So I went to see Stardust these evening and I have taken it upon myself to review it. So here goes.
It describes itself as "the fairy tale that won't behave" and I'm not quite sure what it means by that. But still, a fairy tale it is, and if you are expecting something with numerous plot twists and great narrative set-up then forget it. What you do get, however, is a very entertaining film, which keeps you on your toes even though you realise what's going to happen about twenty minutes in.
The premise is a simple one. Boy meets girl, boy and girl have one night stand in a gypsy caravan (hmm maybe they were right in saying it won't behave) , girl leaves child with boy. Boy becomes man, infant becomes boy (who strangely never seems to make much of the fact his mother is absent) and boy tries to get affections of another girl.
To win this girl's heart, he has to go and retrieve a "star" that has fallen from the sky as a result of an odd set-piece involving some brothers trying to kill eachother to get a throne.
The star becomes an attractive young woman, and some witches are after her to regain their youth, not to mention the throne brothers for different reasons.
What follows is somewhat predictable, but fun at the same time. The boy and the "star" begin an adventure which involves human goats, Robert de Niro being, shall we say, not his usual self, a woman called Bernard and a montage. Yes, Team America fans, there's a montage. Even Rocky had a montage. In fact, it's a double montage as two people learn to do stuff in a short space of time. How's that for value? Michelle Pfeiffer makes a pretty convincing witch (but not a convincing pretty witch, no) and clearly relishes her baddie role.
Unfortunately Ricky Gervais manages to find his way into the film. This is regrettable, given that he is unable to play anyone other than himself and he isn't even all that funny until he can't speak. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Anyway, the ending is quite well done, (if slightly corny) even though you know exactly what's going to happen.
Other than my Ricky Gervais complaint, sticking points for me included that there were about 4 different plots going on at once at one stage and they seemed somewhat disjointed. Sometimes the dialogue was a bit suspect and it was a bit "suggestive" for a fairy tale, and there are one or two plot holes, but these are but quibbles for what is a pretty fun way to spend two hours. Just don't expect any surprises.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Monday, 29 October 2007
End of an era
So the time has come, and it is with a heavy heart that I have decided to stop going to Navs in favour of doing the 20s and 30s group at St Cats.
I've had three-and-a bit great years at Navs but I've felt that with work commitments and my advancing years (ha!) that it was probably time to get more involved with what my church is doing.
I also had the feeling that I probably should have stopped sooner, as it seemed a natural point to quit when my last pod bit the dust (swallowed by the Morningside monster*, it would seem). Not to say that it was a mistake going to the Gillies pod, which has treated me well these last few weeks.
But I should say that Navs is a great ministry, and if you can be part of it, please do as you can
a) spend quality time studying God's word in the company of others, both teaching and learning
b) make great friendships
c) find wives/ husbands (Tim/AnnaLauren!)
okay the last one was a wee joke on my part, but I cannot praise the Navs ministry in Edinburgh highly enough. Without it, I don't know how I would have got through one of the darkest periods in my life without the friendships I had forged through Navs.
So yes, in summary, Navs is great, but all good things must come to an end and it's time for me to move on. Thanks to everyone who made my time with Navs so enjoyable, and I will probably see you at a main meeting or any other special events I can be bothered to attend!
But for now, it's "thanks for the memories".
Andrew
I've had three-and-a bit great years at Navs but I've felt that with work commitments and my advancing years (ha!) that it was probably time to get more involved with what my church is doing.
I also had the feeling that I probably should have stopped sooner, as it seemed a natural point to quit when my last pod bit the dust (swallowed by the Morningside monster*, it would seem). Not to say that it was a mistake going to the Gillies pod, which has treated me well these last few weeks.
But I should say that Navs is a great ministry, and if you can be part of it, please do as you can
a) spend quality time studying God's word in the company of others, both teaching and learning
b) make great friendships
c) find wives/ husbands (Tim/AnnaLauren!)
okay the last one was a wee joke on my part, but I cannot praise the Navs ministry in Edinburgh highly enough. Without it, I don't know how I would have got through one of the darkest periods in my life without the friendships I had forged through Navs.
