Skip to main content

Five barred gait

Here's a true story. A few years ago, I was in London at a tube station. It was one of those with an office in the middle of the platform - I was probably 20 to 30 metres from the office.

With nothing much else to do, I was watching a lively discussion going on through the office window. I was much too far away to see faces, but lively was certainly the word.

Now here's the thing. I recognized one of the people in there, simply from the way he was moving. There were no contextual clues - this was someone I hadn't met for about 5 years, who had nothing to do with London Underground, or even central London in my mind. But I knew it was him. And when he came out, it was. He had been having an argument with the staff over something.

So, why could I recognize this one person? A (as I shall call him) has a stunningly distinctive pattern of movement. It couldn't have been anyone else. Now, I'm not very good at recognizing people, in part due to short-sightedness and in part due to a tendency not to look at the faces of people I don't know well. But this was clear recognition.

It made me wonder why so few people have distinctive movements - but a few do. I suspect a good bit of pattern recognition software would say we were all distinctive. Fascinating.

(Why five barred gait? I couldn't think of a better pun. And we used to stop at a pub called The Five Barred Gate on the coach when my grandma used to take me to Blackpool Illuminations as a child - but that's a different story for a different day.)


Popular posts from this blog

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 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 recent 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 ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope