Skip to main content

Posing with a pooch

Every now and then I get a request for an interview to appear on a book blog or something similar - these are often great resources (and I make similar requests for popular science authors to contribute to www.popularscience.co.uk) so mostly I say yes.

One recent one was Writers Read, a rather neat idea where writers confess to what they are reading at the moment (in my case it was The House on the Strand and We Need to Talk about Kelvin).

This led on to a rather more unlikely contribution, as Marshal Zeringue, the owner of Writers Read, also has a blog called Coffee with a Canine, where contributors describe something of their relationship with their dog and, er, coffee. Sadly, Goldie rarely accompanies me to the coffee shop, so we had to make do with my domestic instant coffee fix, where she often comes and keeps me company. (In the picture she appears slightly radioactive. Apologies - she will keep fiddling around with the particle accelerator, and dogs aren't known for their expertise in nuclear physics.)

The mug, by the way, also portrays a golden retriever. So it's sort of coffee with a canine in canine. Or something.

Comments

  1. What a great idea. Here in Cromer we have a dog-friendly coffee shop called The Old Rock Shop Bistro, where Heidi and I sometime repair for lunch after a long walk on the beach.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You two make me really hanker after a dog!

    As well as being radioactive, Goldie looks as though she might be bigger than you are, Brian!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dog friendly coffee shops sound excellent.

    You're right, she does Clare - she is (whisper it) a little overweight, but not that big.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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