So yes, in summary, Navs is great, but all good things must come to an end and it's time for me to move on. Thanks to everyone who made my time with Navs so enjoyable, and I will probably see you at a main meeting or any other special events I can be bothered to attend!
But for now, it's "thanks for the memories".
Andrew
Friday, 26 October 2007
The top ten questions not to ask research students
Ask at your peril....
1. "How's your research going?"
2. "Are you writing up yet?"
3. "What is your thesis title?"
4. "How long do you have left/ How long does a PhD take?"
5. "You must love teaching undergraduates, don't you?"
6. "How long is your thesis going to be?"
7. "Why didn't you just go to medical school and become a real doctor?"
8. "You're just avoiding real work, aren't you?"
9. "You'll be like that Stephen Hawkings" (not strictly a question, but merely drawing a comparison between you and some famous, oft misnames, scientist like Stephen Hawking)
10. "Got any good results?"
1. "How's your research going?"
2. "Are you writing up yet?"
3. "What is your thesis title?"
4. "How long do you have left/ How long does a PhD take?"
5. "You must love teaching undergraduates, don't you?"
6. "How long is your thesis going to be?"
7. "Why didn't you just go to medical school and become a real doctor?"
8. "You're just avoiding real work, aren't you?"
9. "You'll be like that Stephen Hawkings" (not strictly a question, but merely drawing a comparison between you and some famous, oft misnames, scientist like Stephen Hawking)
10. "Got any good results?"
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Psalm 43:5
Why are you cast down, O my soul?
And why are you disquieted within me?
Hope in God;
For I shall yet praise Him,
The help of my countenance and my God.
And why are you disquieted within me?
Hope in God;
For I shall yet praise Him,
The help of my countenance and my God.
Sunday, 14 October 2007
If I were a betting man..
I don't gamble, but I find odds fascinating. In my naive youth, I thought that bookies' odds represented the actual probability of an event happening, but now I am aware this is not the case.
For instance, if, for some reason, bookies opened a book on the roll of a dice, you might find that the odds on it getting any particular number were 4/1 against (rather than 5/1 as you might expect). The reason for this is that I could bet £1 on each of the six possible outcomes and I would be guaranteed to get £6 back if the odds were 5/1 (you get your stake back if you win), thus breaking even. That would be utterly pointless, but the bookies want to get something out of you betting. Thus odds of 4/1 would guarantee that you would make a loss if you tried the "spread your money" scheme. This is why you might get, for example, two evenly matched teams being odds on to win a match they were playing against each other.
However, odds on a sporting event can still be misleading. The bookies only have part of the say as to what odds to give someone to win something, while the punters get the remaining say.
The reason for this is that if lots of punters seem to be betting on a particular event, the bookies will want to cut their losses and reduce the potential payout for this happening (thus losing less money). This is why England and English teams always seem to be among the favourites to win international competitions in Britain (but not elsewhere), since a lot of people here will bet on them (a lot of Scots are rumoured to bet on England: the logic being that if England win, then at least they will have something to make them happy. Frankly, that seems a bit daft).
Another thing you will find is that it is impossible to spread money over various bookies to ensure a guaranteed profit. You can get a maxiumum guaranteed return of about 95p for each pound bet currently on the 2008 Six Nations, for example. Doing it at all at the same bookie will net you about 85p max.
Thus, it is very difficult indeed to beat the bookie. There is one, guaranteed way to break even though. Bet £0 on everything. It worked for me.
