Skip to main content

Unbalanced parking

I ventured out to our local Borders yesterday and encountered a bizarre phenomenon in the car park.

That's the view of the car park on the right - it was packed. Forget recession, it was heaving. This car park has two disabled rows. One was reasonably in use. But take a look at the other one.

There literally wasn't a single car in it. (It's not entirely obvious from the picture, but that's not just one row of spaces in front of the camera, there's another totally empty row to the left hand side of the roadway too.)

I'm all in favour of disabled parking, but I can't help but feel they've got the balance a touch wrong here.

Muttering about incompetent planners, I went into Borders only to be cheered up immensely by seeing the end of the popular science shelf. They've got taste in Borders:

Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox28 March 2009 at 13:53

    Did your publisher pay for this nice display or did Borders do it in a spirit of generosity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg28 March 2009 at 16:48

    It was Borders what done it, guv.

    I did a signing their a couple of weeks ago, and they ordered the stock in for that, and decided to give it a go while they had it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. cromercrox28 March 2009 at 18:23

    You're darned lucky, guv. Most booksellers charge publishers an arm and a leg for such a display. Is it a local store where you count as a 'local author'?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg29 March 2009 at 11:07

    It is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sue Guiney30 March 2009 at 10:41

    If it wasn't for being able to say "wow!" I'd have to say, I'm speechless!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian Clegg30 March 2009 at 13:05

    Sue - I hope that's a good thing?!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
117 comments
Read more

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
25 comments
Read more

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
6 comments
Read more