Influential spinfluential

At the station on Tuesday I picked up a copy of the Evening Standard ('Enin Stannit!'), now a shadow of its former self as it has gone free. In it was a list of 'the 20 people who keep London leading the world' - their idea of the capital's 'top 20 influentials'.

It consisted of 6 politicians, a banker, a policeman, 6 business people, a handful of vaguely arty types and two pop stars. No journalists or TV people. No scientists or educators. No sports people. But it did have Dizzee Rascal, so it must be okay, and 'down with it', mustn't it?

The article pointed us to the web for the whole top 1,000, which at least filled in a number of my missing categories. Notably, though, there were still no scientists, and the only educators were in schools.

All such lists are open to debate - but with this one, the whole premise is bizarre. Surely, to begin with, the entire cabinet should be in top list, not just three MPs. Can you really expect me to believe that Dizzee Rascal (sorry, I just can't get over his inclusion) is more influential than the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Remember that, next time you get a tax rise - it wasn't as important as some rap rubbish.

However, my real sadness is that lack of scientists. Perhaps next time the Evening Standard should scratch its list on a rock with a bit of flint. After all, there is obviously nothing influential that has come out of science and technology. Grrr.

Comments

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

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 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

Search This Blog