For instance, if, for some reason, bookies opened a book on the roll of a dice, you might find that the odds on it getting any particular number were 4/1 against (rather than 5/1 as you might expect). The reason for this is that I could bet £1 on each of the six possible outcomes and I would be guaranteed to get £6 back if the odds were 5/1 (you get your stake back if you win), thus breaking even. That would be utterly pointless, but the bookies want to get something out of you betting. Thus odds of 4/1 would guarantee that you would make a loss if you tried the "spread your money" scheme. This is why you might get, for example, two evenly matched teams being odds on to win a match they were playing against each other.
However, odds on a sporting event can still be misleading. The bookies only have part of the say as to what odds to give someone to win something, while the punters get the remaining say.
The reason for this is that if lots of punters seem to be betting on a particular event, the bookies will want to cut their losses and reduce the potential payout for this happening (thus losing less money). This is why England and English teams always seem to be among the favourites to win international competitions in Britain (but not elsewhere), since a lot of people here will bet on them (a lot of Scots are rumoured to bet on England: the logic being that if England win, then at least they will have something to make them happy. Frankly, that seems a bit daft).
Another thing you will find is that it is impossible to spread money over various bookies to ensure a guaranteed profit. You can get a maxiumum guaranteed return of about 95p for each pound bet currently on the 2008 Six Nations, for example. Doing it at all at the same bookie will net you about 85p max.
Thus, it is very difficult indeed to beat the bookie. There is one, guaranteed way to break even though. Bet £0 on everything. It worked for me.
A different perspective
So today, England beat France in a World Cup semi-final and fair play to them. I didn't see the game, but I am assured I didn't really miss anything.
In any case, that's not really what I want to talk about. A proud sporting nation reaching the final of a major tournament is one thing, but the biggest sporting story of the day came not in Paris or Glasgow, but in Gomel, Belarus.
"What?" I hear you cry, but fear not, my point is coming. Belarus played Luxembourg in a European Championship qualifier. Neither side had any chance of qualifying, so there was little at stake. The home side, whilst hardly giants of the European game, would have expected to win the game easily, since they had a couple of handy players such as Arsenal's Alexander Hleb, and that Luxembourg had lost their last 55 competitive games. Fifty-five. Even San Marino and Liechtenstein, with significantly less population and competitive history, have ground out some draws and wins in that time.
But Luxembourg held on. For 90 minutes they held on, encountering a Belarussian barrage and offering little themselves. In the fifth minute of injury time Luxembourg found themselves in the opponents half. They might have just gone to the flag and settled for the draw, but there was an opportunity for a cross into the box which, unbelievably, found a Luxembourg head and the ball flew into the net.
Cue silence in the crowd and delerium on the Luxembourg bench. This little nation, a country whose ambitions are often restricted to the odd 1-0 defeat and if they are really lucky, a friendly draw, had just recorded its first win since 1995. That's like me not seeing Northern Ireland win since I was 11. I know the no-scoring streak was long, but it wasn't that long.
It puts things into perspective, really. You have the likes of Germany, France, England etc with legitimate chances of winning the thing, whose managers will lose their jobs if the don't make it, and then you have Luxembourg who win games once every twelve years. And their fans will celebrate this result as much as a World Cup win, and after waiting twelve years, don't they deserve it.
In any case, that's not really what I want to talk about. A proud sporting nation reaching the final of a major tournament is one thing, but the biggest sporting story of the day came not in Paris or Glasgow, but in Gomel, Belarus.
"What?" I hear you cry, but fear not, my point is coming. Belarus played Luxembourg in a European Championship qualifier. Neither side had any chance of qualifying, so there was little at stake. The home side, whilst hardly giants of the European game, would have expected to win the game easily, since they had a couple of handy players such as Arsenal's Alexander Hleb, and that Luxembourg had lost their last 55 competitive games. Fifty-five. Even San Marino and Liechtenstein, with significantly less population and competitive history, have ground out some draws and wins in that time.
But Luxembourg held on. For 90 minutes they held on, encountering a Belarussian barrage and offering little themselves. In the fifth minute of injury time Luxembourg found themselves in the opponents half. They might have just gone to the flag and settled for the draw, but there was an opportunity for a cross into the box which, unbelievably, found a Luxembourg head and the ball flew into the net.
