkable. I didn't notice anything of interest. The menu was short and expensive, with few of the usual bar staples. I ordered the lamb chops - £12.95 - and opted to eat outside since it's such a lovely evening. After sufficient time for two long phone calls, the food arrived: three modest lamb chops with a roundel of potato in the middle and a scattering of beans, spring onions, and peas. It wasn't hot. But it was moderately tasty.
Eating outside was a mistake: there was insufficient insulation against the road (granted I was sat next to the hedge, but I'd earlier sat further away with no difference). This is unlike the Old Bell, a few hundred yards up the road where you can sit outside and not be bothered. And the view from the Old Bell is great too.
The price of the food did not match the quality, nor the quality of the place. If you want to eat well in Harpenden, go to the Old Bell. you'll eat better in a better place for less. Likewise the Wyvern in Luton, which is in staggering distance for me.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Global warming bigots
I recently had a run-in with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) bigots. Now I'm a sceptic: there's a lot of evidence out there which works more than one way, and detailed measurements simply aren't available for sufficient lengths of time. I don't know, but I know that I don't know, but these were of the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' variety. Arrogantly dismissive of everything not in their world view. No consideration of the Little Ice Age or the Medeival Warm Period. And AGW is bad too, if it exists: no thought that it might be keeping us from an ice age. No thought of the effect of volcanos either. Belief but not knowledge.
Bollocks to the lot of them.
Bollocks to the lot of them.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
I passed!
I had an exam today. I wasn't confident of the material, which turned out to be quite right as my main training material was next to useless. But I squeaked through and now it's on to the next one, probably in 2 or 3 months.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Fox cubs
I was late at work today. I happenned to look outside and saw three fox cubs playing. Very cute. At least they'll keep the rabbits down.
Of course, foxes can be pests, as any shepherd will tell you, and if I had a shotgun, they'd be fox-fur by now.
Of course, foxes can be pests, as any shepherd will tell you, and if I had a shotgun, they'd be fox-fur by now.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)