I'm not overly keen on much of the American political humour that I see, but this clip from MadTV did make me giggle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE
Thursday, 5 July 2007
A room with a toilet?
Andrew Ellson has a pop at estate agents in The Times. For many, estate agents are one thing people would like to do without. The number of websites that allow an independent house sale is on the increase and Ellson himself says that he sold a property for more money than one estate agent valued it at. So he not only made more money, but he also saved on estate agent fees.
Ellson is obviously very lucky to be a writer, however. He says, "pointing out that a room with a toilet is a bathroom is not beyond the wit of an average five-year-old". However, with his grasp of the English language, Ellson has a head start. Is he seriously trying to say that the average person would be able to give a true meaning to the room with a toilet? I'm not sure I would. After all, from all the details I've seen of houses over the years, the toilet could feasibly be in one of many rooms:
* a bathroom
* a shower room
* a cloakroom
* an en-suite
I dread to think what other possibilities there are.
And for goodness sake! Please stop referring to it as a terrace house. It is a townhouse, darling. After all, it is within a short drive of a town. Terrace is SO last season and risks bringing the price you get for the house downwards.
See, no wonder house prices are going up. The descriptions of properties are going so upmarket that it wouldn't be fitting to sell something described so beautifully at a cheaper price than the previous year...
Ellson is obviously very lucky to be a writer, however. He says, "pointing out that a room with a toilet is a bathroom is not beyond the wit of an average five-year-old". However, with his grasp of the English language, Ellson has a head start. Is he seriously trying to say that the average person would be able to give a true meaning to the room with a toilet? I'm not sure I would. After all, from all the details I've seen of houses over the years, the toilet could feasibly be in one of many rooms:
* a bathroom
* a shower room
* a cloakroom
* an en-suite
I dread to think what other possibilities there are.
And for goodness sake! Please stop referring to it as a terrace house. It is a townhouse, darling. After all, it is within a short drive of a town. Terrace is SO last season and risks bringing the price you get for the house downwards.
See, no wonder house prices are going up. The descriptions of properties are going so upmarket that it wouldn't be fitting to sell something described so beautifully at a cheaper price than the previous year...
RANDOM ADVOCATE - The BBC
While this blog will look to various news stories I've found of interest, I believe it would be fitting to campaign for certain things, or show support for those who perhaps get too much negative exposure.
For the first of these "RANDOM ADVOCATE" subjects, I will look to:
The BBC
Yes, if it's not one thing, it's another. While we all love television, it seems that we collectively hate much to do with the BBC. Could it be because of the licence fee, or might the reason go deeper than that? Either way, I know I'm fed up with all the moaning, even if the Beeb does tend to cause trouble for itself and back down on certain issues so weakly that you wonder how it has managed to stick around for this long.
Okay, so I'm sounding negative already, but stay with me here. I am proud to be a licence fee payer and for the small amount of television, radio, and Internet coverage that I consume from the BBC, I find myself happy to pay the fee. I didn't get to go to Glastonbury, so I enjoyed watching highlights on the range of BBC channels recently (minus the rain and the atmosphere, yes, but there's only so close you can get to the action...). My wife hasn't bought tickets for Wimbledon, so she is having to make do with watching coverage on BBC's interactive multiscreen viewing platform (minus the rain and the atmosphere, yes, but for the amount of tennis she'd have seen, I sense this is a positive thing this year!). Later this month, I will be looking forward to watching the Proms that are being broadcast on BBC1, 2 and 4, and listening to the audio only concerts on BBC Radio 3.
Now these examples are recent special events that are all happening within about a few weeks of each other. For me, even if I didn't make use of Auntie Beeb again for the rest of the year, I would be happy to pay the licence fee. But there are other programmes that I watch. And that's not even mentioning the time spent listening to radio broadcasts and browsing various BBC microsites and the BBC news website. The news website is regularly my first port of call before I dig in to all the other news sites. It gives me an overview of what's happening and alerts me to any major happenings that I may wish to know about before I focus on other matters.
Given that the BBC have to try and cater for each and every one of us, it surprises me how good a job they manage to do. I can't believe there are many people out there who truly don't watch any BBC channels, or use any BBC websites, or listen to any BBC radio shows. I certainly don't know anyone personally who dismisses the BBC that far. But for all those who dislike the Beeb to that extent, I'd be amazed if it was anything other than an absolutely tiny number of people.
Therefore, I will be reporting on various BBC and related news stories over the coming days and offering thoughts as "RANDOM ADVOCATE". But for now, that's my opinion and I'm proud to be a licence fee payer.
To get you started, you can read Camilla Cavendish's thoughts on BBC3 and BBC4 at the Timesonline website.
Although not entirely positive, Cavendish sums things up nicely when she says:
"Yes, the BBC still has luxuries of resource unknown to most of us in other parts of journalism. But its expertise and cash is not wasted, in my view, when it is spent on Planet Earth or Real Story or much of Radio 4. There is simply no reason to blow it on the crasser items. Lord Reith’s original vision was to offer something to everyone, something which was 'better than they knew they wanted'. That is just as valid an ambition today."
The Guardian also mentions repeats on the BBC, asking if the repeats can be genuinely missed ones, or classic plays that have not been shown for many years and are possibly not even available on DVD.
Now that would be good.