Cue silence in the crowd and delerium on the Luxembourg bench. This little nation, a country whose ambitions are often restricted to the odd 1-0 defeat and if they are really lucky, a friendly draw, had just recorded its first win since 1995. That's like me not seeing Northern Ireland win since I was 11. I know the no-scoring streak was long, but it wasn't that long.
It puts things into perspective, really. You have the likes of Germany, France, England etc with legitimate chances of winning the thing, whose managers will lose their jobs if the don't make it, and then you have Luxembourg who win games once every twelve years. And their fans will celebrate this result as much as a World Cup win, and after waiting twelve years, don't they deserve it.
Monday, 8 October 2007
We don't need no education
So, today I came in and found two nice blue folders waiting for me. This was not a surprise, because they contained the marking for the informatics tutorials I was due to take the next day. However, on checking my email, I had an email from John Byatt-Smith (a lecturer who looks not unadjacent to Harold Shipman, but that is nothing to do with anything) which had landed in my inbox, saying that (paraphrasing slightly)
"it has been suggested that you could take 2 Probability tutorials since the other guy has pulled out"
Initially, I was pleased, as this meant I would get more money, but then I realised that I was already doing the maximum of 6 hours a week on tutorials. No problem, they were desperate for people, so they were going to bend the rules for me. But then a thought occured. On odd weeks, I was to spend ten hours on tutorials. Ten hours. That is an awful lot of wasted research
and it's five hours of marking to boot. I realised I'd been guilt-tripped by the administration into doing something I probably shouldn't have done. But I can slag off the admin another time as this is not my point.
It makes me think that teachers don't get enough credit. Not that I'm saying I don't get enough credit, but there's an awful lot they have to do. Marking is such a tedious activity, it's no wonder my A-Level Chemistry teacher never bothered with it. The only redeeming features are that
A: you get some amusing answers (until you realise that it's your teaching that's caused the crap answer)
B: you get paid for it (although I imagine this makes part of a teacher's salary)
C: Umm..
(One thing that I like though is towards the end of term when students can't be bothered handing in and you get paid an hour's work for ticking a couple of things a couple of times)
Presumably teachers don't have time during their day so they must spend their free time after class marking work, and thus effectively working very long days. Of course this is made up with the copious amounts of holiday (a classic joke in Northern Ireland is "what are the two best things about being a teacher? July and August!"), but you can't fault their commitment during term time.
What my point is (I've found it at last!) is that when you're at school you don't realise how much teachers put into your education and that it is worth making the best effort you can for them to show them respect. Sadly, most of you reading this are disinterested, but I feel my point is still valid. Unfortunately, I can't really say the same for lecturers (I have inside information).
Also, as a post-script I find students pay most attention when you give them the answers to next weeks assesment, as I inadvertedly did last year when I was covering a ChemEng class. Failing that, give them sweets.
"it has been suggested that you could take 2 Probability tutorials since the other guy has pulled out"
Initially, I was pleased, as this meant I would get more money, but then I realised that I was already doing the maximum of 6 hours a week on tutorials. No problem, they were desperate for people, so they were going to bend the rules for me. But then a thought occured. On odd weeks, I was to spend ten hours on tutorials. Ten hours. That is an awful lot of wasted research
and it's five hours of marking to boot. I realised I'd been guilt-tripped by the administration into doing something I probably shouldn't have done. But I can slag off the admin another time as this is not my point.
It makes me think that teachers don't get enough credit. Not that I'm saying I don't get enough credit, but there's an awful lot they have to do. Marking is such a tedious activity, it's no wonder my A-Level Chemistry teacher never bothered with it. The only redeeming features are that
A: you get some amusing answers (until you realise that it's your teaching that's caused the crap answer)
B: you get paid for it (although I imagine this makes part of a teacher's salary)
C: Umm..
