Skip to main content

Of no fixed abode

Please excuse the skeletal nature of my blogging at the moment. We are still between houses, so existing on mobile internet, and the occasional opportunity to have the luxury of using a friend's internet connection. Mobile broadband is a great idea, but it's not much faster than dialup... and that's something I have no nostalgia for whatsoever.

The great news is that we will be moving into our new house tomorrow, but don't get a landline until the following Tuesday, and probably several more days to switch the broadband. Until then, things will remain sketchy. I really don't think I could have survived without the iPhone's internet capabilities. Another pat on the back for that most favourite of toys.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox10 August 2009 at 12:44

    Glad you're still hanging on in there, Brian. I feel your pain - when we moved to Cromer decent connectivity was an issue for nearly a year. Me and Mrs Crox can live without most things, but lack of connectivity makes me want to dribble and chew the carpet, and Mrs Crox goes around in floods of tears as if recently bereaved. Good luck with the big move.

    ReplyDelete
  2. laurasdad17 August 2009 at 20:07

    Where are you? Is this an excuse to decamp to somewhere more exotic whilst maintaining a pretence that you're just down the road? Or are the forces of the summer and the efficiency of the telco system combining to provide a study in what not to do to get our Great British Blogger back into the blogosphere?

    All news please on a postcard preferably with photo of your new abode..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Munson Walker18 August 2009 at 04:56

    I was reading Time.com's top ten stories for the week and came across an interview you did. I was fascinated by your remarks about the "big bang" theory and black holes. I am an amateur astronomer and I love the sciences. I have been following the Genome project for years, and it's scary. I have absolute faith that man will abuse this technology and ultimately destroy all human life as we know it on this planet. I am glad I found the article and will check out your books as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg1 September 2009 at 12:24

    Thanks, Thelma - I hope you find the books interesting!

    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...
123 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

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