If you cut the polarised glasses in half and place the two lenses over each other, you’ll see that by twisting one lens against the other you can make them go black, then clear again… (one lens polarises vertically, one horizontally). The movie is also projected twice using polarised light, with slightly different pictures, so without the glasses you see both images with both eyes, when you put them on you see different images in each eye.

Same principle as the red/blue glasses, but works much better and doesn’t affect the colour balance.

In some cases reductionist may work too… depends on the usage really. For example you could say “we decided to take a holistic approach to X in contrast to <that other lot that wrote the previous paper> who took a very reductionist view in our opinion”.

I would have thought atomistic – consideration of the individual small parts of a system rather than the whole.

But anyone that uses the word holistic can be safely ignored anyway IMHO ;-)

Then you get the situation where the scientists claim ‘this is so because we know X to be so, and Y to be so, therefore we can say that Z is so’. What if X and Y are wrong to begin with? Then Z would not be so, as claimed.

Well then what happens is someone points out that X and Y were wrong to begin with, and then people do a shed load more science and work out X’ and Y’ and therefore Z’ and a bunch of other stuff. This is the whole point of science.

Compare to religion, where someone points out that X and Y were wrong to begin with and they get tied to a tree and set on fire (after a period of torture with hot pokers of course).

See the difference?

Rudeboy – tempting as it is just to agree that you don’t know what you’re on about, perhaps I’ll leave that and just point out that you’ve missed the point about the scientific method – scientists don’t claim that they have the absolute truth (that is the realm only of mathematics). What they do have is the best explanation for observable facts, and to be useful moreover a scientific theory has to be predictively useful. Sometimes new facts come along and the accepted theory has to be changed. Somtimes you can go on using one explanation most of the time perfectly well and only need the later tweak if you need super accuracy.

For example I’d say we have a pretty good understanding of Mars’ mass, speed, orbit etc., if we are able to get Beagle to land there, mostly Newton’s laws will suffice to work all this out though you might sometimes need to bring relativistic effects (Einstein) into things to get a really accurate result.

The fact that Beagle hit the ground slightly too hard or whatever probably reflects two facts – firing a thing the size of a dustbin full of sensitive electronics from here to Mars is flipping hard to do, and secondly takes probably more cash than the Beagle mission had, given that it was done in a very British (i.e., cheap) way.

At one point we believed that the Earth was flat.

Who did, and when?

Returning to the creationism / young earth nonsense… perhaps you could simply ask why God couldn’t have used evolution as his tool of choice, knowing full well (being omniscient and all) that human kind would be the result.

There’s absolutely no conflict at all between God and Darwin it seems to me, in this strict sense.

So creationists denying facts on the ground because they think they represent dis-proof of God is a kind of tactical error – they’d only stick their fingers in their ears and hands over their eyes if they themselves worried that dinosaur bones meant God didn’t exist.

Unless you insist on only the most literal reading of the Bible, there’s no problem; if you give it any poetic licence at all then Genesis is remarkably sensible on the general order of things occuring.

Likewise, Dawkins at al also seem to have fallen into the same trap.

Darwin makes God unnecessary, not impossible.

Occam’s razor, however, means that I have no time for religion. Which is ironic as Occam/Ockham was a monk.

There seem to be more helmets every year (in France at least), bought my lad one last time. If boarding I would definitely consider it, it seems really easy to catch the heelside edge and catapult yourself onto the back of your head. They seem quite cool now anyway ‘cos all the narly off piste or terrain park types all wear them, so the kids want them too.

Dunno if making beginner skiers wear one on the nursery slopes would do much, as you say in Natasha Richardson’s case it would seem not. But kids have to have them now in ski school most places, so it won’t be long before ski schools insist on adults wearing them as well, even if it is only to avoid any legal issues.

nick – that sounds like what the physio said, the excercises (that I probably don’t do enough/properly) are to do with pulling my neck in, presumably to train the muscles differently. What I don’t fully understand is what would be different if anything if I went to an osteopath (or chiropracticator for that matter). After 2 physios made no difference I’d sort of given up (other than self prescribing excercise and beer). Guess I’ll just try an osteo next, cheers.