(One thing that I like though is towards the end of term when students can't be bothered handing in and you get paid an hour's work for ticking a couple of things a couple of times)
Presumably teachers don't have time during their day so they must spend their free time after class marking work, and thus effectively working very long days. Of course this is made up with the copious amounts of holiday (a classic joke in Northern Ireland is "what are the two best things about being a teacher? July and August!"), but you can't fault their commitment during term time.
What my point is (I've found it at last!) is that when you're at school you don't realise how much teachers put into your education and that it is worth making the best effort you can for them to show them respect. Sadly, most of you reading this are disinterested, but I feel my point is still valid. Unfortunately, I can't really say the same for lecturers (I have inside information).
Also, as a post-script I find students pay most attention when you give them the answers to next weeks assesment, as I inadvertedly did last year when I was covering a ChemEng class. Failing that, give them sweets.
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Lunchtime blog
For some reason John and I (quite independently) got lunch early so I'm now left with half an hour to kill. What better way to do it than by spouting random nonsense?
So, what to talk about? Maybe now would be a good time to talk about the PhD, as I haven't really updated anyone on it for a while.
Unfortunately, it is going rather slowly for my liking. The fact I haven't been on top form for some time hasn't helped, then again nor has the fact that it's actually quite hard. As one would expect.
Presently, I am looking at objects called uniquely solvable puzzles . These are a set of rows of numbers which satisfy a certain property (when you rearrange the set, one of the elements in a row has to change, essentially). The theory is that if you can find that if the row has length k, we can find a large number of rows that satisfy the property. This will eventually lower the matrix exponent (see previous entry "what I actually do" for details), although perhaps not to 2 as is hoped.
Another thing I am looking at is linked to this, and concerns how you can split the set of numbers 1...3k into three sets of size k, satisfying a certain property. Showing that this property holds for a large number k will also yield an exponent of 2 (and probably get me the Fields Medal, since it's not an easy problem to solve).
So that's where I am just now. Before I get back to work though, I have some tutorial work to mark. Aaah the joy...
So, what to talk about? Maybe now would be a good time to talk about the PhD, as I haven't really updated anyone on it for a while.
Unfortunately, it is going rather slowly for my liking. The fact I haven't been on top form for some time hasn't helped, then again nor has the fact that it's actually quite hard. As one would expect.
Presently, I am looking at objects called uniquely solvable puzzles . These are a set of rows of numbers which satisfy a certain property (when you rearrange the set, one of the elements in a row has to change, essentially). The theory is that if you can find that if the row has length k, we can find a large number of rows that satisfy the property. This will eventually lower the matrix exponent (see previous entry "what I actually do" for details), although perhaps not to 2 as is hoped.
Another thing I am looking at is linked to this, and concerns how you can split the set of numbers 1...3k into three sets of size k, satisfying a certain property. Showing that this property holds for a large number k will also yield an exponent of 2 (and probably get me the Fields Medal, since it's not an easy problem to solve).
So that's where I am just now. Before I get back to work though, I have some tutorial work to mark. Aaah the joy...
Monday, 1 October 2007
Rugby World Cup
So the pool stage is over and the minnows have had their day of the sun. Whilst Portugal, Namibia, the United States and the like had long since booked their flights home, Wales and Ireland, teams you would expect to make the quarter finals both crashed at the hands of Fiji and Argentina respectively.
I will admit that I do not really follow Welsh rugby too much, so I can't really comment too much on their exit, but I will say that the Fiji game was one of the best I have ever seen. Real end-to-end stuff and with a thrilling finish to boot (even Fiji seemed to get caught up in the moment, seemingly forgetting to kick the ball out when the 80 minutes were up, almost giving Wales a reprieve). Fiji seemed to have evolved from the team that only squeaked past perennial table-proppers Japan to KO one of the more fancied nations (the last side to win a grand slam in the six nations, lest we forget) and probably give South Africa an easy route to the semis. Fair play to them though.
