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.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox1 October 2009 at 11:44

    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. Clare Dudman1 October 2009 at 13:03

    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. Brian Clegg2 October 2009 at 09:47

    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

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