I’ve had a really bad neck for the last 3 years which two seperate physios have failed to sort out. Probably as others have said because I haven’t followed through with excercises properly. Second physio did seem to loosen it up slightly as a muscle had become overtensed and some forceful stretching did help somewhat, but it didn’t clear up properly (she also tried some acupuncture which I went along with for a giggle but obviously made no difference).

Anyone with experience of osteopathy or chiropracty able to explain what the advantages are and whether they would be more likely to help? I can hear creaking when I move my neck which makes me think it’s a physical problem that should be able to be fixed physically, and sitting up straight all of a sudden isn’t going to solve anything in my view – I just want my neck putting back to how it was before.

Sounds like it’s not going to happen…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7952409.stm

L**ds is the largest town in England to have no interesting facts about it whatsoever.

Sheffield, home of Basset’s Allsorts.

And it doesn’t flow through Manchester

Northenden and Wythenshawe are both in the Mcr city boundary and south of the Mersey.

I used to live in Manchester.

World’s first industrial city, its growth was a major influence on Karl Marx.

Peterloo massacre was more dramatic and important than the battle of Cable St (sorry RB), but most people outside Manchester have never heard of it.

First real computer built at Manchester University.

Rutherford split the atom at Manchester University.

Oh and the Mersey flows through Manchester (in the south of the city). At no point does it flow through Liverpool (just past it).

Sheffield is built on seven hills – like Rome.

Home to the oldest football team (Sheffield FC) and the team that has been at their current ground the longest (Hallam FC).

Is the largest city in Europe with no airport.

Has parts of the Peak District National Park within its boundaries.

Grandparents have no right to see grandchildren

I’d put that the other way around and ask you to consider whether your kids should have the right to see their grandparents.

You don’t go to an Ian Brown gig for quality singing. You go to see the King Monkey!

Not sure what I’d make of a reunion. I’d probably be in the queue for a ticket but Ian Brown’s solo stuff is excellent as are his band. Wheras the rest of them have done bugger all of any note (Seahorses, I mean, the Shirehorses pisstake was better).

The trailriders acted in self defence after being pushed off the bike by the jogger. I doubt the truth will be told in the newspaper

Lone man in shorts runs halfway up mountain and beats up group of poor defenceless motorcyclists dressed in armour shocker. I can see the headlines.

:-)

Count – have you seen the damage they are doing up there? I don’t mind them using the houndkirk road (green lane) itself but the mess they have made with their circuit in the peat at the top is really bad.

(Edit) If I were a self respecting 4×4 enthusiast, I would be very annoyed about the idiots going off piste up there, as it a) brings 4×4 and trials bikers into disrepute, and b) is causing so much damage that a likely response at some point will be to ban them from the area entirely

The expression on some 4×4 drivers up on houndkirk when you overtake their 30 grand idiotmobile on a 400 quid hardtail mountain bike is classic ;-)

No helmet and wrong side of the road. Anarchist.

It’s worse than that, he’s rolled the wrong trouser leg up – clearly a Mason.

Making helmets compulsory will cause a drop in the number of cyclists, but the only thing that seems to improve cycling safety is having more bums on bikes….

That’s it precisely. Helmets are to prevent minor injuries, not to save your life when a car hits you, or to allow drivers a get out of jail card if you weren’t wearing one.

Hi vis jacket would have made no difference in the case mentioned above, as the motorbike clearly saw the cyclist and decided to overtake where it was unsafe to do so.

The point about the case which I presume sparked the debate:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece

is that the Judge said this:

“Mr Justice Griffith Williams accepted Smith’s case that he was close to the centre of the road, preparing to turn right into a driveway, when the motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed in the same direction, tried to overtake him on the offside.

However, Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet. The judge is the first to express sympathy for the view that this omission put the cyclist at fault and made him partly responsible for his own brain damage.

“There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he ruled. Subject to limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault””

Despite the fact that:

“Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph and the judge therefore concluded that wearing a helmet would not have made any difference.”

The consequence of which is/could be:

“But by establishing the principle of “contributory negligence” in cases involving helmetless cyclists, the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers.”

Given that wearing a helmet is not law in the UK, it seems odd of the judge to mention it at all, never mind the two other points that a) the accident was wholly the motorbiker’s fault and b) a helmet would have made no difference at all to the injuries sustained.

The next logical step is that pedestrians should also wear helmets and padding, or they would be held partly responsible for any injuries they sustain from a car deliberately mounting the pavement to knock them down.

I normally wear a helmet myself but don’t agree it should be either compulsory or used an excuse to reduce damages when a cyclist behaving correctly is hit by someone who was wholly at fault, as in this case.

As the parent of a teenager I can report that it doesn’t really matter what the politics of it all are, the word has changed meaning (again) and it’s far too late to do anything about it.

In any case, I first heard the word used in the sense of ‘rubbish’ in 1991, so it wasn’t invented by Chris Moyles (as if that fat lump of mediocrity could invent anything).

As far as I’m concerned the Libs are still a wasted vote

I never understand this point of view. I for example have a LibDem MP and a LibDem local council. If you like their policies, vote for them.

Bugger, I’d been thinking (hoping) it was the 21st. Can anyone tell me why they go forward _after_ the equinox?

And yet they go back in Autumn at the end of October – again, after the equinox (a whole month after). Why isn’t it symmetrical?

(I have a feeling I experience this bitter disapointment every year)

I mostly agree with Rudeboy. Whilst the “protestors” are obviously Islamist rent-a-mob provacateurs, what exactly did the authorities think would happen?

I don’t remember homecoming parades for troops returning from tours of Northern Ireland in the 70s through the centres of towns with large Irish populations.

It seems to me the government let the troops down by sending them to Iraq, let them down again by not equiping them properly, and then let them down again by sending them out on an ill-thought out march.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-soldiers-suffer-contempt-from-all-sides-1642991.html

What I haven’t read anywhere is why there was such a parade through the centre of Luton in the first place, I’ve not seen any other such events, are they common?

As someone who actually lived in that area in 1974, I confess to being somewhat irritated by pundits who, in their ignorance, are only too willing to believe the Third World shanty town depiction.

I didn’t see any shanty towns in the 1974 episode, I saw victorian terraces and 1970s semis. I’d be more inclined to take that review seriously if he hadn’t said South Yorkshire when he meant West Yorkshire in the previous paragraph.

David Peace (whose books this is based on) is from Wakefield and grew up there in the 70s and 80s so it isn’t all southern bias or anything. All his books mix reality and fiction and the subject matter of police corruption and serial killers doesn’t exactly lend itself to sunny shots of the genteel side of Leeds (and besides which they have a problem filming something set in the 70s when you can’t point a camera in any direction without seeing glass and steel apartments and office blocks these days).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/10/fiction

I did get slightly fed up of seeing the main character’s car on a deserted windswept moorland road though – I know they can’t show the M1 or M62 as it’s full of modern cars and the director probably wanted some sort of visual metaphor like the train at the start of Get Carter, but I did get a bit bored of it – there ain’t no moors between Leeds and Wakefield, just motorways and houses.

They also (in last night’s film) had Sutcliffe being nicked by an alert beat copper from the West Yorks force – in fact he was nicked by an alert beat copper in South Yorks on his first trip to Sheffield. Reality actually says even more about the West Yorks force’s incompetence, even if it was just the Sunderland tapes that set them on the wrong path, rather than corruption.

IT projects going wrong are almost always because the customer is incapable of expressing (or even understanding) what they actually want / need.

Government projects seem to be the worst in this regard – and as others have said, not just in IT.

I’ve never been lost cycling in the Peak District as I have a map with me.

However I did get ‘lost’ going around Cannock precisely because I didn’t have any sort of map and was just following the way signs and trying to relate it to the sketch map in the car park – so had to go all the way round with no idea how near the finish or whether there was a short cut, which I didn’t like, much prefer to know where I am.

Gerry Anderson produced move, Doppelganger

Does anyone else think it was specially made to be all dark and moody just because 2001 had recently come out?

Not necessarily – other British SF films of the 50s and 60s (e.g., Quatermass) were similar in tone. In fact I don’t think 2001 is particularly dark and moody… it’s actually quite trippy and optimistic (nice but unfathomable aliens are looking after us).

With the attitude shown by some teachers on this thread, it’s a wonder any normal person would want to go and work with such people.

I mean, it’s clearly obvious that everyone who has worked in any other job than teaching (imagine being in IT for a bank, how strange to be such a capitalist running dog). Also it’s obvious that a motivated person can’t possibly do in 6 months what a student who wanted an extra year at uni can manage in 12 months. And of course subject knowledge and life experience and experience of the wider world of work are all pointless.

Hmmm.

Firstly, I don’t see why you can’t take a graduate with some real world experience and train them up to be a teacher in 6 months instead of expecting them to go back to uni for a whole year on a PGCE (a fair amount of which is spent on teaching practice anyway). It would be best if they got people into teaching who wanted to teach, but I don’t see any reason to believe that the majority of people who go onto do PGCEs straight after their degrees are any more likely to be keen on teaching, rather than just having not much idea what else to do after their degree.

Secondly, I doubt very much that the senior managers ar RBS, or for that matter Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, will be the ones that this will be applying for teacher training.

Thirdly, of course any announcement by this government at this stage of its death throes needs to be taken with plenty of salt – they have a history of re-announcing things that are happening already.

Saw them last week at Sheffield. Not a huge fan personally, throught first album was good and then they went off the boil but I was dragged along by someone. Can’t complain about the show, good tight live band even though they needed two extra members for the most part semi hidden away behind parts of the set to play all the parts.

Started with Human and some other hits, then middle section were they insisted on playing album filler from new album, energy dropped somewhat, then more hits (Bones and most of the first album) toward the end where it picked up somewhat.

If you’re a fan you’ll love it, there’s even some pyrotechnics. Very large number of teenage girls with mums and dads though… presumably something to do with Brandon Flowers.

In summary: reasonably entertaining corporate arena pop/rock.

I’d say boarding has a steeper learning curve initially, but once you get past a certain point you’re basically doing it. Skiiing on the other hand is more gradual so you can be snowplowing and using the lifts after a couple of hours and progressing to parallel in a couple of days, but it will take a lot longer to get into carving turns properly etc., whereas with boarding you might take several days just to link turns – but once you can, you’re away.

Boarding will involve the most falling over initially, IMHO. Consider knee pads and possibly wrist guards especially if it’s icy. Boarding can be very knackering for beginners as well as just getting up is hard work after a bit, and you will be falling down and getting up again quite a lot. You can at least stand still on skis ;-)

You could stay out of resort to save some money and it will be easier to find hotels for short stays

That’s a good point, if you hire a car you will certainly be able to find a cheap motel a few km outside Chamonix on the A40 for example, then just get up early and drive to one of the smaller resorts like Les Houches. Although this is probably less fun than staying in the villages.

It doesn’t always work out cheaper to go for a few days (which you will probably have to organise yourself) compared to a week long package deal at the last minute, because you can often get good last minute deals on the package holidays if they have a room or two they need to fill. However if you can go midweek you might get a hotel with a room free, especially as we’re well into March now and away from school hols.

If looking at France, and organising yourself, search French websites for hotels, they are cheaper and better than the British run places in my experience. Fire off a bunch of emails to them and await response, I’ve done this and found somewhere eventually. Also in places like Chamonix there are climbers hostels (bunk accomodation) which are cheap and cheerful and might have spaces midweek).

Group lessons are normally based around the weekly trade so might not work out for you – another option would be to organise a one day one on one lesson, not cheap but might be the best way to get going. Are you boarding or skiing, the learning curve is different (skiing probably easier to get into at first).

But basically, go for it, I was amazed how much fun it was first time I went.