Facebook gets spooky

I've mixed feelings about social networking sites - they can waste a lot of time, yet for a writer they are attractive. When much of your working life is spent alone, staring at a screen or scribbling edits on sheets of paper, there's something reassuring about being able to contact a wider network at the click of a mouse.

I mostly use networks specific to my activities - two for writers (Litopia and Bloggers With Book Deals) and one for science types (Nature Network). Just like the watercooler moment in a normal workplace, these naturally bring together people with work in common, who can moan to each other about the latest problem, as well as discuss last night's hot TV. But I do also have a Facebook page, which I use less often, but like for its immediacy and the way it puts me back in touch with old friends and colleagues.

Yesterday I clicked on the 'people you might know' link in Facebook, and amongst the people with obvious links and those I've never heard of was someone called Jack Schofield. For some reason, that felt quite spooky.

I first got into professional writing (more about this in a future post) by doing columns and reviews for IT magazines. I never did this full time, but when the activity was at its peak I went to quite a few product launches and IT company events. Inevitably you got to recognize the grizzled pros - the full time journalists - and one of these was Jack Schofield. (For fans of his column/blog, yes he did always have a pipe about his person.)

Because I've rather slipped out of the IT world, I've not heard of him or seen him for years - now here he was. Of course, he wouldn't have a clue who I was, but it was an intriguing connection for Facebook to throw up.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog