More blogging as public e-mailing
Many of my readers will have noticed that I have been blogging in a number of group blogs lately, as well as here. My occasional transport related stuff has been going to Transport Blog (lead blogger Patrick Crozier), all my non-cricket sporting stuff (and some of my cricket stuff) has been going to Ubersportingpundit (lead blogger Scott Wickstein), civil liberties related stuff has been going to The White Rose (lead blogger Gabriel Syme), and I have been also writing some stuff for Samidata (lead blogger Perry de Havilland, although the story is actually more complicated than that), although to tell the truth I still haven't quite figured out which pieces I should post there. (The editors of that site have encouraged me to "post whatever I like", but I still haven't quite got the hang of it).
A fair bit of this blogging (particularly the transport, and Samizdata stuff) is stuff that would probably have ended up here had I not had access to the other blogs. Some, however, is stuff that I wouldn't have written if I do not have posting privileges on those blogs.
Really, there are two advantages of group blogs over individual blogs. One is that the job of building an audience is one that is shared among many people. Putting enough content on an individual blog so that your audience will come back regularly is a huge amount of work. However, with a group blog, rather than needed to post something every day you can just post something when you feel like it, on the understanding that the audience will find something from someone else if there is nothing from you. (If you are offered posting privileges on an already established blog, then someone else may have already done the audience building job for you). The other is that group blogs tend to be focused on particular subjects, and you and the other bloggers will hopefully feed one another's ideas. The audience will be more specialist too. If I write something about Transport and post it to Transport Blog, I know already that the audience there are interested in transport. However, on my personal blog, some of my audience is interested in my movie postings, some of the audience in my political postings, some in my cricket postings etc.
The big disadvantages of group blogs is that they are not ultimately mine. One of the most intoxicating things about blogging is the level of freedom it gives me as a writer. I can write something, the whole world can read it, and I can say whatever I want. I can denounce motherhood if I want. I can write 13000 words about my new screwdriver set. Nobody is going to stop me. It may be that nobody will read me either, but (remarkably) some people will.
But I can only do this on my own blog. If I am on somebody else's group blog, I have to obey the rules of that blog as a courtesy to the owners of that blog. While Perry has told me to write about whatever I feel like on that blog, the implied rule is that I need to write about these things from an individualist, small government perspective. While I am free to write about the Common Agricultural policy, I am actually not welcome to say that it is a fine, fine thing that protects the tremendous heritage of the fine institution of French farming, and that it is well worth the money it costs.
Now, I am not actually going to post something in favour of the CAP, because I actually think that the CAP is an abomination. Sticking within the implied rules for Samizdata is not very hard for me, because my own views are pretty consistent with the Samizdata world view, and Perry presumably figured that out before I was given Samizdata posting privileges. But still the rules are there. In return for a larger audience and a reduced workload, I have given up some of the freedom I have on my own blog. (No doubt if I wrote for a newspaper, I would be giving up even more freedom in return for a larger audience still).
Which is why I am not going to give up my own blog. However, what is likely to happen is that most of my substantive writing is going to be going to be posted to other, more specialist blogs in future. When I cease being a dilettante, which one way or another is going to happen fairly soon, this is going to be more dramatic. This blog is likely to turn into a series of links to my writings elsewhere, with occasional really brief postings or really strange postings that don't fit anywhere else going here. And I am likely going to cease being a daily blogger.
With all that in mind, I have been wondering lately what do do about my cultural postings. In particular, I like to write about movies and occasionally science fiction and television, and I have no obvious place to put this other than here. (I can put an occasional piece along those lines on Samizdata, but that isn't the place for all of it). If I were to remove everything from here that could reasonably go on one of the other blogs on which I have posting privileges, it is the cultural postings that would make up the bulk of what is left. Plus I would like a bigger audience for some of my movie and culture related postings, because I think that they are amongst my best stuff. Someone suggested the other day that I start writing for blogcritics, but that isn't quite my style either.
Presumably, Brian Micklethwait has been thinking the same thing, because he today posted a piece on his culture blog suggesting that if I find myself too busy to blog individually in future, I might want to consider becoming a contributor to his blog. (Actually Brian was at the social event where I was discussing the fact that I was interested in finding a blog on which to post movie related postings. Perhaps he heard me).
As Brian made a post addressing me directly, I might as well do the same thing in return.
It's not a bad thought, actually. I like Brian's blog. Brian asks interesting questions about culture that have a tendency to send me off to go looking for the answers. (A piece he posted on British television advertising a few months back led me to go and re-evaluate Ridley Scott, and it became clear to me that Scott is not just the director of a couple of my favourite movies, but also quite possibly the most important pop-cultural figure to come out of Britain in the last 40 years). Brian also shares a tendency I have to watch lots and lots of smaller rather than blockbuster films in order to find the hidden gems. Plus we both have opinions on architecture and urban design. So, there is overlap, and I think I would fit quite well on the blog.
However, I am a bit up in the air at the moment, so, Brian, I will think about it.
As for whether I have a problem with someone named Michael posting to "Brian's Culture Blog", I have to say no. As another example of that sort of thing, I nominate "Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine". The magazine was founded with Asimov as a sort of editorial director (although not the actual editor), and never wrote the bulk of the material for it (although he did write regularly for it) even when he was alive. He has now been dead for eleven years, and the magazine goes on happily.
And I think that may have been a slightly den Bestian response. Oh well.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Saturday, July 12, 2003
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or I don't do normally do comics and cartoons, for some reason
There is a lot of overlap between science fiction fans, movie fans, and fans of comics / graphic novels. Oddly though, comics are a medium that I can't properly appreciate. I like the purely written medium (in the form of both fiction and non-fiction) and I love the visual medium of movies. However, mixtures of written and visual I tend not to get at all. If I attempt to read a graphic novel, I simply read the words, and pay no attention to the pictures, which is (obviously) not a way to appreciate them. I don't read comic strips in newspapers. I don't even pay attention to political cartoons in newspapers. If a fiction book I am reading contains illustrations, I am unlikely to even look at them. I don't know why this is. Some of it is perhaps just the way my mind works. Some of it is simply that the grammar of comics is something I have simply never taught myself, whereas I know those of the other media intimately. Comic fandom is something I am very comfortable with (I come a branch of geekdom that speaks a different dialect, but there is still mutual intelligibility).
There have been a lot of movies adapted from comic books and graphic novels in recent years. While I have a familiarity with some of the characters in some of the films (particularly those that have had television incarnations when I was a child (such as Superman, Spiderman, Batman, the Hulk, and the like) but many of the others I have heard of but I know nothing of the characters and mythology. The X-Men are largely new to me when I watch the movies, for instance. (In this particular instance, both comics fans and non-comics fans such as myself tend to think that the movies are terrific, particularly the second one).
This weekend the movie of Alan Moore's graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has been released at American cinemas. The first I actually knew of this graphic novel was when, several years ago, I noticed that the film was listed as being in development on a list of such things that I follow. The summary of the plot told me that the story features a number of larger than life characters from 19th century fiction essentially working together: Mina Murray from Dracula, Allan Quartermain from King Solomon's Mines, Griffin from The Invisible Man, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde from, well, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Captain Nemo from 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, and a variety of other famous characters in smaller parts. This was sort of a superhero comic based set in the 19th century. I thought that the central conceit was delightful, and even did a little research about the graphic novel. I discovered that it was very highly regarded, and fans considered the story, the writing, and the illustrations to be utterly wonderful, particularly due to great faithfulness to the original characters.
Still, though, I didn't read it, because I don't read that kind of thing. I thought I would wait for the film and see if it was any good. But I found the idea of throwing the great characters of Victorian genre literature together, and seeing how they interact, to be a wondeful idea. I heard that Sean Connery had been cast as Quartermain, which was fine. The character of Dorian Gray had been added, which seemed in the right spirit, so no trouble. The character of Tom Sawyer had been added, presumably to appeal to an American audience. This seemed a little problematic, due to the fact that the character was historically anachronstic (Tom Sawyerwas set too early) and somewhat out of the spirit of the other characters. (He is not larger than life in the same way).
Futher information told me that the script had been written so as to make Quartermain the central character. In the graphic novel, Mina Murray was the central character. One of the laws of Hollywood is that when a big star gets cast in a film, the script of that film will get warped so that his character dominates the film, and becomes a straightforward heroic character. (Quartermain in the graphic novel was apparently very morally complicated). Also, Hollywood still shies away from female stars in big budget action movies. Television is full of female action heros. (Three cheers for Joss Whedon). And though the movies are starting to change and we have the odd Lara Croft, there is still a way to go. The role of Mina Murray is played in the film by Australian actress Peta Wilson. She is right for the part, but isn't a star, at least not amongst people who do not watch relatively low buget cable television adaptations of Luc Besson movies in the middle of the night. Therefore, there was no way of letting her carry a film ahead of Sean Connery. If you were going to cast a star in the part, it is a bit hard to think who you would choose. There is a certain hardness of character necessary that doesn't really go with female stardom. Winona Ryder played the part in the last movie adaptation of Dracula, and would probably make a good fist of it, but her star isn't really shining at the moment. It's either cast someone against type, or cast someone who isn't really a star, and they decided not to do that.
Anyway, there were still reasons to be hopeful. Nothing had been announced that would inherently spoil it. A couple of months ago, I saw a trailer. This did not look like good news. This just appeared to be a trailer for an action movie starring Sean Connery, and didn't make it clear who he was playing, or who any of the other characters were. If the plot had been blanded down to the extent that they had just turned into generic characters in boring Hollywood movie, this was bad. Still, trailers are put together by people in marketing departments who often haven't seen the film, so even that wasn't a killer.
Until, this week the film was released. It's apparently a mess. The standard pattern of "Hollywood buys some property because it has some unique quality. Hollywood puts it in development. Talentless guys in suits chip away with it to turn it into a bland Hollywood movie, and the first thing they do is remove the unique quality because that doesn't fit their pigeonholes for the project" appears to have been applied. Such a shame.
A real shame. Because the idea of Mina Murray, the invisible man, Allan Quartermain, Sherlock Holmes, and a whole variety of other characters (who could be in future movies) all running around together in the same movie is just delightful. I would love to see it done well. Now, anyone else who tries it is going to be at best accused of copying the idea and at word sued because the idea (although not the original characters) belongs to 20th Century Fox. This is a real shame.
Of course, what this all means is that I should read a few graphic novels so that the grammar of the medium is burned into my neural pathways, and so that I can properly appreciate the original graphic novel. I now must really do that.
Update: Interestingly enough, the LA Times has an article on the production. It was clearly one that Hollywood euphemistically calls "troubled", and there were fights between the star and the director, serious studio interference, a director who wasn't there in the editing room and refused to show up at the premiere, and the like. The LA Times is read by most of Hollywood, and it does have a tendency to give the industry a soft ride. Therefore one must read between the lines a little. Most troubling is this
Translation: We have such contempt for our audience that we don't believe they had heard of the great characters of 19th century literature. (Personally, I think the precise opposite, and that today's audience is one of the most literate ever. But that might just be me).
Again, we don't see much interest in character. Which is a shame, because this sort of thing should be all about character.
Interestingly, though, we also see that Monica Bellucci was originally cast but dropped out due to "exhaustion". (I wonder what that actually means). I think that's a blessing, as she would be completely wrong for Mina Murray. Peta Wilson is at least right for the part.
There is a lot of overlap between science fiction fans, movie fans, and fans of comics / graphic novels. Oddly though, comics are a medium that I can't properly appreciate. I like the purely written medium (in the form of both fiction and non-fiction) and I love the visual medium of movies. However, mixtures of written and visual I tend not to get at all. If I attempt to read a graphic novel, I simply read the words, and pay no attention to the pictures, which is (obviously) not a way to appreciate them. I don't read comic strips in newspapers. I don't even pay attention to political cartoons in newspapers. If a fiction book I am reading contains illustrations, I am unlikely to even look at them. I don't know why this is. Some of it is perhaps just the way my mind works. Some of it is simply that the grammar of comics is something I have simply never taught myself, whereas I know those of the other media intimately. Comic fandom is something I am very comfortable with (I come a branch of geekdom that speaks a different dialect, but there is still mutual intelligibility).
There have been a lot of movies adapted from comic books and graphic novels in recent years. While I have a familiarity with some of the characters in some of the films (particularly those that have had television incarnations when I was a child (such as Superman, Spiderman, Batman, the Hulk, and the like) but many of the others I have heard of but I know nothing of the characters and mythology. The X-Men are largely new to me when I watch the movies, for instance. (In this particular instance, both comics fans and non-comics fans such as myself tend to think that the movies are terrific, particularly the second one).
This weekend the movie of Alan Moore's graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has been released at American cinemas. The first I actually knew of this graphic novel was when, several years ago, I noticed that the film was listed as being in development on a list of such things that I follow. The summary of the plot told me that the story features a number of larger than life characters from 19th century fiction essentially working together: Mina Murray from Dracula, Allan Quartermain from King Solomon's Mines, Griffin from The Invisible Man, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde from, well, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Captain Nemo from 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, and a variety of other famous characters in smaller parts. This was sort of a superhero comic based set in the 19th century. I thought that the central conceit was delightful, and even did a little research about the graphic novel. I discovered that it was very highly regarded, and fans considered the story, the writing, and the illustrations to be utterly wonderful, particularly due to great faithfulness to the original characters.
Still, though, I didn't read it, because I don't read that kind of thing. I thought I would wait for the film and see if it was any good. But I found the idea of throwing the great characters of Victorian genre literature together, and seeing how they interact, to be a wondeful idea. I heard that Sean Connery had been cast as Quartermain, which was fine. The character of Dorian Gray had been added, which seemed in the right spirit, so no trouble. The character of Tom Sawyer had been added, presumably to appeal to an American audience. This seemed a little problematic, due to the fact that the character was historically anachronstic (Tom Sawyerwas set too early) and somewhat out of the spirit of the other characters. (He is not larger than life in the same way).
Futher information told me that the script had been written so as to make Quartermain the central character. In the graphic novel, Mina Murray was the central character. One of the laws of Hollywood is that when a big star gets cast in a film, the script of that film will get warped so that his character dominates the film, and becomes a straightforward heroic character. (Quartermain in the graphic novel was apparently very morally complicated). Also, Hollywood still shies away from female stars in big budget action movies. Television is full of female action heros. (Three cheers for Joss Whedon). And though the movies are starting to change and we have the odd Lara Croft, there is still a way to go. The role of Mina Murray is played in the film by Australian actress Peta Wilson. She is right for the part, but isn't a star, at least not amongst people who do not watch relatively low buget cable television adaptations of Luc Besson movies in the middle of the night. Therefore, there was no way of letting her carry a film ahead of Sean Connery. If you were going to cast a star in the part, it is a bit hard to think who you would choose. There is a certain hardness of character necessary that doesn't really go with female stardom. Winona Ryder played the part in the last movie adaptation of Dracula, and would probably make a good fist of it, but her star isn't really shining at the moment. It's either cast someone against type, or cast someone who isn't really a star, and they decided not to do that.
Anyway, there were still reasons to be hopeful. Nothing had been announced that would inherently spoil it. A couple of months ago, I saw a trailer. This did not look like good news. This just appeared to be a trailer for an action movie starring Sean Connery, and didn't make it clear who he was playing, or who any of the other characters were. If the plot had been blanded down to the extent that they had just turned into generic characters in boring Hollywood movie, this was bad. Still, trailers are put together by people in marketing departments who often haven't seen the film, so even that wasn't a killer.
Until, this week the film was released. It's apparently a mess. The standard pattern of "Hollywood buys some property because it has some unique quality. Hollywood puts it in development. Talentless guys in suits chip away with it to turn it into a bland Hollywood movie, and the first thing they do is remove the unique quality because that doesn't fit their pigeonholes for the project" appears to have been applied. Such a shame.
A real shame. Because the idea of Mina Murray, the invisible man, Allan Quartermain, Sherlock Holmes, and a whole variety of other characters (who could be in future movies) all running around together in the same movie is just delightful. I would love to see it done well. Now, anyone else who tries it is going to be at best accused of copying the idea and at word sued because the idea (although not the original characters) belongs to 20th Century Fox. This is a real shame.
Of course, what this all means is that I should read a few graphic novels so that the grammar of the medium is burned into my neural pathways, and so that I can properly appreciate the original graphic novel. I now must really do that.
Update: Interestingly enough, the LA Times has an article on the production. It was clearly one that Hollywood euphemistically calls "troubled", and there were fights between the star and the director, serious studio interference, a director who wasn't there in the editing room and refused to show up at the premiere, and the like. The LA Times is read by most of Hollywood, and it does have a tendency to give the industry a soft ride. Therefore one must read between the lines a little. Most troubling is this
"But as brilliant as the graphic novel is, it is not a movie," said the film's screenwriter, James Dale Robinson, who also is a top comic book author. "And unfortunately, the reading level of the world has declined, so [introducing the literary characters] was something that had to be dealt with head-on."
Translation: We have such contempt for our audience that we don't believe they had heard of the great characters of 19th century literature. (Personally, I think the precise opposite, and that today's audience is one of the most literate ever. But that might just be me).
Hoping to position the movie as a classy, Indiana Jones-style adventure, Fox didn't hesitate to sink most of its cast budget into Connery's salary.
Again, we don't see much interest in character. Which is a shame, because this sort of thing should be all about character.
Interestingly, though, we also see that Monica Bellucci was originally cast but dropped out due to "exhaustion". (I wonder what that actually means). I think that's a blessing, as she would be completely wrong for Mina Murray. Peta Wilson is at least right for the part.
Wine producers
Those of us who pay attention to the world of wine occasionally find ourselves looking at tables of the largest wine producing countries in the world. This one, for instance. One thing that we often notice is the very high place that Argentina takes on the table. The country is the fifth largest producer in the world, and yet most people have never tasted an Argentinian wine, and know nothing whatsoever about Argentian wines. (Books on the subject often note that Argentinan wines are mostly consumed domestically, and leave it at that). On the other hand, Chilean wine is very readily avaliable in Britain, and I believe it is even more readily avaliable in the United States. However, Chile is not even listed in the top ten producing countries given in the table.
However, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, as I discovered yesterday reading this article in Slate on Argentinian wines. Thus, one consequence of the recent dramatic devaluation of the Argentinian peso is that Argentinian winemakers can get much better prices in domestic currency terms for wine exports, and as a consequence wine exports are way up. (The article also mentions that Argentina's large Spanish/Italian middle class is responsible for there traditionally being a large domestic market in Argentina).
The other interesting thing mentioned is the grape variety. Apparently the best Argentine wines are made from the Malbec grape, and come from the Mendoza region. Malbec is a blending grape in France and Australia, and is particularly blended with Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and Cabernet Franc in Bordeaux or Bordeaux blend wines. A varietal Malbec is not something that Australian or French winemakers would tend to do. (Chile tends to concentrate on Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot, too, probably because these are popular in the export markets).
Interestingly enough, when I was in Sainsbury's this afternoon, I found a cheap Argentinian Malbec from the Mendoza region. So, it so happens that I am about to test the Slate article myself. It's a 1992, so very young. A cabernet or even a merlot that age would likely still be very closed. Let's see. Moderate in colour. Not especially dark, but not a summer wine either. Not much of a nose at all. On tasting it, it lacks the concentration of a cabernet, and doesn't have the blackcurrenty quality of a cabernet either. Fruity, but lacking the spiciness of a syrah. Goes down the throat nicely, and a very pleasant aftertaste. This would be lovely with a nice steak. (I'm about to have it with a spicy pizza). The wine is maybe a bit unremarkable, but is obviously well made. Not a huge amount of complexity, no potential for ageing, but few people would ever complain about it.
That said, it only cost four pounds. One isn't generally going to get a wine with a lot of complexity for that price. For comparison, I now need to taste an Argentinian Malbec around the ten pound level. Maybe Oddbins would have one of those.
Hopefully, though, the exports will continue. Another wine country to explore the products of is always a fine thing.
Update: Having drunk a bit more of it, it seems to have opened up still further. I think I would add "jammy" to the previous comments. It's going down pretty well, on the whole.
Those of us who pay attention to the world of wine occasionally find ourselves looking at tables of the largest wine producing countries in the world. This one, for instance. One thing that we often notice is the very high place that Argentina takes on the table. The country is the fifth largest producer in the world, and yet most people have never tasted an Argentinian wine, and know nothing whatsoever about Argentian wines. (Books on the subject often note that Argentinan wines are mostly consumed domestically, and leave it at that). On the other hand, Chilean wine is very readily avaliable in Britain, and I believe it is even more readily avaliable in the United States. However, Chile is not even listed in the top ten producing countries given in the table.
However, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, as I discovered yesterday reading this article in Slate on Argentinian wines. Thus, one consequence of the recent dramatic devaluation of the Argentinian peso is that Argentinian winemakers can get much better prices in domestic currency terms for wine exports, and as a consequence wine exports are way up. (The article also mentions that Argentina's large Spanish/Italian middle class is responsible for there traditionally being a large domestic market in Argentina).
The other interesting thing mentioned is the grape variety. Apparently the best Argentine wines are made from the Malbec grape, and come from the Mendoza region. Malbec is a blending grape in France and Australia, and is particularly blended with Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and Cabernet Franc in Bordeaux or Bordeaux blend wines. A varietal Malbec is not something that Australian or French winemakers would tend to do. (Chile tends to concentrate on Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot, too, probably because these are popular in the export markets).
Interestingly enough, when I was in Sainsbury's this afternoon, I found a cheap Argentinian Malbec from the Mendoza region. So, it so happens that I am about to test the Slate article myself. It's a 1992, so very young. A cabernet or even a merlot that age would likely still be very closed. Let's see. Moderate in colour. Not especially dark, but not a summer wine either. Not much of a nose at all. On tasting it, it lacks the concentration of a cabernet, and doesn't have the blackcurrenty quality of a cabernet either. Fruity, but lacking the spiciness of a syrah. Goes down the throat nicely, and a very pleasant aftertaste. This would be lovely with a nice steak. (I'm about to have it with a spicy pizza). The wine is maybe a bit unremarkable, but is obviously well made. Not a huge amount of complexity, no potential for ageing, but few people would ever complain about it.
That said, it only cost four pounds. One isn't generally going to get a wine with a lot of complexity for that price. For comparison, I now need to taste an Argentinian Malbec around the ten pound level. Maybe Oddbins would have one of those.
Hopefully, though, the exports will continue. Another wine country to explore the products of is always a fine thing.
Update: Having drunk a bit more of it, it seems to have opened up still further. I think I would add "jammy" to the previous comments. It's going down pretty well, on the whole.
Elsewhere
I have a couple of pieces at ubersportingpundit, including a cricket round up that includes preview of today's Natwest Trophy final, as well as a piece speculating on just why the Washington Cricket League have banned machetes.
Update: I updated the post on the Natwest Trophy final as the game went on, and that will do for a match report on that game. Suffice to say that England thrashed South Africa.
I have a couple of pieces at ubersportingpundit, including a cricket round up that includes preview of today's Natwest Trophy final, as well as a piece speculating on just why the Washington Cricket League have banned machetes.
Update: I updated the post on the Natwest Trophy final as the game went on, and that will do for a match report on that game. Suffice to say that England thrashed South Africa.
Friday, July 11, 2003
Creepy
While walking out of the door of Croydon public library this afternoon, I saw a fairly ordinary, Anglo looking middle aged guy wearing a T-shirt saying "Mujahadeen. Warriors of Allah". Nothing registered for a moment, but after a couple of seconds what it said registered in my mind, and I realised I was slightly bothered. However, I then noticed that he was talking to a woman wearing a hajeeb, and that the T-shirt was likely intended entirely unironically. Actually, to think about it further I am not sure how this could be intended ironically. I am just used to almost everything printed on T-shirts to be not entirely serious.
This is another one of those moments when I wish that the star spangled banner was a little easier to sing.
While walking out of the door of Croydon public library this afternoon, I saw a fairly ordinary, Anglo looking middle aged guy wearing a T-shirt saying "Mujahadeen. Warriors of Allah". Nothing registered for a moment, but after a couple of seconds what it said registered in my mind, and I realised I was slightly bothered. However, I then noticed that he was talking to a woman wearing a hajeeb, and that the T-shirt was likely intended entirely unironically. Actually, to think about it further I am not sure how this could be intended ironically. I am just used to almost everything printed on T-shirts to be not entirely serious.
This is another one of those moments when I wish that the star spangled banner was a little easier to sing.
Soppiness
I am delighted that Cali and Beth love one another so much. However, they need to read the Blogger instructions, so that that can each post under their own name. Even the nearly as soppy Murrays figured this out eventually.
I am delighted that Cali and Beth love one another so much. However, they need to read the Blogger instructions, so that that can each post under their own name. Even the nearly as soppy Murrays figured this out eventually.
Fine things about south London
Yesterday, I went out to lunch with another blogger (as one does, unless one comes from Adelaide). As he is a north London chap, I suggested going to Tooting in south London, which is a very diverse neighbourhood. Some areas tend to be enclaves of particular ethnic groups, but for some reason south of the Thames is less like this than north of the river. South of the river you tend to get whites, Carribean blacks, African blacks, Indians, and Pakistanis all mixed together. Just north of Croydon, where I live, is more black than Asian, but Tooting is the other way round. The area is full of Indian supermarkets, places selling DVDs and VHS tapes of Bollywood movies, shops selling discount household good, little hole in the wall shops run by Indian gentlemen who will fix your mobile phone for you, and lots of places to obtain various interesting types of food.
We ended up in a Pakistani restaurant named Lahore Karahi. Not a particularly fancy or expensive place, but a restaurant where local and other people regularly go to get a curry, often to take away. While there are clearly regional culinary variations in the Indian subcontinent, there clearly isn't a dramatic culinary change as you cross the border, so it is hard to say what makes this a "Pakistani" restaurant rather than an Indian one. However, the food was superb. Absolutely first rate. I had a mutton starter and a prawn curry with rice as a main. Both were just delicious. People who have not lived in Britain do not always appreciate the extent to which British people love their curries, and subcontinental food in Britain is usually of high quality. But this was something special. This is the advantage of going to cosmipolitan neighbourhoods.
One thing on the menu was the name of a dish I had never heard of, followed by "Sunday breakfast only". I am almost tempted to go back at breakfast time on Sunday to find out precisely what it is that Pakistanis eat for breakfast on Sundays, and find that the words on the menu in fact mean "large plate of bacon and eggs" in Urdu.
Yesterday, I went out to lunch with another blogger (as one does, unless one comes from Adelaide). As he is a north London chap, I suggested going to Tooting in south London, which is a very diverse neighbourhood. Some areas tend to be enclaves of particular ethnic groups, but for some reason south of the Thames is less like this than north of the river. South of the river you tend to get whites, Carribean blacks, African blacks, Indians, and Pakistanis all mixed together. Just north of Croydon, where I live, is more black than Asian, but Tooting is the other way round. The area is full of Indian supermarkets, places selling DVDs and VHS tapes of Bollywood movies, shops selling discount household good, little hole in the wall shops run by Indian gentlemen who will fix your mobile phone for you, and lots of places to obtain various interesting types of food.
We ended up in a Pakistani restaurant named Lahore Karahi. Not a particularly fancy or expensive place, but a restaurant where local and other people regularly go to get a curry, often to take away. While there are clearly regional culinary variations in the Indian subcontinent, there clearly isn't a dramatic culinary change as you cross the border, so it is hard to say what makes this a "Pakistani" restaurant rather than an Indian one. However, the food was superb. Absolutely first rate. I had a mutton starter and a prawn curry with rice as a main. Both were just delicious. People who have not lived in Britain do not always appreciate the extent to which British people love their curries, and subcontinental food in Britain is usually of high quality. But this was something special. This is the advantage of going to cosmipolitan neighbourhoods.
One thing on the menu was the name of a dish I had never heard of, followed by "Sunday breakfast only". I am almost tempted to go back at breakfast time on Sunday to find out precisely what it is that Pakistanis eat for breakfast on Sundays, and find that the words on the menu in fact mean "large plate of bacon and eggs" in Urdu.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Twelve Monkeys
On monday night I was flicking through the digital TV channels, and I ran into a broadcast of Terry Gilliam's film Twelve Monkeys on BBC4. This is a favourite film of mine for a variety of reasons. I like Gilliam's visual style and the quality of the art direction. I like the score, with its interesting mixture of strings and an accordian. I quite like the acting. Bruce Willis is good playing slightly against type (something that he has done a fair bit in his career, to his credit). I love Madeleine Stowe as the psychiatrist who initially believes that Willis' character is insane and who becomes steadily more intense and stressed as the movie goes along and she realises that he is indeed a visitor from future and that the world is indeed about to end. (Of the actors in the film, Brad Pitt was the one who received an Oscar nomination, but his is the least interesting performance. He just hams it up, basically). I like the run down Philadelphia locations that we see both in the present and the future.
Mostly, though, the mood of the film is interesting. It is full of a sense that the world is a wonderful and extraordinary place, but also a messy place, and that somehow we are spiraling towards a (possibly terrible) destiny that we cannot control. This mood comes from the various things I have described above, but more than that it comes from the intriguing way the screenplay was constructed by screenwriter David Peoples (who also wrote Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven and was one of two screenwriters who gave us Blade Runner.).
Most Hollywood films, particularly science fiction films, are these days a mass of overfamiliar and uncredited cliches that have been ripped off and merged together, usually not very intelligently. Twelve Monkeys on the other hand has been constructed by taking source material from two or three extremely famous places, grafting it together, and making it explicitly clear exactly what the source material was. The largest of these sources is Chris Marker's French new wave short La Jetée, which is responsible for the overall plot of the film. Man time travels back from a post apocalyptic world to attempt to learn or do something to help the future. The man who does this is haunted by a memory from his childhood before the apocalypse, in which he saw a man being murdered in an airport. Upon going back to the time and place of the memory, we find out that it was his future self he saw as a child.
I will have to confess that I have never actually seen La Jetée, so I cannot really talk about the film's mood. However, it only contains enough plot for about 30 minutes, which was the length of the original short. In order to make their film more long and complex, Gilliam and Peoples have added a Hitchcockian dimension. In particular the film is a reworking of Vertigo. This is more about mood than plot. 12 Monkeys copies the earlier film in being about a damaged character with a fixation on particular images and memories of the past that may or may not be real, and about desperately attempting to somehow freeze time and cling to those fragments of the past before everything collapses, and the question of whether this effort leads to or results from insanity. 12 Monkeys is once again is very explicit about what is its source material. The film contains similar shots, similar costumes, and towards the end the separation between the two films breaks down almost completely. Willis and Stowe actually spend some time in a theatre showing Vertigo, and then the film sort of flows into a recration of perhaps the most famous scene from Vertigo, with the same lighting, the same rotating camera, and accompanied by the actual music from Vertigo. I do wonder how much of the Vertigo theme was Peoples and how much was Gilliam. Gilliam's films have an ability to look at things from unexpected directions, and the flow into Vertigo feels like him, certainly in terms of the lighting and music.
I am not sure I have done as good a job of describing the Vertigo references as well as I might have. These are as much about mood as about plot, making them in some ways hard to describe. They are, however, very obvious, if you know the earlier film. (Virginia Vitzthum of Salon made a good stab at discussing them here).
But, however, there is a third source that to me seems fairly obvious. One thing that has changed between La Jetée and 12 Monkeys is the nature of the apocalypse from beyond which the central character is sent back in time. In 12 Monkeys it has been changed from nuclear to biological. A deadly virus has been released somehow, and has spread throughout the world and killed much of the human population. At the end of the film we discover that the virus was released deliberately by a socially awkward scientist who believes that mankind is a sickness destroying the natural environment of the earth, and that mankind must be destroyed to save the earth. The scientist is consequently seen checking in at an airport with a lengthy itinerary of destinations, to head off on a long zig-zagging journey around the world to release the virus in as many locations as possible.
Now, this plot is quite familiar to people who are well read in rather literary 1970s science fiction.
One of the finest writers to ever write in the science fiction genre wrote under the name James Tiptree Jr. Tiptree wrote fiction that is in some ways extraordinary dark, but in others very humanistic. Humanity and the world is extraordinary and amazing, but at the same time humans (and the sexes) find it impossible to genuinely connect with one another. Tiptree's stories tended to be about people connecting or at least trying to connect across the void, and about the few moments or great wonder and beauty they would sometimes find as they slowly continued on the spiral towards death. There is something extraordinarily beautiful about the way Tiptree's writing tells us we are all doomed, but that there is somehow something poetic that can briefly passed through on the way to that doom.
One of Tiptree's more famous stories is called The last flight of Dr. Ain, which chronicles the zigzagging journey around the world of a socially awkward but brilliant geneticist, who is appalled at what humanity has done to the world. The story chronicles his journey as he travels around the world to release a deadly virus in as many places as possible so the destruction of humanity will be as effective as possible and the earth will be saved. Twelve Monkeys captures the character and the plot (and the mood, not just of this one story but of Tiptree's writing in general), and it fits with La Jetée and Vertigo in a way that is somehow perfect.
It was revealed in 1976 that James Tiptree Jr. was in fact Alice Sheldon, a sixtysomething woman who had seen a great deal of the world as a child, and who had been both a CIA agent and a clinical psychologist in the decades to 1970. She killed herself in 1987, the downwards spiral having apparently become too much for her. Which is a terrible shame, as she wrote some extraordinary fiction.
I have never heard David Peoples of Terry Gilliam admit that Tiptree was an influence for Twelve Monkeys but I feel it must have been. The correspondence is too close, and the mood has been copied too well. (Interestingly enough, a Usenet search reveals that there are other people who have seen the same thing. The world of film criticism seems to have missed it entirely, however). There is nothing wrong with this: it is simply intelligent use of source material. And for someone who loves Tiptree's work (which is scandalously hard to find given its quality) it is actually a pleasant thing to see. And the way in which the quirky sensibilities of Gilliam and Peoples were able see the similarities between apparently disparate material has resulted in a quite extraordinary film. I have seen it a few times since it was released in 1995, and to me it seems better every time.
On monday night I was flicking through the digital TV channels, and I ran into a broadcast of Terry Gilliam's film Twelve Monkeys on BBC4. This is a favourite film of mine for a variety of reasons. I like Gilliam's visual style and the quality of the art direction. I like the score, with its interesting mixture of strings and an accordian. I quite like the acting. Bruce Willis is good playing slightly against type (something that he has done a fair bit in his career, to his credit). I love Madeleine Stowe as the psychiatrist who initially believes that Willis' character is insane and who becomes steadily more intense and stressed as the movie goes along and she realises that he is indeed a visitor from future and that the world is indeed about to end. (Of the actors in the film, Brad Pitt was the one who received an Oscar nomination, but his is the least interesting performance. He just hams it up, basically). I like the run down Philadelphia locations that we see both in the present and the future.
Mostly, though, the mood of the film is interesting. It is full of a sense that the world is a wonderful and extraordinary place, but also a messy place, and that somehow we are spiraling towards a (possibly terrible) destiny that we cannot control. This mood comes from the various things I have described above, but more than that it comes from the intriguing way the screenplay was constructed by screenwriter David Peoples (who also wrote Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven and was one of two screenwriters who gave us Blade Runner.).
Most Hollywood films, particularly science fiction films, are these days a mass of overfamiliar and uncredited cliches that have been ripped off and merged together, usually not very intelligently. Twelve Monkeys on the other hand has been constructed by taking source material from two or three extremely famous places, grafting it together, and making it explicitly clear exactly what the source material was. The largest of these sources is Chris Marker's French new wave short La Jetée, which is responsible for the overall plot of the film. Man time travels back from a post apocalyptic world to attempt to learn or do something to help the future. The man who does this is haunted by a memory from his childhood before the apocalypse, in which he saw a man being murdered in an airport. Upon going back to the time and place of the memory, we find out that it was his future self he saw as a child.
I will have to confess that I have never actually seen La Jetée, so I cannot really talk about the film's mood. However, it only contains enough plot for about 30 minutes, which was the length of the original short. In order to make their film more long and complex, Gilliam and Peoples have added a Hitchcockian dimension. In particular the film is a reworking of Vertigo. This is more about mood than plot. 12 Monkeys copies the earlier film in being about a damaged character with a fixation on particular images and memories of the past that may or may not be real, and about desperately attempting to somehow freeze time and cling to those fragments of the past before everything collapses, and the question of whether this effort leads to or results from insanity. 12 Monkeys is once again is very explicit about what is its source material. The film contains similar shots, similar costumes, and towards the end the separation between the two films breaks down almost completely. Willis and Stowe actually spend some time in a theatre showing Vertigo, and then the film sort of flows into a recration of perhaps the most famous scene from Vertigo, with the same lighting, the same rotating camera, and accompanied by the actual music from Vertigo. I do wonder how much of the Vertigo theme was Peoples and how much was Gilliam. Gilliam's films have an ability to look at things from unexpected directions, and the flow into Vertigo feels like him, certainly in terms of the lighting and music.
I am not sure I have done as good a job of describing the Vertigo references as well as I might have. These are as much about mood as about plot, making them in some ways hard to describe. They are, however, very obvious, if you know the earlier film. (Virginia Vitzthum of Salon made a good stab at discussing them here).
But, however, there is a third source that to me seems fairly obvious. One thing that has changed between La Jetée and 12 Monkeys is the nature of the apocalypse from beyond which the central character is sent back in time. In 12 Monkeys it has been changed from nuclear to biological. A deadly virus has been released somehow, and has spread throughout the world and killed much of the human population. At the end of the film we discover that the virus was released deliberately by a socially awkward scientist who believes that mankind is a sickness destroying the natural environment of the earth, and that mankind must be destroyed to save the earth. The scientist is consequently seen checking in at an airport with a lengthy itinerary of destinations, to head off on a long zig-zagging journey around the world to release the virus in as many locations as possible.
Now, this plot is quite familiar to people who are well read in rather literary 1970s science fiction.
One of the finest writers to ever write in the science fiction genre wrote under the name James Tiptree Jr. Tiptree wrote fiction that is in some ways extraordinary dark, but in others very humanistic. Humanity and the world is extraordinary and amazing, but at the same time humans (and the sexes) find it impossible to genuinely connect with one another. Tiptree's stories tended to be about people connecting or at least trying to connect across the void, and about the few moments or great wonder and beauty they would sometimes find as they slowly continued on the spiral towards death. There is something extraordinarily beautiful about the way Tiptree's writing tells us we are all doomed, but that there is somehow something poetic that can briefly passed through on the way to that doom.
One of Tiptree's more famous stories is called The last flight of Dr. Ain, which chronicles the zigzagging journey around the world of a socially awkward but brilliant geneticist, who is appalled at what humanity has done to the world. The story chronicles his journey as he travels around the world to release a deadly virus in as many places as possible so the destruction of humanity will be as effective as possible and the earth will be saved. Twelve Monkeys captures the character and the plot (and the mood, not just of this one story but of Tiptree's writing in general), and it fits with La Jetée and Vertigo in a way that is somehow perfect.
It was revealed in 1976 that James Tiptree Jr. was in fact Alice Sheldon, a sixtysomething woman who had seen a great deal of the world as a child, and who had been both a CIA agent and a clinical psychologist in the decades to 1970. She killed herself in 1987, the downwards spiral having apparently become too much for her. Which is a terrible shame, as she wrote some extraordinary fiction.
I have never heard David Peoples of Terry Gilliam admit that Tiptree was an influence for Twelve Monkeys but I feel it must have been. The correspondence is too close, and the mood has been copied too well. (Interestingly enough, a Usenet search reveals that there are other people who have seen the same thing. The world of film criticism seems to have missed it entirely, however). There is nothing wrong with this: it is simply intelligent use of source material. And for someone who loves Tiptree's work (which is scandalously hard to find given its quality) it is actually a pleasant thing to see. And the way in which the quirky sensibilities of Gilliam and Peoples were able see the similarities between apparently disparate material has resulted in a quite extraordinary film. I have seen it a few times since it was released in 1995, and to me it seems better every time.
The British Papers
The Evening Standard today has a big bold headline on the front page. "Bottled Water is two years old", explaining that bottled water bought in shops may be as much as two years old.
It must have been a really slow day for news.
The Evening Standard today has a big bold headline on the front page. "Bottled Water is two years old", explaining that bottled water bought in shops may be as much as two years old.
It must have been a really slow day for news.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
More Evil
Ken Parish wonders why there are so many libertarians in the blogosphere, and explains why he is not one. As I am one of the "libertarians" he mentioned in the post, I felt the need to defend myself. Therefore, if you scroll through the comments, you will here find my political philosophy summed up in about three paragraphs.
Ken Parish wonders why there are so many libertarians in the blogosphere, and explains why he is not one. As I am one of the "libertarians" he mentioned in the post, I felt the need to defend myself. Therefore, if you scroll through the comments, you will here find my political philosophy summed up in about three paragraphs.
Evil
As pointed out by James Russell in the comments, my blog appears to have been causing popup windows to pop up. It seems that the company that was providing the "You appear to be reading this blog from....." line at the top of the page was responsible. Therefore, this company has been excommunicated from my blog. If anyone has further problems, let me know.
As pointed out by James Russell in the comments, my blog appears to have been causing popup windows to pop up. It seems that the company that was providing the "You appear to be reading this blog from....." line at the top of the page was responsible. Therefore, this company has been excommunicated from my blog. If anyone has further problems, let me know.
Monday, July 07, 2003
A milestone
I have just had my first experience of being completely fucked over by the new version of blogger, and I have just lost a post. That is a shame. Until now it has been much more reliable and bug free than the old blogger.
Update: It happened again, when rewriting the same post. This time an old bug that I thought had been fixed resurfaced. And to think I had faith in Google's ability to fix things.
I have just had my first experience of being completely fucked over by the new version of blogger, and I have just lost a post. That is a shame. Until now it has been much more reliable and bug free than the old blogger.
Update: It happened again, when rewriting the same post. This time an old bug that I thought had been fixed resurfaced. And to think I had faith in Google's ability to fix things.
The natural order reasserts itself.
Firstly, blogging has been a little light. I started writing a follow up piece on the Terminator 3 review I quoted, discussing (mainly) the differences between the sensibilities of traditional written science fiction and Hollywood science fiction. However, after writing a thousand words or so, I accidentally deleted it. For once, it was not Blogger's fault, byt my screw up entirely. I have one or two criticisms of Microsoft Windows, because errors of the kind that I made should be recoverable but are not. However, the fault was mainly mine. I might rewrite the article later, and I also might not.
Anyway, in the ongoing one day cricket series in England, Zimbabwe were last week playing a lot better in the one day series than they did in the test series against England. Many of us were hoping that they could pull off another win or two and hopefully make the final.
This was always a tall order, as became apparent over the weekend. Zimbabwe South Africa in Cardiff on Saturday and England in Bristol on Sunday, and they suffered two heavy defeats and there is now no way they can make the final. On Saturday, Zimbabwe could only manage 8/174 off their 50 overs, and South Africa breezed past this with the loss of only one wicket and with more than 15 overs to spare. South African star of the series so far Jacques Kallis did not even need to bat. Gibbs was the star with 93 not out.
Sunday was even worse for the Zimbabweans. They batted first and were bowled out for only 92. That was about that really, although Zimbabwean captain Heath Streak bowled well, and reduced England to 4/25. (He personally ended up with 4/21 off 9 overs. However, it only required a vaguely decent innings from someone for England to get the pathetically puny target. As it was Flintoff scored 47 not out with seven fours and two sixes and that was that. England finished with 4/95 off 17.5 overs to easily win the match. I suppose it is possible to make some comment about Streak being the only good bowler in the Zimbabwean side. This is true, but it didn't matter. You can't defend a target of 93 successfully.
There are still two preliminary matches to go in this series. South Africa play England in Birmingham tomorrow, and Zimbabwe in Southampton on Thursday. Whatever the result of these games, England play South Africa in the final at Lord's on Sunday.
Firstly, blogging has been a little light. I started writing a follow up piece on the Terminator 3 review I quoted, discussing (mainly) the differences between the sensibilities of traditional written science fiction and Hollywood science fiction. However, after writing a thousand words or so, I accidentally deleted it. For once, it was not Blogger's fault, byt my screw up entirely. I have one or two criticisms of Microsoft Windows, because errors of the kind that I made should be recoverable but are not. However, the fault was mainly mine. I might rewrite the article later, and I also might not.
Anyway, in the ongoing one day cricket series in England, Zimbabwe were last week playing a lot better in the one day series than they did in the test series against England. Many of us were hoping that they could pull off another win or two and hopefully make the final.
This was always a tall order, as became apparent over the weekend. Zimbabwe South Africa in Cardiff on Saturday and England in Bristol on Sunday, and they suffered two heavy defeats and there is now no way they can make the final. On Saturday, Zimbabwe could only manage 8/174 off their 50 overs, and South Africa breezed past this with the loss of only one wicket and with more than 15 overs to spare. South African star of the series so far Jacques Kallis did not even need to bat. Gibbs was the star with 93 not out.
Sunday was even worse for the Zimbabweans. They batted first and were bowled out for only 92. That was about that really, although Zimbabwean captain Heath Streak bowled well, and reduced England to 4/25. (He personally ended up with 4/21 off 9 overs. However, it only required a vaguely decent innings from someone for England to get the pathetically puny target. As it was Flintoff scored 47 not out with seven fours and two sixes and that was that. England finished with 4/95 off 17.5 overs to easily win the match. I suppose it is possible to make some comment about Streak being the only good bowler in the Zimbabwean side. This is true, but it didn't matter. You can't defend a target of 93 successfully.
There are still two preliminary matches to go in this series. South Africa play England in Birmingham tomorrow, and Zimbabwe in Southampton on Thursday. Whatever the result of these games, England play South Africa in the final at Lord's on Sunday.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
The modern world.
You go to a party, and when you are leaving you cannot find your host because he is busy posting photographs of the party to the internet.
(Brian Micklethwait, David Farrer (back), Patrick Crozier (front), Michael Jennings)
Update: Yes Mum, that's right. I no longer have a left arm. I am sorry it had to be revealed to you this way.
You go to a party, and when you are leaving you cannot find your host because he is busy posting photographs of the party to the internet.
(Brian Micklethwait, David Farrer (back), Patrick Crozier (front), Michael Jennings)
Update: Yes Mum, that's right. I no longer have a left arm. I am sorry it had to be revealed to you this way.
Saturday, July 05, 2003
I really love the Onion
As well as being a dazzlingly spot on (and at times very close to the bone) parody of a regional newspaper, the Onion contains some of the smartest reviews of popular culture around. The people who write for it have to have a spectacularly good feel for popular culture to get the parodies right, and they use this without the parody in the review section. This couple of lines from their review of Terminator 3 has to be my favourite quote from a review in a while
As well as being a dazzlingly spot on (and at times very close to the bone) parody of a regional newspaper, the Onion contains some of the smartest reviews of popular culture around. The people who write for it have to have a spectacularly good feel for popular culture to get the parodies right, and they use this without the parody in the review section. This couple of lines from their review of Terminator 3 has to be my favourite quote from a review in a while
Terminator 3 finds his good cyborg once again squaring off against a more technologically advanced evil cyborg from the future, this time a foxy lady Terminator (newcomer Kristanna Loken) who's sort of like T2's shape-shifting Terminator as redesigned by the editors of Maxim. With her big eyes, stiff gait, and robotic voice, Loken suggests a cross between the ultimate sex doll and the little-girl robot from Small Wonder, only all grown up and ready to kill.
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Around the blogs
I have a brief piece on Wimbledon and cricket at Ubersportingpundit, and a piece on national anthems and July 4 at Samizdata.
I have a brief piece on Wimbledon and cricket at Ubersportingpundit, and a piece on national anthems and July 4 at Samizdata.
Hutchison Telecom Update
The half finished post on Hutchison Telecom's bizarre Australian "business" that accidentally got posted yesterday has been finished. It is down the page here.
The half finished post on Hutchison Telecom's bizarre Australian "business" that accidentally got posted yesterday has been finished. It is down the page here.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Tiny Cricket thingy
Yesterday, England tried to play Zimbabwe at Headingley. Sadly, though, there was lots of rain. After lots of delays, England batted first in what had been reduced to a 25 over game. Zimbabwe bowled pretty well, and good bowling from Streak and Blignaut reduced England to 4/81 off 16.3 overs: not very good for what was supposed to be a 25 over game.
Sadly though, it then rained again and the match was abandoned. Zimbabwe and England too three points each.
Not much to say. Zimbabwe are clearly a better one day side than test side. Zimbabwe have three more games in the tournament: one against England and two against South Africa. If they can win one more game (and they might, as they are playing okay) they have some change of making the final, depending on other results. If they can win two (a tall order) they will definitely make the final. A South Africa v England final looks to be overwhelmingly the most likely possibility, but Zimbabwe's participation is not impossible.
Update: Of course, when the rain did come down, England captain Michael Vaughan (thankfully back from injury) was batting quite well, with 35 off 45 balls. Under the rules, the finish of the game was allowed to be delayed one hour from the scheduled time, but this time had been used up already due to the late start. Vaughan said that since it stays light until at least 9pm at this time of year, then the powers that be should consider changing the rule to allow a further extension of play in order to get a result. This cricinfo article suggests that it is in fact ICC rules that restrict the extra time to one hour.
Of course, the situation is actually more complicated than this. There are also cases where day games are played on ground with floodlights and it would be possible to extend play into the evening if the lights were turned on. So, it would make sense for different rules to apply in different times and places. Interestingly enough, when I check the ICC playing conditions that apply for one day internationals, they seem to be very flexible. Condition 12.6 simply says that "The participating countries may agree to provide for extra time where the start of play is delayed or play is suspended". It seems to actually be the current rules for games in England that restrict the extra time to one hour. So, it doesn't look like we can blame the ICC here.
This is a shame. If the rules were such that games start in the morning and that play can continue until 9pm if necessary, I think there would be very few times when you would not get a result. If the players want this (and by Vaughan's comment they seem to) then this should really be looked at.
Yesterday, England tried to play Zimbabwe at Headingley. Sadly, though, there was lots of rain. After lots of delays, England batted first in what had been reduced to a 25 over game. Zimbabwe bowled pretty well, and good bowling from Streak and Blignaut reduced England to 4/81 off 16.3 overs: not very good for what was supposed to be a 25 over game.
Sadly though, it then rained again and the match was abandoned. Zimbabwe and England too three points each.
Not much to say. Zimbabwe are clearly a better one day side than test side. Zimbabwe have three more games in the tournament: one against England and two against South Africa. If they can win one more game (and they might, as they are playing okay) they have some change of making the final, depending on other results. If they can win two (a tall order) they will definitely make the final. A South Africa v England final looks to be overwhelmingly the most likely possibility, but Zimbabwe's participation is not impossible.
Update: Of course, when the rain did come down, England captain Michael Vaughan (thankfully back from injury) was batting quite well, with 35 off 45 balls. Under the rules, the finish of the game was allowed to be delayed one hour from the scheduled time, but this time had been used up already due to the late start. Vaughan said that since it stays light until at least 9pm at this time of year, then the powers that be should consider changing the rule to allow a further extension of play in order to get a result. This cricinfo article suggests that it is in fact ICC rules that restrict the extra time to one hour.
Of course, the situation is actually more complicated than this. There are also cases where day games are played on ground with floodlights and it would be possible to extend play into the evening if the lights were turned on. So, it would make sense for different rules to apply in different times and places. Interestingly enough, when I check the ICC playing conditions that apply for one day internationals, they seem to be very flexible. Condition 12.6 simply says that "The participating countries may agree to provide for extra time where the start of play is delayed or play is suspended". It seems to actually be the current rules for games in England that restrict the extra time to one hour. So, it doesn't look like we can blame the ICC here.
This is a shame. If the rules were such that games start in the morning and that play can continue until 9pm if necessary, I think there would be very few times when you would not get a result. If the players want this (and by Vaughan's comment they seem to) then this should really be looked at.
The world's stupidest mobile phone business
Scott Wickstein has some follow up comments on my recent Samizdata piece on mobile phone technology. (There is now a lengthy further discussion in the comments section of that post, which some people may want to read, although it does get fairly geeky towards the end). In particular he points out the mess that Hutchison telecom appear to be making with their recently launched 3G network in Australia. I agree, but there are two separate issues here. One is the mess being made by Hutchison specifically, and the other is the problems with the 3G technology in general.
In order to understand all this, it is necessary to go back in time somewhat, and to look at the history of the Hutchison company. The telecoms business is all an offshoot of a the Hutchison Whampoa conglomorate belonging to Hong Kong tycool Li Ka-Shing. In the early 1990s, a lot of countries issued 2G mobile phone licences, and in most cases they issued more licences than there had been 1G (analogue licences). Hutchison bought new entrant licences in a lot of places, and built and operated networks under the name "Orange". In most instances (but not all) these networks became very successful and Hutchison sold many of them to other players at the height of the telco boom and made a huge amount of money.
When 3G licences were issued in the late 1990s, Hutchison attempted to do the same thing again. They bought 3G licences aimed at new entrants in a whole host of countries, and they are now attempting to build networks and market share as new entrants. However, it seems much harder this time, as the technology doesn't work yet, the incumbents have a lot more market power than was the case when 2G went into operation, and there are economies of scale that apply to 2G that do not apply to 3G yet. It is possible to provide new services using 3G such as video calls, but people don't appear to want this.
Now, however, we go to Hutchison in Australia. Here, the mismanagement is mind-boggling. To start out, there were only three 2G (GSM) licences issued in Australia in the early 1990s. These were awarded (on a tender basis rather than auction) to Telstra, Optus, and Vodafone. Hutchison did not get one. The next round of spectrum auctions in Australia were in 1998, when two licences were issued for spectrum in the 800MHz band formerly used by analogue services. Telstra and Hutchison bought these, and both built networks using the American technology known as CDMA. In many ways this is a superior technology (particularly in rural areas) but far fewer CDMA networks have be built in the world than GSM, and Nokia in particular is in the GSM camp. While Nokia makes CDMA handsets for the US market, it for a long time refused to supply them in Asian markets. This restricted Hutchison's product (again sold as "Orange") because the phones they had were mostly Korean and didn't appeal to the fashion conscious. Despite a lot of advertising, this, mixed in with the late launch compared to other operators led to Orange picking up very few customers in Australia. (They have an astonishingl lousy market share of about 2.8%. The market share otherwise is something like Telstra 45%, Optus 35%, Vodafone 17%).
For some reason, when more GSM licences went on sale in Australia in 2000, Hutchison spent something like $800 million Australian to buy one of these. Nobody knows why, as they have since done nothing with it. It just seems they pointlessly poured $800 million down the drain. (OneTel also bought a GSM licence at this point, and with the help of Lucent built a network, but this was switched off when OneTel later went bankrupt).
Thuse there are actually five 2G mobile phone networks in Australia. Telstra owns two (one CDMA and one GSM), Optus owns one (GSM), Vodafone one (GSM), and Hutchison one (one CDMA). (There was also one more (GSM) network that belonged to OneTel, but this was switched off when OneTel went bust).
Now we get to 3G. There are actually two separate technologies for 3G phones, UMTS (W-CDMA), which is European, and CDMA2000, which was invented by Qualcomm of the US. Existing CDMA networks can be upgraded to CDMA2000 without buying new spectrum, but UMTS requires new spectrum. (It is possible to build a CDMA2000 network in new spectrum, but not mandatory). If you have an existing CDMA network, then it seems to make sense to upgrade to CDMA2000, because the cost is a lot less. Also, there is the small fact that CDMA2000 actually works, whereas UMTS doesn't really yet.
In 2000, 3G licences went on sale in Australia, and as the number of people who wanted licences and the number of licences available were approximately the same, they didn't cost much. All the incumbents bought licences. At present, Hutchison are the only company to have built a network. However, they have built it using the UMTS technology that is incompatible with their existing network, and which doesn't work. (They have done this because Hutchison have globally decided to use the UMTS technology everywhere, and they are just obeying instructions from head office). Telstra on the other hand are upgrading their existing 2G CDMA network to CDMA2000 and at the same time have a licence to build a UMTS network if they discover later that this is the technology that is becoming dominant worldwide.
Thus we have a situation where Hutchison in Australia have built two incompatible mobile networks, have spent 800 million dollars on a licence for another incompatible network that they haven't built, and with all this they have managed to obtain less than 3% market share. This boggles the mind.
(And as for video calling being an application that nobody wants, I couldn't agree more. Picture messaging is clearly an application that people do want. (I am in Venice. Here is a photograph of the canal. You are stuck at work. Nah nah nah nah). People however generally do not want the other person to see them when they talk. There are two many issues of clothes, make-up, bad hair days, and the like. The stupid thing is that this was discovered by AT&T in the 1970s. AT&T actually wasted an enormous amount of money discovering it. Now, however, we simply have companies with no memory learning the lessons of the past all over again. The reason Hutchison have promoted video messaging as their killer application is that it is the only way they can really differentiate themselves from the competition. It is the only feature that they presently have that their competitors don't have. They are desperately clinging to it, because without it their whole business case collapses.
Oops: A half-written draft of this article escaped into the wild here. I shall finish it later. Since Scott Wickstein already left a comment, I will leave it up for now, but I will replace it with a finished version later.
Further Oops: It got partially updated, but then my computer crashed and I lost some further changes. This post is doomed.
Update: It's finished. Yay.
Scott Wickstein has some follow up comments on my recent Samizdata piece on mobile phone technology. (There is now a lengthy further discussion in the comments section of that post, which some people may want to read, although it does get fairly geeky towards the end). In particular he points out the mess that Hutchison telecom appear to be making with their recently launched 3G network in Australia. I agree, but there are two separate issues here. One is the mess being made by Hutchison specifically, and the other is the problems with the 3G technology in general.
In order to understand all this, it is necessary to go back in time somewhat, and to look at the history of the Hutchison company. The telecoms business is all an offshoot of a the Hutchison Whampoa conglomorate belonging to Hong Kong tycool Li Ka-Shing. In the early 1990s, a lot of countries issued 2G mobile phone licences, and in most cases they issued more licences than there had been 1G (analogue licences). Hutchison bought new entrant licences in a lot of places, and built and operated networks under the name "Orange". In most instances (but not all) these networks became very successful and Hutchison sold many of them to other players at the height of the telco boom and made a huge amount of money.
When 3G licences were issued in the late 1990s, Hutchison attempted to do the same thing again. They bought 3G licences aimed at new entrants in a whole host of countries, and they are now attempting to build networks and market share as new entrants. However, it seems much harder this time, as the technology doesn't work yet, the incumbents have a lot more market power than was the case when 2G went into operation, and there are economies of scale that apply to 2G that do not apply to 3G yet. It is possible to provide new services using 3G such as video calls, but people don't appear to want this.
Now, however, we go to Hutchison in Australia. Here, the mismanagement is mind-boggling. To start out, there were only three 2G (GSM) licences issued in Australia in the early 1990s. These were awarded (on a tender basis rather than auction) to Telstra, Optus, and Vodafone. Hutchison did not get one. The next round of spectrum auctions in Australia were in 1998, when two licences were issued for spectrum in the 800MHz band formerly used by analogue services. Telstra and Hutchison bought these, and both built networks using the American technology known as CDMA. In many ways this is a superior technology (particularly in rural areas) but far fewer CDMA networks have be built in the world than GSM, and Nokia in particular is in the GSM camp. While Nokia makes CDMA handsets for the US market, it for a long time refused to supply them in Asian markets. This restricted Hutchison's product (again sold as "Orange") because the phones they had were mostly Korean and didn't appeal to the fashion conscious. Despite a lot of advertising, this, mixed in with the late launch compared to other operators led to Orange picking up very few customers in Australia. (They have an astonishingl lousy market share of about 2.8%. The market share otherwise is something like Telstra 45%, Optus 35%, Vodafone 17%).
For some reason, when more GSM licences went on sale in Australia in 2000, Hutchison spent something like $800 million Australian to buy one of these. Nobody knows why, as they have since done nothing with it. It just seems they pointlessly poured $800 million down the drain. (OneTel also bought a GSM licence at this point, and with the help of Lucent built a network, but this was switched off when OneTel later went bankrupt).
Thuse there are actually five 2G mobile phone networks in Australia. Telstra owns two (one CDMA and one GSM), Optus owns one (GSM), Vodafone one (GSM), and Hutchison one (one CDMA). (There was also one more (GSM) network that belonged to OneTel, but this was switched off when OneTel went bust).
Now we get to 3G. There are actually two separate technologies for 3G phones, UMTS (W-CDMA), which is European, and CDMA2000, which was invented by Qualcomm of the US. Existing CDMA networks can be upgraded to CDMA2000 without buying new spectrum, but UMTS requires new spectrum. (It is possible to build a CDMA2000 network in new spectrum, but not mandatory). If you have an existing CDMA network, then it seems to make sense to upgrade to CDMA2000, because the cost is a lot less. Also, there is the small fact that CDMA2000 actually works, whereas UMTS doesn't really yet.
In 2000, 3G licences went on sale in Australia, and as the number of people who wanted licences and the number of licences available were approximately the same, they didn't cost much. All the incumbents bought licences. At present, Hutchison are the only company to have built a network. However, they have built it using the UMTS technology that is incompatible with their existing network, and which doesn't work. (They have done this because Hutchison have globally decided to use the UMTS technology everywhere, and they are just obeying instructions from head office). Telstra on the other hand are upgrading their existing 2G CDMA network to CDMA2000 and at the same time have a licence to build a UMTS network if they discover later that this is the technology that is becoming dominant worldwide.
Thus we have a situation where Hutchison in Australia have built two incompatible mobile networks, have spent 800 million dollars on a licence for another incompatible network that they haven't built, and with all this they have managed to obtain less than 3% market share. This boggles the mind.
(And as for video calling being an application that nobody wants, I couldn't agree more. Picture messaging is clearly an application that people do want. (I am in Venice. Here is a photograph of the canal. You are stuck at work. Nah nah nah nah). People however generally do not want the other person to see them when they talk. There are two many issues of clothes, make-up, bad hair days, and the like. The stupid thing is that this was discovered by AT&T in the 1970s. AT&T actually wasted an enormous amount of money discovering it. Now, however, we simply have companies with no memory learning the lessons of the past all over again. The reason Hutchison have promoted video messaging as their killer application is that it is the only way they can really differentiate themselves from the competition. It is the only feature that they presently have that their competitors don't have. They are desperately clinging to it, because without it their whole business case collapses.
Oops: A half-written draft of this article escaped into the wild here. I shall finish it later. Since Scott Wickstein already left a comment, I will leave it up for now, but I will replace it with a finished version later.
Further Oops: It got partially updated, but then my computer crashed and I lost some further changes. This post is doomed.
Update: It's finished. Yay.
A small milestone
The blog has just had its thousandth comment posted. (I think around 350 of the comments posted have been me responding to other comments, but I don't have an exact number). I find the comments section here to be rather cozy, almost like friends having a chat around a fire on a cold winter night with a good bottle of port. So thanks, everyone.
The blog has just had its thousandth comment posted. (I think around 350 of the comments posted have been me responding to other comments, but I don't have an exact number). I find the comments section here to be rather cozy, almost like friends having a chat around a fire on a cold winter night with a good bottle of port. So thanks, everyone.
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
A great Aussie invention
In Australia, beer bottles generally come in two sizes. The larger of these is known as a "long neck" and holds 750ml of beer. Typically, beer from such a bottle is poured into glasses, and may be shared by more than one person. Smaller bottles are known as "stubbies", and these used to be normally hold 250ml of beer, although 375ml is now more common. Typically, the top is removed from a stubby, and the beer is consumed directly from a bottle. (To achieve the full Australian male experience, this should be done while standing around a barbecue and occasionally prodding sausages with an oversized fork). Around 20 years ago, when I was a child, a change came over the design of the stubby. This was the invention of the "twist top". Rather than having a single round glass rim, the glass in the neck ot the bottle forms the shape of a thread. A standard metal top is fitted over the thread. This means that the bottle can be opened either using an opener, or by tightly wrapping your hand around the bottle top and twisting until the top comes off.
In Australia, this was an important innovation. It allowed men standing around barbecues to open their beer without needing to find an opener. And they could show their manliness by not flinching at the small amount of pain felt when opening a bottle this way. They could pretend that they in fact had hands toughened by manual labor in the somewhat mythical Australian outback. That kind of thing.
Before moving overseas, I just kind of assumed that this important innovation had affected beer bottle design elsewhere as well as in Australia. However, apparently not. I have not seen the twist top anywhere else. Beer bottles elsewhere seem to need openers. Foreigners have no need for the standing round the barbecue and opening beer bottles with their hands ritual. Curious.
In Australia, beer bottles generally come in two sizes. The larger of these is known as a "long neck" and holds 750ml of beer. Typically, beer from such a bottle is poured into glasses, and may be shared by more than one person. Smaller bottles are known as "stubbies", and these used to be normally hold 250ml of beer, although 375ml is now more common. Typically, the top is removed from a stubby, and the beer is consumed directly from a bottle. (To achieve the full Australian male experience, this should be done while standing around a barbecue and occasionally prodding sausages with an oversized fork). Around 20 years ago, when I was a child, a change came over the design of the stubby. This was the invention of the "twist top". Rather than having a single round glass rim, the glass in the neck ot the bottle forms the shape of a thread. A standard metal top is fitted over the thread. This means that the bottle can be opened either using an opener, or by tightly wrapping your hand around the bottle top and twisting until the top comes off.
In Australia, this was an important innovation. It allowed men standing around barbecues to open their beer without needing to find an opener. And they could show their manliness by not flinching at the small amount of pain felt when opening a bottle this way. They could pretend that they in fact had hands toughened by manual labor in the somewhat mythical Australian outback. That kind of thing.
Before moving overseas, I just kind of assumed that this important innovation had affected beer bottle design elsewhere as well as in Australia. However, apparently not. I have not seen the twist top anywhere else. Beer bottles elsewhere seem to need openers. Foreigners have no need for the standing round the barbecue and opening beer bottles with their hands ritual. Curious.
BT Sucks
My usual e-mail address, mjj12@btopenworld.com, is not working very well at the moment. I am receiving e-mail, but at unpredictable times after long delays. If you really want to contact me, please send e-mail to mjj122@yahoo.com, which I shall check regularly today. Alternately, if you have received mail from me in the past, and you hit reply, you will find that the e-mail will go to a third address at a different ISP. This address is still largely spam-free, so I am not posting it on the web in any form.
My usual e-mail address, mjj12@btopenworld.com, is not working very well at the moment. I am receiving e-mail, but at unpredictable times after long delays. If you really want to contact me, please send e-mail to mjj122@yahoo.com, which I shall check regularly today. Alternately, if you have received mail from me in the past, and you hit reply, you will find that the e-mail will go to a third address at a different ISP. This address is still largely spam-free, so I am not posting it on the web in any form.
Monday, June 30, 2003
It's picture time
When in Bilbao recently, it was good to see that figures from authentic Basque culture are being used to instruct the people in how to correctly use a rubbish bin
So how do you say "Have a cow, man" or "Eat my shorts" in Euskera, anyway? I particularly like the picture of Barney on the beer can, which careful readers will observe was actually photographed on a different bin
When in Bilbao recently, it was good to see that figures from authentic Basque culture are being used to instruct the people in how to correctly use a rubbish bin
So how do you say "Have a cow, man" or "Eat my shorts" in Euskera, anyway? I particularly like the picture of Barney on the beer can, which careful readers will observe was actually photographed on a different bin
Something that annoys me
I have a piece on bag searches in Australian shops and the related civil liberties issues over at the White Rose
I have a piece on bag searches in Australian shops and the related civil liberties issues over at the White Rose
A good effort
A few weeks ago, I commented that in its home matches this season the West Indian cricket team had lost every match they played when the series in question was still undecided, and won every "dead" match after the series was decided. At the time there was one series to go: the two match test series against Sri Lanka. As I have written on this blog, the first match was drawn due to rain, so this in a sense broke the West Indian jinx. However, when it came to the crunch in the second test this weekend, it is nice to see that the West Indians came good. At the end of the second day's play, Sri Lanka were 5/129 in their second innings, a lead of 146 runs. The West Indies needed to bowl Sri Lanka out as quickly as possible and hope that their fine batting lineup could get the runs in a peculiarly low scoring match. In particular, it was time for Lara to play what is known in cricket as a "captain's knock", an innings in which the captain demonstrates to his teammates how it is done.
Before that, though, there were wickets to be taken. As it happened, Corey Collymore continued the job he started on Saturday evening, taking a total of 7 wickets for 57 runs. Despite a little resistance from Dharmasena and Vaas, Sri Lanka were bowled out for 194, setting the West Indies a very gettable target of 212, by most standards not very much, but (if achieved) the highest innings score of the match. The West Indies lost Gayle very quickly and Hinds with the score on 50, but after that Sarwan and Lara did the worlk with little difficulty. Sarwan was out for 82 with the scores level and one run required to win, and Lara did what was asked of him, being 80 not out at the end. In a way it was a shame that the target wasn't a few more, as that way Lara could have completed his sixth century in his last six matches against Sri Lanka. Anyway, the West Indies won the match by seven wickets and the series 1-0, with Collymore being declared man of the match and of the series. (That second award seems a little hard on Lara to me).
And so ends the West Indian home season. The West Indies dominated cricket from about 1980 to 1993, before falling into dreadful decline, and losing to just about everyone. This season they have shown signs that they are on the way back. They played well at times in the World Cup, thanks at least partly due to some great batting from Sarwan. Sadly, the combination of defaults, rain, and an upset in a game not involving them cost them a place in the second round of that tournament. They then went on to lose to Australia at home, but that happens to everyone. Thankfully, they showed some good moments in that series, and Lara batted superbly. Finally, they ended the season on a high note with this win over Sri Lanka. The West Indies play South Africa in South Africa at the end of the year. That should be good. I love watching West Indian cricket, particularly Brian Lara when he is in the sort of form he has been in recently. I must try to go there in four years: perhaps for the World Cup, perhaps for the Australian tour that follows it.
Briefly, South Africa played Zimbabwe in Canterbury yesterday. South Africa batted first and scored 5/272 off 50 overs thanks to 125 not out from Jacques Kallis, his second successive century in this series. This was always likely to be too much for the Zimbabweans, whose batting lacks the depth needed to chase that sort of score. The Zimbabweans made a reasonable fist of it, at one point being 2/146 off 33 overs, but after Friend and Flower were out the wickets tumbled, the Zimbabweans scrambling to 9/226 off the 50 overs and losing by 46 runs. Zimbabwe will likely have to win two of their last four matches to make the final, which is a tall order for them.
A few weeks ago, I commented that in its home matches this season the West Indian cricket team had lost every match they played when the series in question was still undecided, and won every "dead" match after the series was decided. At the time there was one series to go: the two match test series against Sri Lanka. As I have written on this blog, the first match was drawn due to rain, so this in a sense broke the West Indian jinx. However, when it came to the crunch in the second test this weekend, it is nice to see that the West Indians came good. At the end of the second day's play, Sri Lanka were 5/129 in their second innings, a lead of 146 runs. The West Indies needed to bowl Sri Lanka out as quickly as possible and hope that their fine batting lineup could get the runs in a peculiarly low scoring match. In particular, it was time for Lara to play what is known in cricket as a "captain's knock", an innings in which the captain demonstrates to his teammates how it is done.
Before that, though, there were wickets to be taken. As it happened, Corey Collymore continued the job he started on Saturday evening, taking a total of 7 wickets for 57 runs. Despite a little resistance from Dharmasena and Vaas, Sri Lanka were bowled out for 194, setting the West Indies a very gettable target of 212, by most standards not very much, but (if achieved) the highest innings score of the match. The West Indies lost Gayle very quickly and Hinds with the score on 50, but after that Sarwan and Lara did the worlk with little difficulty. Sarwan was out for 82 with the scores level and one run required to win, and Lara did what was asked of him, being 80 not out at the end. In a way it was a shame that the target wasn't a few more, as that way Lara could have completed his sixth century in his last six matches against Sri Lanka. Anyway, the West Indies won the match by seven wickets and the series 1-0, with Collymore being declared man of the match and of the series. (That second award seems a little hard on Lara to me).
And so ends the West Indian home season. The West Indies dominated cricket from about 1980 to 1993, before falling into dreadful decline, and losing to just about everyone. This season they have shown signs that they are on the way back. They played well at times in the World Cup, thanks at least partly due to some great batting from Sarwan. Sadly, the combination of defaults, rain, and an upset in a game not involving them cost them a place in the second round of that tournament. They then went on to lose to Australia at home, but that happens to everyone. Thankfully, they showed some good moments in that series, and Lara batted superbly. Finally, they ended the season on a high note with this win over Sri Lanka. The West Indies play South Africa in South Africa at the end of the year. That should be good. I love watching West Indian cricket, particularly Brian Lara when he is in the sort of form he has been in recently. I must try to go there in four years: perhaps for the World Cup, perhaps for the Australian tour that follows it.
Briefly, South Africa played Zimbabwe in Canterbury yesterday. South Africa batted first and scored 5/272 off 50 overs thanks to 125 not out from Jacques Kallis, his second successive century in this series. This was always likely to be too much for the Zimbabweans, whose batting lacks the depth needed to chase that sort of score. The Zimbabweans made a reasonable fist of it, at one point being 2/146 off 33 overs, but after Friend and Flower were out the wickets tumbled, the Zimbabweans scrambling to 9/226 off the 50 overs and losing by 46 runs. Zimbabwe will likely have to win two of their last four matches to make the final, which is a tall order for them.
Yum
Apparently we are going to have Krispy Kreme in Sydney very soon. Perhaps I should return.
Update: Further research informs me that the store is open, and in fact that the only Krispy Kreme store outside North America is in Penrith. This is not where I would have picked it to be. Not that there is anything wrong with Penrith, particularly. It's just that the place is suburban and somewhat nondescript, although it does have a nice river running through it. That said, I can just imagine the store amongst all the other franchise operations outside Panthers World of Entertainment, next to the far less classy Spur Steak Ranch (one of the few Spur Steak Ranches outside Africa, but still not especially classy).
That said, it is probably somewhere else in Penrith entirely.
Apparently we are going to have Krispy Kreme in Sydney very soon. Perhaps I should return.
Update: Further research informs me that the store is open, and in fact that the only Krispy Kreme store outside North America is in Penrith. This is not where I would have picked it to be. Not that there is anything wrong with Penrith, particularly. It's just that the place is suburban and somewhat nondescript, although it does have a nice river running through it. That said, I can just imagine the store amongst all the other franchise operations outside Panthers World of Entertainment, next to the far less classy Spur Steak Ranch (one of the few Spur Steak Ranches outside Africa, but still not especially classy).
That said, it is probably somewhere else in Penrith entirely.
Sadly, they don't make film stars like this any more
Firstly Gregory Peck, and now Katharine Hepburn has died. She was 96. As we say in cricket playing countries, she had a good innings.
Firstly Gregory Peck, and now Katharine Hepburn has died. She was 96. As we say in cricket playing countries, she had a good innings.
Sunday, June 29, 2003
A man and his mobile phone
I have a lengthy piece over at Samizdata on trends in mobile phone technology.
I have a lengthy piece over at Samizdata on trends in mobile phone technology.
Saturday, June 28, 2003
This is one confusing cricket team
After playing very well to win a series against Pakistan last week, and playing pitifully to lose to Zimbabwe on Thursday, England today took on South Africa at the Oval in south London in the second game of the triangular one day series. South Africa played badly in the World Cup, and we are still trying to figure out how good their side is under new captain Graeme Smith. Smith won the toss and elected to bat, and the England side couldn't really contain the South African batsmen. Jacques Kallis in particular had a good day, scoring a fine 107. Boucher provided good support, scoring 55, and Pollock and Hall scored some quick runs at the end to give South Africa a very good 6/264 off their 50 overs.
This should have been hard for England to chase, but it wasn't. Trescothick (deputising as captain as Vaughan was out injured today) and Vikram Solanski scored exactly 200 for the first wicket (off only 31.6 overs) before Solanski was out for 106, his first century for England. England then lost a couple of quick wickets, but there was never any real danger. Trescothick was then sensibly cautious, and also scored a century, being 114 not out when England scored the winning runs for the loss of four wickets with one ball short of five overs to spare.
What can be said? Obviously it was a good win for England. At this point I have no idea how good England are. Actually, I think they are quite good, but they clearly don't have the mental strength of Australia. They can play well, but can lose focus as they did on Thursday and in the field today, although their batsmen saved them today. They don't have the ability to consciously turn the focus on when it is really needed. Australia can do this, and this is what makes Australia so impressive.
Of course, the other way of looking at it is that England have played five one day games so far this season, and when Trescothick has batted well they have won and when he hasn't they have lost. A cynic might say that in the one day game, they are simply way too dependent on one player.
I don't think this is true, but England need someone else to chip in, particulary on occasions when Trescothick has failed. Solanski was terrific today, but Trescothick was also, and that must have helped. (Still, it is very encouraging to see more players of Indian background coming into the England side. If England are to put good sides on the field in the future, that is where many of the players are going to have to come from). Dare I say it, the full time England one day captain needs to lead by example. When he is back, Vaughan needs runs. In one day cricket, he has not yet done so.
In other cricket, the second test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka continues. (I commented on day one elsewhere. The gist of it was that Fidel Edwards, playing in his first test and only his second first class game, took five wickets and Sri Lanka were bowled out for 208). This morning it looked like the West Indies would make a big score and take control, particularly when they were 0/38. However another inexperienced fast bowler, Ratnayake Nissanka, playing in only his fourth test, took five wickets for Sri Lanka. Aided ably by Muttiah Muralitharan (who took the vital wicket of Lara), the West Indies were bowled out for 191, and the match was back in the balance.
Sri Lanka then needed to bat well in order to set the West Indies a big target. Despite the fall of wicekts, the pitch looked okay to me. Given Lara, Sarwan etc are in the West Indian side, and given that Lara has scored five centuries in his last five matches against Sri Lanka, the larger the total the better.
As it happened though, the wickets continued to fall, this time shared between Collywood, Taylor, and Edwards. At stumps, Sri Lanka were 5/129. Given that Tillakaratne is still there Sri Lanka could make a decent score, but the chances are they won't. My money is on a target of around 200 being set, and the West Indies making it easily, mainly because I don't think Lara is going to fail for the second time in the match. Although, given how wickets have been falling, who really knows? It's a good tight match between two quality sides, and these are good to see.
After playing very well to win a series against Pakistan last week, and playing pitifully to lose to Zimbabwe on Thursday, England today took on South Africa at the Oval in south London in the second game of the triangular one day series. South Africa played badly in the World Cup, and we are still trying to figure out how good their side is under new captain Graeme Smith. Smith won the toss and elected to bat, and the England side couldn't really contain the South African batsmen. Jacques Kallis in particular had a good day, scoring a fine 107. Boucher provided good support, scoring 55, and Pollock and Hall scored some quick runs at the end to give South Africa a very good 6/264 off their 50 overs.
This should have been hard for England to chase, but it wasn't. Trescothick (deputising as captain as Vaughan was out injured today) and Vikram Solanski scored exactly 200 for the first wicket (off only 31.6 overs) before Solanski was out for 106, his first century for England. England then lost a couple of quick wickets, but there was never any real danger. Trescothick was then sensibly cautious, and also scored a century, being 114 not out when England scored the winning runs for the loss of four wickets with one ball short of five overs to spare.
What can be said? Obviously it was a good win for England. At this point I have no idea how good England are. Actually, I think they are quite good, but they clearly don't have the mental strength of Australia. They can play well, but can lose focus as they did on Thursday and in the field today, although their batsmen saved them today. They don't have the ability to consciously turn the focus on when it is really needed. Australia can do this, and this is what makes Australia so impressive.
Of course, the other way of looking at it is that England have played five one day games so far this season, and when Trescothick has batted well they have won and when he hasn't they have lost. A cynic might say that in the one day game, they are simply way too dependent on one player.
I don't think this is true, but England need someone else to chip in, particulary on occasions when Trescothick has failed. Solanski was terrific today, but Trescothick was also, and that must have helped. (Still, it is very encouraging to see more players of Indian background coming into the England side. If England are to put good sides on the field in the future, that is where many of the players are going to have to come from). Dare I say it, the full time England one day captain needs to lead by example. When he is back, Vaughan needs runs. In one day cricket, he has not yet done so.
In other cricket, the second test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka continues. (I commented on day one elsewhere. The gist of it was that Fidel Edwards, playing in his first test and only his second first class game, took five wickets and Sri Lanka were bowled out for 208). This morning it looked like the West Indies would make a big score and take control, particularly when they were 0/38. However another inexperienced fast bowler, Ratnayake Nissanka, playing in only his fourth test, took five wickets for Sri Lanka. Aided ably by Muttiah Muralitharan (who took the vital wicket of Lara), the West Indies were bowled out for 191, and the match was back in the balance.
Sri Lanka then needed to bat well in order to set the West Indies a big target. Despite the fall of wicekts, the pitch looked okay to me. Given Lara, Sarwan etc are in the West Indian side, and given that Lara has scored five centuries in his last five matches against Sri Lanka, the larger the total the better.
As it happened though, the wickets continued to fall, this time shared between Collywood, Taylor, and Edwards. At stumps, Sri Lanka were 5/129. Given that Tillakaratne is still there Sri Lanka could make a decent score, but the chances are they won't. My money is on a target of around 200 being set, and the West Indies making it easily, mainly because I don't think Lara is going to fail for the second time in the match. Although, given how wickets have been falling, who really knows? It's a good tight match between two quality sides, and these are good to see.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Thoughts on privacy
In commemoration of Orwell's 100th birthday, Neuromancer author William Gibson had an op-ed piece in Wednesday's New York Times, in which he discussed Orwell's vision, and how it was influenced by its time. In particular, Gibson believes that Orwell's vision was influenced by the broadcast nature of the media at the time: radio and the nascent invention of television were highly centralised. The surveillance scheme (and the totalitarian states) envisioned in 1984 were centralised in the same way, from some giant central security apparatus. Gibson believes that today's world, and the world of the future, is different. Greater surveillance will be mixed with much greater freedom of information. People with access to all this new information will consist of many non-state as well as state actors. We will live in a world with much less privacy, but not necessarily much less freedom. Surveillance states without this fancy new technology were pretty effective, and still are pretty effective in places (from North Korea to Burma to Cuba) where old technological paradigms still apply. Would these states have been more oppressive if the people runing them had PCs? It's hard to say. Would the presence of PCs in the security apparatus in East Germany rather than mountains of paper records have prevented the end of European communism? It's doubtful. Changing surveillance technology is taking us somewhere new, it may be that the vision of Orwell provides a good guide as to what it is.
After quickly observing that Gibson sounds rather like Brian Micklethwait, I will observe that Gibson is at least partly right. The greater freedom of information that results from many to many communications networks changes things dramatically. We saw glimpses of this in the 1980s with the invention of the fax machine, which more or less removed the mass media's ability to bury a story that the people were not supposed to know about. (The key story was something tawdry: a transcipt allegedly of the Prince of Wales talking to his mistress). This reached every office in London seemingly in minutes. The media and hence the courts could no longer supress things like that. With the invention of e-mail and SMS text messaging, such communications became more ubiquitous, and no longer tied to the home or office.
We are suddenly in a world where a great deal of information is being collected on us and transmitted to other places, and yet at the same time, we are collecting a lot of information on ourselves, and transmitting it voluntarily, and to some extent this controls the flow. Much of this information is and will continue to be cultural rather than political in content. Like Brian, I am fascinated by this phenomenon, which can also be for the good. Due largely to the use of SMS messaging, the Chinese government this year completely failed to keep information secret about the spread of the SARS virus in China. People throughout the country knew far more about what was going on than the government wanted them to know. The Chinese government now seems to know that it cannot keep things secret like this any more, and as today's Economist discusses, the consequences could be profound.
I agree with Gibson that things are less Orwellian, but that doesn't necessarily mean things are good. More information is being collected. I agree that this can't be avoided. The questions are how is it going to be collected, who is going to be collecting it, how may it be used. Virtually everywhere government continues to grow in size, and in many places government surveillance systems and databases of information become larger, and governments continue to use the threat of terrorism and the simple fact of the existence of the new technology to expand their powers and the scope of such systems. While I think the simultaneous new openness of information increases the potential for these systems to be embarrassed by other parties, the potential for misuse of such information remains enormous. The ability of incorrect information to ruin people's lives and for bureacrats to annoy and harrass the lives of ordinary people is also multiplied dramatically by the new technology.
So what do we do? I think we have to acknowledge that while technology has changed, human nature fundamentally hasn't. Over the last 1000 years, an entire legal system and system of rights has evolved to protect people from intrusive government and other intrusive parties. This is why we have accountability to courts and elected officials. This is why we have presumption of innocence. This is why nobody can search my home without a warrant. It isn't good enough to say that technology has changed, and therefore these rights are no longer relevant and must be removed, because those things about human nature that made these protections necessary in the first place have not changed, and this is something we still need to be protected from. In fact we need to see how they can be extended into the digital world. The alternative is to find out in a few years that great miscarriages of justice have occurred due to the lack of them, and we then have to either resign ourselves to living in a world where great miscarriages of justice occur, or establish a new set of protections from scratch.
And the fact is a great many politicians, policemen and bureacrats want to take these protections away. The danger is in some ways not so much the new technology itself, as the fact that it puts everything in flux. Those people who have always wanted ID cards, the ability to search houses without warrants, the ability to listen to private conversations and such have an excuse to start talking about these issues again and to argue that the issues are not settled. And the new technology provides a tremendous amount of jargon with which these same old proposals can be worded to make them sound like they are not the same after all. Which is why it is important for us to make it clear when they are.
Crossposted to The White Rose
In commemoration of Orwell's 100th birthday, Neuromancer author William Gibson had an op-ed piece in Wednesday's New York Times, in which he discussed Orwell's vision, and how it was influenced by its time. In particular, Gibson believes that Orwell's vision was influenced by the broadcast nature of the media at the time: radio and the nascent invention of television were highly centralised. The surveillance scheme (and the totalitarian states) envisioned in 1984 were centralised in the same way, from some giant central security apparatus. Gibson believes that today's world, and the world of the future, is different. Greater surveillance will be mixed with much greater freedom of information. People with access to all this new information will consist of many non-state as well as state actors. We will live in a world with much less privacy, but not necessarily much less freedom. Surveillance states without this fancy new technology were pretty effective, and still are pretty effective in places (from North Korea to Burma to Cuba) where old technological paradigms still apply. Would these states have been more oppressive if the people runing them had PCs? It's hard to say. Would the presence of PCs in the security apparatus in East Germany rather than mountains of paper records have prevented the end of European communism? It's doubtful. Changing surveillance technology is taking us somewhere new, it may be that the vision of Orwell provides a good guide as to what it is.
After quickly observing that Gibson sounds rather like Brian Micklethwait, I will observe that Gibson is at least partly right. The greater freedom of information that results from many to many communications networks changes things dramatically. We saw glimpses of this in the 1980s with the invention of the fax machine, which more or less removed the mass media's ability to bury a story that the people were not supposed to know about. (The key story was something tawdry: a transcipt allegedly of the Prince of Wales talking to his mistress). This reached every office in London seemingly in minutes. The media and hence the courts could no longer supress things like that. With the invention of e-mail and SMS text messaging, such communications became more ubiquitous, and no longer tied to the home or office.
We are suddenly in a world where a great deal of information is being collected on us and transmitted to other places, and yet at the same time, we are collecting a lot of information on ourselves, and transmitting it voluntarily, and to some extent this controls the flow. Much of this information is and will continue to be cultural rather than political in content. Like Brian, I am fascinated by this phenomenon, which can also be for the good. Due largely to the use of SMS messaging, the Chinese government this year completely failed to keep information secret about the spread of the SARS virus in China. People throughout the country knew far more about what was going on than the government wanted them to know. The Chinese government now seems to know that it cannot keep things secret like this any more, and as today's Economist discusses, the consequences could be profound.
I agree with Gibson that things are less Orwellian, but that doesn't necessarily mean things are good. More information is being collected. I agree that this can't be avoided. The questions are how is it going to be collected, who is going to be collecting it, how may it be used. Virtually everywhere government continues to grow in size, and in many places government surveillance systems and databases of information become larger, and governments continue to use the threat of terrorism and the simple fact of the existence of the new technology to expand their powers and the scope of such systems. While I think the simultaneous new openness of information increases the potential for these systems to be embarrassed by other parties, the potential for misuse of such information remains enormous. The ability of incorrect information to ruin people's lives and for bureacrats to annoy and harrass the lives of ordinary people is also multiplied dramatically by the new technology.
So what do we do? I think we have to acknowledge that while technology has changed, human nature fundamentally hasn't. Over the last 1000 years, an entire legal system and system of rights has evolved to protect people from intrusive government and other intrusive parties. This is why we have accountability to courts and elected officials. This is why we have presumption of innocence. This is why nobody can search my home without a warrant. It isn't good enough to say that technology has changed, and therefore these rights are no longer relevant and must be removed, because those things about human nature that made these protections necessary in the first place have not changed, and this is something we still need to be protected from. In fact we need to see how they can be extended into the digital world. The alternative is to find out in a few years that great miscarriages of justice have occurred due to the lack of them, and we then have to either resign ourselves to living in a world where great miscarriages of justice occur, or establish a new set of protections from scratch.
And the fact is a great many politicians, policemen and bureacrats want to take these protections away. The danger is in some ways not so much the new technology itself, as the fact that it puts everything in flux. Those people who have always wanted ID cards, the ability to search houses without warrants, the ability to listen to private conversations and such have an excuse to start talking about these issues again and to argue that the issues are not settled. And the new technology provides a tremendous amount of jargon with which these same old proposals can be worded to make them sound like they are not the same after all. Which is why it is important for us to make it clear when they are.
Crossposted to The White Rose
More on The Passion
Long term readers will remember that a few months ago I wrote about Mel Gibson's upcoming film The Passion, which tells the story of Christ and is entirely in Latin and Aramaic. In particular, I wondered to what extent the content of the film would be influenced by the somewhat extreme Catholic sect to which Gibson belongs, and, given the extremely unpleasant views (holocaust denial, etc) of certain members of Gibson's family, whether the film would be anti-Semitic.
Aint it Cool News has pointed me to the first review of the film from someone who has actually seen it. (Follow up posting from the same person here). It's a good review, saying that the film is not anti-Semitic, that it is a fairly faithful telling of the Gospel of St John. Previous reports that the film would not have subtitles turn out to not be true. We are still not quite sure when we are going to see it, as distributors had previously shied away from it due to the controversy and perceived eccentricity of the project.
The film now sonds less eccentric, which in a way is a shame. I am now quite interested in seeing it.
Long term readers will remember that a few months ago I wrote about Mel Gibson's upcoming film The Passion, which tells the story of Christ and is entirely in Latin and Aramaic. In particular, I wondered to what extent the content of the film would be influenced by the somewhat extreme Catholic sect to which Gibson belongs, and, given the extremely unpleasant views (holocaust denial, etc) of certain members of Gibson's family, whether the film would be anti-Semitic.
Aint it Cool News has pointed me to the first review of the film from someone who has actually seen it. (Follow up posting from the same person here). It's a good review, saying that the film is not anti-Semitic, that it is a fairly faithful telling of the Gospel of St John. Previous reports that the film would not have subtitles turn out to not be true. We are still not quite sure when we are going to see it, as distributors had previously shied away from it due to the controversy and perceived eccentricity of the project.
The film now sonds less eccentric, which in a way is a shame. I am now quite interested in seeing it.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
A fine innings from Grant Flower
Okay, England have just played a test series against Zimbabwe, in which Zimbabwe were absolutely thrashed. Then, England played a one day series against Pakistan, a much better rated side, and played well to win the series. Today, England played Zimbabwe in the first match of a triangular one day series that also includes South Africa. It should be a doddle for England, right.
Well, no. Before we start, it is worth looking at the Zimbabwe's history of playing one day internationals.
Zimbabwe played their first one day international in the World Cup in 1983, when they played Australia in the opening match. Amazingly, they won the match, a result that cost Australia a place in the semi-finals of that tournament. (Australia found this deeply embarassing, and have not taken Zimbabwe lightly again. As a consequence, Australia have won all of the 19 games they have played against Zimbabwe since). After that game, Zimbabwe lost their next 18 one day internationals. They did not play England until the 1992 World Cup, and their first game against England was their next win. This victory was a major factor in Zimbabwe being granted test status later that year.
Rather than spurring England on to a lot of victories, as had happened with Australia's 1983 loss to Zimbabwe, this loss appeared to have really spooked England, and they managed to lose five of their next seven matches against Zimbabwe. After that, England got their act together, and going into today's game, England's overall record against Zimbabwe was 15 wins and 7 losses. However, there has always been a feeling that England have a certain dodginess against Zimbabwe.
And so it turned out today. Zimbabwe sent England in. England got off to a reasonable start, but some good bowling by Heath Streak in particular reduced England to 6/144. Clarke and Read managed to score a few more runs, but England were bowled out for 191. Flintoff's 53 was the top score. Not a very good effort.
Zimbabwe only needed to bat decently to win, but on this tour so far they have not managed to bat decently. And at the start they didn't appear to be batting decently, slumping to a dreadful 4/15. But the very experienced Grant Flower was then batting. While not the world class player his brother is, Flower is a quality international class player, and he played very sensibly today, scoring at the right run rate without attempting to do anything silly. Stuart Matsikenyeri did a good job of staying with him, before being out for 44 to a rash shot with the score on 111. Heath Streak was out shortly afterwards, and England again looked like winning. However, Sean Ervine did a very good job of sticking with Streak, and the two players got Zimbabwe home, with four wickets and two overs to spare. Grant Flower ended up with 96 not out.
I have very mixed feelings about the Zimbabwe cricket team being in England. I think the tour should have been cancelled due to the clear political interference in the selection of the team. However, the tour so far must have been pretty demoralising for the Zimbabwean cricketers. Today was a good win, and I am sure it makes them feel a little better.
Okay, England have just played a test series against Zimbabwe, in which Zimbabwe were absolutely thrashed. Then, England played a one day series against Pakistan, a much better rated side, and played well to win the series. Today, England played Zimbabwe in the first match of a triangular one day series that also includes South Africa. It should be a doddle for England, right.
Well, no. Before we start, it is worth looking at the Zimbabwe's history of playing one day internationals.
Zimbabwe played their first one day international in the World Cup in 1983, when they played Australia in the opening match. Amazingly, they won the match, a result that cost Australia a place in the semi-finals of that tournament. (Australia found this deeply embarassing, and have not taken Zimbabwe lightly again. As a consequence, Australia have won all of the 19 games they have played against Zimbabwe since). After that game, Zimbabwe lost their next 18 one day internationals. They did not play England until the 1992 World Cup, and their first game against England was their next win. This victory was a major factor in Zimbabwe being granted test status later that year.
Rather than spurring England on to a lot of victories, as had happened with Australia's 1983 loss to Zimbabwe, this loss appeared to have really spooked England, and they managed to lose five of their next seven matches against Zimbabwe. After that, England got their act together, and going into today's game, England's overall record against Zimbabwe was 15 wins and 7 losses. However, there has always been a feeling that England have a certain dodginess against Zimbabwe.
And so it turned out today. Zimbabwe sent England in. England got off to a reasonable start, but some good bowling by Heath Streak in particular reduced England to 6/144. Clarke and Read managed to score a few more runs, but England were bowled out for 191. Flintoff's 53 was the top score. Not a very good effort.
Zimbabwe only needed to bat decently to win, but on this tour so far they have not managed to bat decently. And at the start they didn't appear to be batting decently, slumping to a dreadful 4/15. But the very experienced Grant Flower was then batting. While not the world class player his brother is, Flower is a quality international class player, and he played very sensibly today, scoring at the right run rate without attempting to do anything silly. Stuart Matsikenyeri did a good job of staying with him, before being out for 44 to a rash shot with the score on 111. Heath Streak was out shortly afterwards, and England again looked like winning. However, Sean Ervine did a very good job of sticking with Streak, and the two players got Zimbabwe home, with four wickets and two overs to spare. Grant Flower ended up with 96 not out.
I have very mixed feelings about the Zimbabwe cricket team being in England. I think the tour should have been cancelled due to the clear political interference in the selection of the team. However, the tour so far must have been pretty demoralising for the Zimbabwean cricketers. Today was a good win, and I am sure it makes them feel a little better.
Life is curious, sometimes
Yesterday evening, I had been doing some shopping, and I was tired and hot. I walked into an (unfamiliar) pub, in the thought that I would buy a pint of beer and sit down and rest for a few minutes.
There was a woman sitting at the bar, and she had two medium sized dogs with her. (This is England. Everyone seems to have dogs, and they do things like bring them when they go to the pub). As I walked past, the dogs barked at me, and one lunged at me and bit me on the leg. I was slightly shocked by this, and I shouted at the dog. After a few moments, I looked at the woman, and she said something fairly stern that was aimed at my direction. Presumably she was angry at me for shouting at her dog. (I don't think she realised that it had actually bitten me). I didn't quite catch what she said, but it included one well known four letter world of Anglo-Saxon extraction. At this point, I completely lost my temper, and yelled some extremely rude things at the woman before turning around and leaving the pub.
Of course, I immediately regretted having lost my temper, and I regretted having said such rude things. Lose your temper and you lose the moral high ground. (Dogs often have this effect on me. I was bitten by one when I was a fairly small child, and I have been very nervous around them ever since). However, I don't feel too bad about this. One does generally have the right to go into a pub without being bitten by a dog. And I wasn't the one who used the first four letter word. Looking back now, I am just struck be what a distinctly odd thing this was to happen to me.
(And just to reassure my mother if she is reading this, I was not injured by the dog in any significant way. The dog managed to cause a large tear in my trousers with its teeth, and I could feel the bite for a few minutes, but my skin was not broken and there was no bleeding. It was the shock of it that upset me more than anything).
Still, in future I will try to use the Jake Ryan test for determining when to lose my temper. I think it is best to only do so on special occasions, like when I encounter evil terrorist fanatics.
Update: There are of course even more peculiar (and much worse) things that can happen to you in British pubs that fit into the realm of bizarre but somehow peculiarly English experiences.
Yesterday evening, I had been doing some shopping, and I was tired and hot. I walked into an (unfamiliar) pub, in the thought that I would buy a pint of beer and sit down and rest for a few minutes.
There was a woman sitting at the bar, and she had two medium sized dogs with her. (This is England. Everyone seems to have dogs, and they do things like bring them when they go to the pub). As I walked past, the dogs barked at me, and one lunged at me and bit me on the leg. I was slightly shocked by this, and I shouted at the dog. After a few moments, I looked at the woman, and she said something fairly stern that was aimed at my direction. Presumably she was angry at me for shouting at her dog. (I don't think she realised that it had actually bitten me). I didn't quite catch what she said, but it included one well known four letter world of Anglo-Saxon extraction. At this point, I completely lost my temper, and yelled some extremely rude things at the woman before turning around and leaving the pub.
Of course, I immediately regretted having lost my temper, and I regretted having said such rude things. Lose your temper and you lose the moral high ground. (Dogs often have this effect on me. I was bitten by one when I was a fairly small child, and I have been very nervous around them ever since). However, I don't feel too bad about this. One does generally have the right to go into a pub without being bitten by a dog. And I wasn't the one who used the first four letter word. Looking back now, I am just struck be what a distinctly odd thing this was to happen to me.
(And just to reassure my mother if she is reading this, I was not injured by the dog in any significant way. The dog managed to cause a large tear in my trousers with its teeth, and I could feel the bite for a few minutes, but my skin was not broken and there was no bleeding. It was the shock of it that upset me more than anything).
Still, in future I will try to use the Jake Ryan test for determining when to lose my temper. I think it is best to only do so on special occasions, like when I encounter evil terrorist fanatics.
Update: There are of course even more peculiar (and much worse) things that can happen to you in British pubs that fit into the realm of bizarre but somehow peculiarly English experiences.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
These people are quite correct. There is definitely something wrong with people of Korean (and other ancestry) who have been living in Japan for three generations having fewer rights than a seal. (There is something deeply Japanese about this, however).
A worthy cause
In the trial of the accused Bali bombers, going on in Indonesia, the defendents have spent most of their time staring blankly in court, and occasionally chanting "Allahu akbar". Jake Ryan, a footballer from the Gold Coast in Queensland who lost a good friend (and was himself wounded in the blast) finally lost his temper last week, and in a breach of Indonesian court etiquette walked close to alleged bombing field commander Imam Samudra as he was being led out of court and told him that "You're a fucking dog, mate, you are going to die, you fuck."
Tim Blair has been leading efforts on the internet to raise money from people who share Mr Ryan's sentiments to buy beer for him and his football team. At the moment, the fund is up to $A825, including a (small) contribution from me, which should get them a goodly amount of beer. This is a worthy cause that I strongly endorse.
Update: In the Bali terrorist attack, Jake Ryan lost his right heel, had other people's bones embedded in his legs and shrapnel pierced his abdomen, and was on crutches for four months. Expressions like "evil scum" don't begin to describe the people who did this.
In the trial of the accused Bali bombers, going on in Indonesia, the defendents have spent most of their time staring blankly in court, and occasionally chanting "Allahu akbar". Jake Ryan, a footballer from the Gold Coast in Queensland who lost a good friend (and was himself wounded in the blast) finally lost his temper last week, and in a breach of Indonesian court etiquette walked close to alleged bombing field commander Imam Samudra as he was being led out of court and told him that "You're a fucking dog, mate, you are going to die, you fuck."
Tim Blair has been leading efforts on the internet to raise money from people who share Mr Ryan's sentiments to buy beer for him and his football team. At the moment, the fund is up to $A825, including a (small) contribution from me, which should get them a goodly amount of beer. This is a worthy cause that I strongly endorse.
Update: In the Bali terrorist attack, Jake Ryan lost his right heel, had other people's bones embedded in his legs and shrapnel pierced his abdomen, and was on crutches for four months. Expressions like "evil scum" don't begin to describe the people who did this.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
A new blog
I have a piece on identity cards in Spain over at The White Rose. This is a new blog that has been set up (largely by Gabriel Syme of Samizdata) to oppose the gradual erosion of civil liberties that is occurring in Great Britain (and elsewhere). The blog is British focused, but is not intended to be exclusively British. We would love input from Australia or elsewhere. Plus, the blog is intended to be flexible in how it can be used. If people want to link from the White Rose to related stuff in their own blogs, this is fine - in fact it is encouraged. (This might not be a bad way for Australian bloggers to increase their British readership). If people want to write original stuff (perhaps with an Australian focus) for The White Rose, this is fine. If people want to republish stuff from their own blogs, this too is fine.
Therefore, if anyone is interested in becoming a contributor, please either let me know, or contact Gabriel (gabriel at samizdata dot net) directly. Note also that although Samizdata is aimed at "people of a libertarian mindset", The White Rose is not, necessarily. It is aimed at people who are protective of their civil liberties, be they conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist, or whatever.
I have a piece on identity cards in Spain over at The White Rose. This is a new blog that has been set up (largely by Gabriel Syme of Samizdata) to oppose the gradual erosion of civil liberties that is occurring in Great Britain (and elsewhere). The blog is British focused, but is not intended to be exclusively British. We would love input from Australia or elsewhere. Plus, the blog is intended to be flexible in how it can be used. If people want to link from the White Rose to related stuff in their own blogs, this is fine - in fact it is encouraged. (This might not be a bad way for Australian bloggers to increase their British readership). If people want to write original stuff (perhaps with an Australian focus) for The White Rose, this is fine. If people want to republish stuff from their own blogs, this too is fine.
Therefore, if anyone is interested in becoming a contributor, please either let me know, or contact Gabriel (gabriel at samizdata dot net) directly. Note also that although Samizdata is aimed at "people of a libertarian mindset", The White Rose is not, necessarily. It is aimed at people who are protective of their civil liberties, be they conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist, or whatever.
Harry Potter - Eyewitness News
Okay, I finished reading the new Harry Potter Book. First observation: the 766 page British edition, like most British editions of hardcover books, isn't very well bound. As I read the book, it from time to time made cracking noises when I turned the pages. The book is glued rather than sewn. American books are usually sewn. (This interesting Slate article discusses the issue). I suspect that if the books is read three or four times it will fall apart, and this is made much more likely by the book's length. The publisher seems to realise this, which is why there are no pages of advertisements for other books or anything at the back. The text stops, and that is the last page of the physical book. People who have a choice between the US and British editions will likely find that the US edition (which also has larger print and is 870 pages long) is the better choice to purchase.
In any event, the content. The people who have argued that the book is in some ways strongly libertarian in outlook are right, but that is not the aspect of it I wish to discuss. There are one or two mild spoilers to follow. They are spoilers of characterisation mainly, and I won't give away the plot. As I said previously, the book is a couple of hundred pages too long. When you read this kind of fairly easy reading book, you want the book to make you want to keep turning the pages, and you want a certain compulsion to keep reading. And while this book has that compulsive quality in places, it doesn't have it consistently. What happens is that after reading a hundred pages or two, you come to the conclusion that nothing much has happened for a while, and you either want to flick forward a few pages and find out when something does happen, or you want to put the book down for a bit and go to the pub. (The book is good enough that it is generally enjoyable again when you return from the pub).
The Harry Potter Books are highly structured. They have quite a strict template plotwise, and the books all seem to follow this template strictly. The book starts at home with Harry and his obnoxious aunt and uncle, then there is a period of meeting up with his friends and shopping for school things before catching the train to Hogwarts, and then we meet the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, and then we go and see Hagrid, who has some new magical creature. Then we play Quiddich. And so on, until Harry confonts Voldemort (or a proxy for Voldemort), Harry talks about it with Dumbledore. Harry catches the train to Kings Cross, says goodbye to Ron and Hermione, and goes back to the Dursleys. Where J.K. Rowling is highly skilled is in her ability to conform to this strict formula, and at the same time have the overall plot advance from book to book, and to have characters that we only see in passing suddenly jump into the foreground in the next book, and to show us the characters growing up at the same point.
The fourth book departed from this formula rather more than any of the first three. When we read it, some of us might have thought that this was going to be the pattern of the subsequent books, but with the fifth book, it seems not. It seems more a case that J.K. Rowling was rushing for a deadline for the fourth book, and it lost shape a little as a consequence. (She has decided not to work to deadlines in future, so we will get the books when she chooses to give them to us). We are back, pretty strictly to the original formula. Yet, as the characters have grown up, the books have got longer, the characterisation has got better and the characterisations have developed more shades of grey than they had in earlier books. This is fitting, as the characters are growing up, and people's perception of life develops complexity and shades of grey at that point. The characters are becoming less black and white. It is clear that Rowling knows what it is to be an outsider. Not just an outsider in the sense of not being the centre of attention, but an outsider in the sense of being the person that everyone despises and torments not because they do anything to deserve it but simply because they can. (This good review in Salon looks at the book from this perspective). This is shown in the way Harry's circle of allies is growing broader, too, as in this book he fights his final battle with Voldemort in the company of five friends (one of who is a new and quite interesting character, although I will probably find she was there in the background and I didn't notice in the earlier books). Harry's horrible aunt Petunia has developed slightly more complexity than we were previously aware of. And most interestingly with Professor Snape, who has always been a complex character, nasty and unpleasant, and with a real grudge against Harry, but none the less is on the side of good and not evil. In this book we get to see precisely why Snape is this way, and we discover that a lot of it has to do with Harry's father having not actually been the paragon of virtue that Harry had previously thought.
Snape has become perhaps the most interesting character in the books. I am not sure where he is going. (Plus, there is still a whole lot of his back story missing. How and why did he become a Death Eater, and how did he cease to be one). Natalie Solent thinks that he will sacrifice himself to ensure the final victory over Voldemort in book seven. I'm not so sure. This is kind of predictable. The mean, spiteful character who is none the less on the side of good normally is the one who sacrifices himself to kind of redeem the mean and spitefulness, but I think this may be a little too obvious. It may be that someone else takes that role here. (I have a theory as to who it will be, but I won't mention it right now). Whether or not he makes a noble sacrifice, it is clear that the one lesson Snape is going to learn at some point is that Harry is not his father. Harry has gone through four books with everyone telling him that he is just like his father, and that this is a good thing, but he has just learned that this is perhaps not entirely such a good thing after all. His mother on the other hand was apparently just as kind and brave a person as everyone has always said. (This is presumably why Harry has always been described as looking just like his father "but with his mother's eyes").
And Harry's friend Hermione is getting through her childhood bossiness and becoming the most moral and decent character in the books, as well as being smart and powerful. Almost the younger form of Harry's mother, I think. It's always nice to meet characters like this, in life as well as fiction.
I also have a few thoughts on the filmability of the last couple of Harry Potter books. But, as David Attenborough might say, this is where we will go next week.
Okay, I finished reading the new Harry Potter Book. First observation: the 766 page British edition, like most British editions of hardcover books, isn't very well bound. As I read the book, it from time to time made cracking noises when I turned the pages. The book is glued rather than sewn. American books are usually sewn. (This interesting Slate article discusses the issue). I suspect that if the books is read three or four times it will fall apart, and this is made much more likely by the book's length. The publisher seems to realise this, which is why there are no pages of advertisements for other books or anything at the back. The text stops, and that is the last page of the physical book. People who have a choice between the US and British editions will likely find that the US edition (which also has larger print and is 870 pages long) is the better choice to purchase.
In any event, the content. The people who have argued that the book is in some ways strongly libertarian in outlook are right, but that is not the aspect of it I wish to discuss. There are one or two mild spoilers to follow. They are spoilers of characterisation mainly, and I won't give away the plot. As I said previously, the book is a couple of hundred pages too long. When you read this kind of fairly easy reading book, you want the book to make you want to keep turning the pages, and you want a certain compulsion to keep reading. And while this book has that compulsive quality in places, it doesn't have it consistently. What happens is that after reading a hundred pages or two, you come to the conclusion that nothing much has happened for a while, and you either want to flick forward a few pages and find out when something does happen, or you want to put the book down for a bit and go to the pub. (The book is good enough that it is generally enjoyable again when you return from the pub).
The Harry Potter Books are highly structured. They have quite a strict template plotwise, and the books all seem to follow this template strictly. The book starts at home with Harry and his obnoxious aunt and uncle, then there is a period of meeting up with his friends and shopping for school things before catching the train to Hogwarts, and then we meet the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, and then we go and see Hagrid, who has some new magical creature. Then we play Quiddich. And so on, until Harry confonts Voldemort (or a proxy for Voldemort), Harry talks about it with Dumbledore. Harry catches the train to Kings Cross, says goodbye to Ron and Hermione, and goes back to the Dursleys. Where J.K. Rowling is highly skilled is in her ability to conform to this strict formula, and at the same time have the overall plot advance from book to book, and to have characters that we only see in passing suddenly jump into the foreground in the next book, and to show us the characters growing up at the same point.
The fourth book departed from this formula rather more than any of the first three. When we read it, some of us might have thought that this was going to be the pattern of the subsequent books, but with the fifth book, it seems not. It seems more a case that J.K. Rowling was rushing for a deadline for the fourth book, and it lost shape a little as a consequence. (She has decided not to work to deadlines in future, so we will get the books when she chooses to give them to us). We are back, pretty strictly to the original formula. Yet, as the characters have grown up, the books have got longer, the characterisation has got better and the characterisations have developed more shades of grey than they had in earlier books. This is fitting, as the characters are growing up, and people's perception of life develops complexity and shades of grey at that point. The characters are becoming less black and white. It is clear that Rowling knows what it is to be an outsider. Not just an outsider in the sense of not being the centre of attention, but an outsider in the sense of being the person that everyone despises and torments not because they do anything to deserve it but simply because they can. (This good review in Salon looks at the book from this perspective). This is shown in the way Harry's circle of allies is growing broader, too, as in this book he fights his final battle with Voldemort in the company of five friends (one of who is a new and quite interesting character, although I will probably find she was there in the background and I didn't notice in the earlier books). Harry's horrible aunt Petunia has developed slightly more complexity than we were previously aware of. And most interestingly with Professor Snape, who has always been a complex character, nasty and unpleasant, and with a real grudge against Harry, but none the less is on the side of good and not evil. In this book we get to see precisely why Snape is this way, and we discover that a lot of it has to do with Harry's father having not actually been the paragon of virtue that Harry had previously thought.