For the first of these "RANDOM ADVOCATE" subjects, I will look to:
The BBC
Yes, if it's not one thing, it's another. While we all love television, it seems that we collectively hate much to do with the BBC. Could it be because of the licence fee, or might the reason go deeper than that? Either way, I know I'm fed up with all the moaning, even if the Beeb does tend to cause trouble for itself and back down on certain issues so weakly that you wonder how it has managed to stick around for this long.
Okay, so I'm sounding negative already, but stay with me here. I am proud to be a licence fee payer and for the small amount of television, radio, and Internet coverage that I consume from the BBC, I find myself happy to pay the fee. I didn't get to go to Glastonbury, so I enjoyed watching highlights on the range of BBC channels recently (minus the rain and the atmosphere, yes, but there's only so close you can get to the action...). My wife hasn't bought tickets for Wimbledon, so she is having to make do with watching coverage on BBC's interactive multiscreen viewing platform (minus the rain and the atmosphere, yes, but for the amount of tennis she'd have seen, I sense this is a positive thing this year!). Later this month, I will be looking forward to watching the Proms that are being broadcast on BBC1, 2 and 4, and listening to the audio only concerts on BBC Radio 3.
Now these examples are recent special events that are all happening within about a few weeks of each other. For me, even if I didn't make use of Auntie Beeb again for the rest of the year, I would be happy to pay the licence fee. But there are other programmes that I watch. And that's not even mentioning the time spent listening to radio broadcasts and browsing various BBC microsites and the BBC news website. The news website is regularly my first port of call before I dig in to all the other news sites. It gives me an overview of what's happening and alerts me to any major happenings that I may wish to know about before I focus on other matters.
Given that the BBC have to try and cater for each and every one of us, it surprises me how good a job they manage to do. I can't believe there are many people out there who truly don't watch any BBC channels, or use any BBC websites, or listen to any BBC radio shows. I certainly don't know anyone personally who dismisses the BBC that far. But for all those who dislike the Beeb to that extent, I'd be amazed if it was anything other than an absolutely tiny number of people.
Therefore, I will be reporting on various BBC and related news stories over the coming days and offering thoughts as "RANDOM ADVOCATE". But for now, that's my opinion and I'm proud to be a licence fee payer.
To get you started, you can read Camilla Cavendish's thoughts on BBC3 and BBC4 at the Timesonline website.
Although not entirely positive, Cavendish sums things up nicely when she says:
"Yes, the BBC still has luxuries of resource unknown to most of us in other parts of journalism. But its expertise and cash is not wasted, in my view, when it is spent on Planet Earth or Real Story or much of Radio 4. There is simply no reason to blow it on the crasser items. Lord Reith’s original vision was to offer something to everyone, something which was 'better than they knew they wanted'. That is just as valid an ambition today."
The Guardian also mentions repeats on the BBC, asking if the repeats can be genuinely missed ones, or classic plays that have not been shown for many years and are possibly not even available on DVD.
Now that would be good.
One thing I would like to know...
All the talk of Boris Johnson being a possibility for Tory London mayoral candidate has really confused me. I just don't know what to think. And here's why:
Pleased
- Boris is a hero
- Boris gets people talking
- Boris seems to have good ideas on a variety of subjects and I have applauded many of his writings and opinions in the past
Concerned
- I can't imagine anyone else getting close to doing what Ken Livingstone has done for London. Not even Boris.
- Boris is shadow minister for higher education and I would like to see him move further in this direction.
- Boris hasn't highlighted any intentions regarding London that I know of (although it's not even definite that Boris will be standing as Conservative candidate yet).
- Is Boris going to be happy to challenge the view of his party when necessary? I'm already sceptical about the true strength of local elections and how far they can act for local communities. Whereas Ken Livingstone seemed a good prospect for London Mayor - especially starting off independent, rather than as Labour candidate - I can't help but think that Boris might not be working his natural ground if he was to stand for Mayor.
Still, Boris IS a hero and I'm ready to see if anything develops of this story.
I'm no longer within the London zone so I can no longer vote for Mayor. If I could, I'd be torn between two figures that I respect and would have to say that sticking with Ken would be my initial thought. Still, Boris may introduce a fantastic set of proposals, so watch this space. I'd almost like him to stand for Mayor just because of it's fun interest value.
Pleased
- Boris is a hero
- Boris gets people talking
- Boris seems to have good ideas on a variety of subjects and I have applauded many of his writings and opinions in the past
Concerned
- I can't imagine anyone else getting close to doing what Ken Livingstone has done for London. Not even Boris.
- Boris is shadow minister for higher education and I would like to see him move further in this direction.
- Boris hasn't highlighted any intentions regarding London that I know of (although it's not even definite that Boris will be standing as Conservative candidate yet).
- Is Boris going to be happy to challenge the view of his party when necessary? I'm already sceptical about the true strength of local elections and how far they can act for local communities. Whereas Ken Livingstone seemed a good prospect for London Mayor - especially starting off independent, rather than as Labour candidate - I can't help but think that Boris might not be working his natural ground if he was to stand for Mayor.
Still, Boris IS a hero and I'm ready to see if anything develops of this story.
I'm no longer within the London zone so I can no longer vote for Mayor. If I could, I'd be torn between two figures that I respect and would have to say that sticking with Ken would be my initial thought. