The interweb at its finest

My favourite entry in Yellow Pages
(sadly long since removed)

I think we sometimes forget how much the internet/world wide web has changed the way we do things for the better. Here's a little story to illustrate this - and also I think to show that the power of something like the web is the ability to use it in unexpected ways.

I needed to replace a couple of tyres on a car. I was quite happy with the outfit I'd used for new tyres before, but because I don't buy tyres very often, I couldn't remember the company's name. This has happened before, rather a lot.

Of course, if I was all organized and such I would have carefully noted down the details of the tyre place in Evernote and I could just search that and pull them up in seconds. But I wasn't and I didn't. What can I say? I'm lazy.

In the old days I would have hunted for that tree graveyard the Yellow Pages ('I'm sure I left it there...') looked up tyre services, and then would have spent 15 minutes looking through the adverts, trying to decide which of the silly names was the business I used before. 'That seems vaguely familiar... but then so does this...'

Now, though, with the interweb at hand, the way I came to it was more a parallel of the way the brain deals with information. Though I couldn't remember the name of the tyre shop, I could remember where it was. But only in the sense of 'It's on that roundabout, you know, the one near Go Outdoors' - I didn't know a street name. No problem. Pull up Google maps, follow the route from home to 'that roundabout' and I have the location pinned down. Zip into Streetview - and I can see the building and read the name of the company.

At this point, quite recently I would have then turned to the electronic version of the phone book to get the number. But why bother? Type the company name in Google and up pops the phone number. I'm there in under a minute after employing the vaguest of search algorithms.

And that's why the internet/web is so good.

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