Snape has become perhaps the most interesting character in the books. I am not sure where he is going. (Plus, there is still a whole lot of his back story missing. How and why did he become a Death Eater, and how did he cease to be one). Natalie Solent thinks that he will sacrifice himself to ensure the final victory over Voldemort in book seven. I'm not so sure. This is kind of predictable. The mean, spiteful character who is none the less on the side of good normally is the one who sacrifices himself to kind of redeem the mean and spitefulness, but I think this may be a little too obvious. It may be that someone else takes that role here. (I have a theory as to who it will be, but I won't mention it right now). Whether or not he makes a noble sacrifice, it is clear that the one lesson Snape is going to learn at some point is that Harry is not his father. Harry has gone through four books with everyone telling him that he is just like his father, and that this is a good thing, but he has just learned that this is perhaps not entirely such a good thing after all. His mother on the other hand was apparently just as kind and brave a person as everyone has always said. (This is presumably why Harry has always been described as looking just like his father "but with his mother's eyes").
And Harry's friend Hermione is getting through her childhood bossiness and becoming the most moral and decent character in the books, as well as being smart and powerful. Almost the younger form of Harry's mother, I think. It's always nice to meet characters like this, in life as well as fiction.
I also have a few thoughts on the filmability of the last couple of Harry Potter books. But, as David Attenborough might say, this is where we will go next week.
Too much cricket
Well, we do have a resumption in the headed for a draw match between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. The West Indies are 6/348, and Brian Lara has moved along to 143 not out. It will be interesting to see whether he tries to score something really big here. He has been known to in situations like this one in the past - most notably when he scored his world record 501 not out in county cricket in England in an almost identical situation match wise. One question is whether he runs out of partners here. Another question is whether he can score 100 before lunch today. He is on target for that.
Update: Actually I got the time for lunch wrong, and he wasn't quite on target for that. He is 177 not out at lunch, having scored a still very impressive 84 in the session. At lunch the score is 6/384. Lara and Banks have put on a partnership of 79, and Banks has scored only six of that. It is still possible that Lara could be challenging batting records by the end of the day if he really goes for it.
Futher Update: Lara scored a fine double century, but was out for 209, so he didn't go after any records. After that the match just petered out. Muralitharan ended up with 5/138, and the West Indies declared on 9/477. Sri Lanka were 0/126 with half centuries to Attapattu and captain Jayasuriya when the game was finally declared a draw. Hopefully we will get better weather for the second test next weekend.
Well, we do have a resumption in the headed for a draw match between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. The West Indies are 6/348, and Brian Lara has moved along to 143 not out. It will be interesting to see whether he tries to score something really big here. He has been known to in situations like this one in the past - most notably when he scored his world record 501 not out in county cricket in England in an almost identical situation match wise. One question is whether he runs out of partners here. Another question is whether he can score 100 before lunch today. He is on target for that.
Update: Actually I got the time for lunch wrong, and he wasn't quite on target for that. He is 177 not out at lunch, having scored a still very impressive 84 in the session. At lunch the score is 6/384. Lara and Banks have put on a partnership of 79, and Banks has scored only six of that. It is still possible that Lara could be challenging batting records by the end of the day if he really goes for it.
Futher Update: Lara scored a fine double century, but was out for 209, so he didn't go after any records. After that the match just petered out. Muralitharan ended up with 5/138, and the West Indies declared on 9/477. Sri Lanka were 0/126 with half centuries to Attapattu and captain Jayasuriya when the game was finally declared a draw. Hopefully we will get better weather for the second test next weekend.
Monday, June 23, 2003
Teensy weensy cricket update
In England this year, there is a new competition at county level. This is a limited overs tournament in which the sides get to bat for 20 overs each. The game goes for about three hours, and the whole game is played in the evening. (At the end of the tournament, the two semi-finals and the final will all be played on one day, and the crowd gets to watch the final stages of the tournament rather than one match, sort of like what happens in a sevens rugby tournament). It is unusual for cricket matches to be this short at county level, but many games at lower levels are actually quite similar to this.
In any event, the tournament has been going on for a couple of weeks. There has been a lot of fast scoring, and 150-160 seems to be a good score off 20 overs. One thing that we have been waiting for over the last couple of weeks is for someone to score the first century in the tournament. This requires rapid batting, but it has been clearly possible, and we have been waiting for someone to manage it. Last week Brad Hodge scored 97 for Leicestershire before being out off the last ball of the innings. If he had hit the ball for four instead of being out, he would have done it. On the same day, Andrew Symonds scored 96 not out off only 37 balls for Kent, winning a match against Hampshire with eight overs to spare. Today, though, Ian Harvey did it, scoring 100 not out for Gloucestershire against Warwickshire, as Gloucestershire won with 6.5 overs to spare. Given that his side were only set 135 to win, it is quite impressive that Harvey could manage a century.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what these three batsmen have in common.
In England this year, there is a new competition at county level. This is a limited overs tournament in which the sides get to bat for 20 overs each. The game goes for about three hours, and the whole game is played in the evening. (At the end of the tournament, the two semi-finals and the final will all be played on one day, and the crowd gets to watch the final stages of the tournament rather than one match, sort of like what happens in a sevens rugby tournament). It is unusual for cricket matches to be this short at county level, but many games at lower levels are actually quite similar to this.
In any event, the tournament has been going on for a couple of weeks. There has been a lot of fast scoring, and 150-160 seems to be a good score off 20 overs. One thing that we have been waiting for over the last couple of weeks is for someone to score the first century in the tournament. This requires rapid batting, but it has been clearly possible, and we have been waiting for someone to manage it. Last week Brad Hodge scored 97 for Leicestershire before being out off the last ball of the innings. If he had hit the ball for four instead of being out, he would have done it. On the same day, Andrew Symonds scored 96 not out off only 37 balls for Kent, winning a match against Hampshire with eight overs to spare. Today, though, Ian Harvey did it, scoring 100 not out for Gloucestershire against Warwickshire, as Gloucestershire won with 6.5 overs to spare. Given that his side were only set 135 to win, it is quite impressive that Harvey could manage a century.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what these three batsmen have in common.
One upmanship
Eldan is showing off by listing all the countries he has been to. In retaliation, here is my list (which I started in his comments section).
Let's see what I can do. If I put a * after the name of a country, it means I changed my country of regular residence to that country, and I don't list entering that country until it ceases to be my principal residence. After being born in Australia
1978 New Zealand
1987 Hong Kong, China
1991 New Zealand, United States (2 entries, CA, WA, NJ, NY), Canada, United Kingdom*
1992 France, Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria
1993 Netherlands, Kenya, Tanzania, Portugal, Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Hong Kong, Australia
1994 Japan, France, Thailand, Australia
1997 Ireland, Australia*, Thailand, Nepal, Hong Kong SAR (2 entries), Macau
1999 United States (2 entries, CA, OH, LA, NY, CT, MA, NV, AZ, UT, WY), United Kingdom, New Zealand
2000 Japan, United Kingdom, Finland, Estonia, Italy, United States (NY, NJ, CT, RI, CA)
2001 South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia
2002 Singapore (2 entries), Malaysia, United Kingdom*, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France
2003 France (2 entries), Spain (2 entries)
Eldan seems to have a little more Asia and Europe than I do, but I win points for having made two trips to Africa, while he has made none. I have excluded any country in which I have never left the transport infrastructure, so countries where I have never left the train, or never left the airport terminal are not listed, whether or not I have gone through immigration into that country. (My life seems to endlessly involve landing in Frankfurt, for instance, but I have never been out of the airport and into that city).
I also seem to be accumulating new countries at a much slower rate these days, as I am starting to repeat countries a lot.
Eldan is showing off by listing all the countries he has been to. In retaliation, here is my list (which I started in his comments section).
Let's see what I can do. If I put a * after the name of a country, it means I changed my country of regular residence to that country, and I don't list entering that country until it ceases to be my principal residence. After being born in Australia
1978 New Zealand
1987 Hong Kong, China
1991 New Zealand, United States (2 entries, CA, WA, NJ, NY), Canada, United Kingdom*
1992 France, Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria
1993 Netherlands, Kenya, Tanzania, Portugal, Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Hong Kong, Australia
1994 Japan, France, Thailand, Australia
1997 Ireland, Australia*, Thailand, Nepal, Hong Kong SAR (2 entries), Macau
1999 United States (2 entries, CA, OH, LA, NY, CT, MA, NV, AZ, UT, WY), United Kingdom, New Zealand
2000 Japan, United Kingdom, Finland, Estonia, Italy, United States (NY, NJ, CT, RI, CA)
2001 South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia
2002 Singapore (2 entries), Malaysia, United Kingdom*, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France
2003 France (2 entries), Spain (2 entries)
Eldan seems to have a little more Asia and Europe than I do, but I win points for having made two trips to Africa, while he has made none. I have excluded any country in which I have never left the transport infrastructure, so countries where I have never left the train, or never left the airport terminal are not listed, whether or not I have gone through immigration into that country. (My life seems to endlessly involve landing in Frankfurt, for instance, but I have never been out of the airport and into that city).
I also seem to be accumulating new countries at a much slower rate these days, as I am starting to repeat countries a lot.
Sunday, June 22, 2003
Cricket
Two games to report on. Firstly, the third one day game between England and Pakistan. Pakistan batted first, and some really good bowling from Andrew Flintoff reduced Pakistan to 5/117 off 33.5 overs. Pakistan put up a good rear guard action after that, with 63 from Younis Khan and 64 from Abdul Razzaq getting them to 7/229 off 50 overs. A good recovery but probably not enough runs to win the match. At 2/129 off 26.4 overs, England appeared to be romping home, but they then lost wickets, dropping to 6/154 off 35.5 overs, but with opener Marcus Trescothick still not out. This could have meant trouble for England, but Trescothick batted superbly, pacing the innings perfectly, and bringing up a much deserved century with three or four overs to go. England got the runs when Trescothick hit a six with nine balls to go. Although they had a hassle or two along the way, England managed an excellent win in the end. Trescothick won his second match in the row with the bat, and was awarded man of the match and man of the series. That said, Flintoff's 4/32 off ten overs was perhaps as important.
A very good effort by England in this series. They batted badly in the first match, but after that they really got their act together. Later this week they start a triangular series with South Africa and Zimbabwe. I expect them to win this, too.
Several years ago, the ICC declared that member countries were not allowed to host one day tournaments with more than three teams, and that the ICC's own tournaments (the Champions Trophy and the World Cup) were the only such tournaments allowed. This seems to have been intended to increase that value of the TV rights to the ICC tournaments, but sometimes it seems a little problematic. Having a separate one day series with Pakistan seems a little silly. To be quite honest, a four way tournament between England, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and South Africa would be more fun.
Meanwhile, former South African captain Kepler Wessels has declared that England have no hope in the forthcoming test series with South Africa. I think the precise opposite. South Africa are in complete disarray, and England look pretty good. I am expecting England to defeat South Africa, and by a heavy margin. (3-0 would not surprise me at all). South Africans seem to have a tremendous sense of entitlement with respect to winning at cricket. This has often led to overconfidence and bad misjudgement of the opposition in important matches, and incomprehension at South Africa's repeated inability to win afterwards. Wessels is the only man to have captained South Africa since their return to international cricket that I actually respect, but even he seems to fall for this occasionally. (I shall write a longer post on this point some time).
Finally, we have had three days of the 1st test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka got off to a great start with the bat, getting the score to 4/266 thanks to a century from Atapattu and good support from Sangakkara and Jayawardene. However, good bowling from Collywood saw them slump to 8/288. A good rearguard 38 from Chaminda Vaas got them to an adequate but not exciting 354 not out.
113 from Hinds and 93 not out from Lara saw the West Indies to 4/272 when rain stopped play today. 51 overs were lost to rain, although 30 of those can be made up on the last two days if the weather is fine. A draw not looks the most likely result, particularly if there is more rail. The most likely way an actual result can be achieved is if Lara can bscore a big hundred tomorrow, the West Indies can get a first innings lead of 200 or so, and Sri Lanka can be bowled out relatively cheaply in their second innings. This is not that likely, but possible. Sri Lanka will have more trouble finding a way to win.
Update: This post contained an incorrect link to the article about Kepler Wessels. This is now fixed.
Further Update: It looks like day 4 of the Sri Lanka v West Indies match is going to be completely lost to rain. That makes the game dead as a contest. The only item of interest is whether they will get enough play on day five for Lara to complete his century.
Even Further Update: Yes, day 4 was entirely washed out. I will post another update reporting on any play that happens tomorrow, but it will likely be dull. It's a shame that a match between two well matched sides like this has been ruined. When the rain came yesterday, Muttiah Muralitharan was bowling to Brian Lara. Both were playing well, and fans of high class cricket were really enjoying it. Hopefully we will get an uninterrupted match in Kingston next weekend.
Two games to report on. Firstly, the third one day game between England and Pakistan. Pakistan batted first, and some really good bowling from Andrew Flintoff reduced Pakistan to 5/117 off 33.5 overs. Pakistan put up a good rear guard action after that, with 63 from Younis Khan and 64 from Abdul Razzaq getting them to 7/229 off 50 overs. A good recovery but probably not enough runs to win the match. At 2/129 off 26.4 overs, England appeared to be romping home, but they then lost wickets, dropping to 6/154 off 35.5 overs, but with opener Marcus Trescothick still not out. This could have meant trouble for England, but Trescothick batted superbly, pacing the innings perfectly, and bringing up a much deserved century with three or four overs to go. England got the runs when Trescothick hit a six with nine balls to go. Although they had a hassle or two along the way, England managed an excellent win in the end. Trescothick won his second match in the row with the bat, and was awarded man of the match and man of the series. That said, Flintoff's 4/32 off ten overs was perhaps as important.
A very good effort by England in this series. They batted badly in the first match, but after that they really got their act together. Later this week they start a triangular series with South Africa and Zimbabwe. I expect them to win this, too.
Several years ago, the ICC declared that member countries were not allowed to host one day tournaments with more than three teams, and that the ICC's own tournaments (the Champions Trophy and the World Cup) were the only such tournaments allowed. This seems to have been intended to increase that value of the TV rights to the ICC tournaments, but sometimes it seems a little problematic. Having a separate one day series with Pakistan seems a little silly. To be quite honest, a four way tournament between England, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and South Africa would be more fun.
Meanwhile, former South African captain Kepler Wessels has declared that England have no hope in the forthcoming test series with South Africa. I think the precise opposite. South Africa are in complete disarray, and England look pretty good. I am expecting England to defeat South Africa, and by a heavy margin. (3-0 would not surprise me at all). South Africans seem to have a tremendous sense of entitlement with respect to winning at cricket. This has often led to overconfidence and bad misjudgement of the opposition in important matches, and incomprehension at South Africa's repeated inability to win afterwards. Wessels is the only man to have captained South Africa since their return to international cricket that I actually respect, but even he seems to fall for this occasionally. (I shall write a longer post on this point some time).
Finally, we have had three days of the 1st test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka got off to a great start with the bat, getting the score to 4/266 thanks to a century from Atapattu and good support from Sangakkara and Jayawardene. However, good bowling from Collywood saw them slump to 8/288. A good rearguard 38 from Chaminda Vaas got them to an adequate but not exciting 354 not out.
113 from Hinds and 93 not out from Lara saw the West Indies to 4/272 when rain stopped play today. 51 overs were lost to rain, although 30 of those can be made up on the last two days if the weather is fine. A draw not looks the most likely result, particularly if there is more rail. The most likely way an actual result can be achieved is if Lara can bscore a big hundred tomorrow, the West Indies can get a first innings lead of 200 or so, and Sri Lanka can be bowled out relatively cheaply in their second innings. This is not that likely, but possible. Sri Lanka will have more trouble finding a way to win.
Update: This post contained an incorrect link to the article about Kepler Wessels. This is now fixed.
Further Update: It looks like day 4 of the Sri Lanka v West Indies match is going to be completely lost to rain. That makes the game dead as a contest. The only item of interest is whether they will get enough play on day five for Lara to complete his century.
Even Further Update: Yes, day 4 was entirely washed out. I will post another update reporting on any play that happens tomorrow, but it will likely be dull. It's a shame that a match between two well matched sides like this has been ruined. When the rain came yesterday, Muttiah Muralitharan was bowling to Brian Lara. Both were playing well, and fans of high class cricket were really enjoying it. Hopefully we will get an uninterrupted match in Kingston next weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)