Argentina have probably been the side to have grown most in the last four years and remained the perennial thorn in the Irish side by beating them convincingly in Paris. A more significant result (maybe) was their victory over France on the opening night in Saint-Denis, where they looked like a side that had been winning things for years. Ireland, meanwhile never really got going. Laboured wins over the whipping boys weren't encouraging, and they were feeble against the French in game three. The lack of bonus points (I'm still not convinced on the benefits of the bonus point system) meant that Ireland needed to beat Argentina by more than 7 points, scoring four tries, and conceding less than four tries in the process. Such a restriction in the manner of victory was redundant however, as the only surrender monkeys in France that evening were wearing Green, going down 30-15. France didn't like this result much either, as they had to head to Cardiff to play New Zealand in the last eight.
Tonga gave England a run for their money in pool A, but fell away at the end of their decider, brought about because South Africa had walloped England 36-0 earlier on, a result which effectively put paid to any hopes of retaining the trophy. In group C, only Portugal seemed to make an effort against New Zealand, scoring a try in a 108-13 defeat. The decider was between Scotland and Italy, won by virtue of an immense Chris Paterson kicking display 18-16.
So the quarter final line-up is as follows:
Australia v England
New Zealand v France
South Africa v Fiji
Argentina v Scotland
It looks to me like itcould be the first all Southern Hemisphere line-up for the semi-finals, although I am hopeful that Scotland can exact some kind of Keltic revenge against Argentina (I spell it with a k to avoid confusion with the football club). But for me, this is where the tournament begins and every game will be worth watching. I think it will be tight, but I think South Africa may well sneak it. Just a hunch though.
I will admit that I do not really follow Welsh rugby too much, so I can't really comment too much on their exit, but I will say that the Fiji game was one of the best I have ever seen. Real end-to-end stuff and with a thrilling finish to boot (even Fiji seemed to get caught up in the moment, seemingly forgetting to kick the ball out when the 80 minutes were up, almost giving Wales a reprieve). Fiji seemed to have evolved from the team that only squeaked past perennial table-proppers Japan to KO one of the more fancied nations (the last side to win a grand slam in the six nations, lest we forget) and probably give South Africa an easy route to the semis. Fair play to them though.
Argentina have probably been the side to have grown most in the last four years and remained the perennial thorn in the Irish side by beating them convincingly in Paris. A more significant result (maybe) was their victory over France on the opening night in Saint-Denis, where they looked like a side that had been winning things for years. Ireland, meanwhile never really got going. Laboured wins over the whipping boys weren't encouraging, and they were feeble against the French in game three. The lack of bonus points (I'm still not convinced on the benefits of the bonus point system) meant that Ireland needed to beat Argentina by more than 7 points, scoring four tries, and conceding less than four tries in the process. Such a restriction in the manner of victory was redundant however, as the only surrender monkeys in France that evening were wearing Green, going down 30-15. France didn't like this result much either, as they had to head to Cardiff to play New Zealand in the last eight.
Tonga gave England a run for their money in pool A, but fell away at the end of their decider, brought about because South Africa had walloped England 36-0 earlier on, a result which effectively put paid to any hopes of retaining the trophy. In group C, only Portugal seemed to make an effort against New Zealand, scoring a try in a 108-13 defeat. The decider was between Scotland and Italy, won by virtue of an immense Chris Paterson kicking display 18-16.
So the quarter final line-up is as follows:
Australia v England
New Zealand v France
South Africa v Fiji
Argentina v Scotland
It looks to me like itcould be the first all Southern Hemisphere line-up for the semi-finals, although I am hopeful that Scotland can exact some kind of Keltic revenge against Argentina (I spell it with a k to avoid confusion with the football club). But for me, this is where the tournament begins and every game will be worth watching. I think it will be tight, but I think South Africa may well sneak it. Just a hunch though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)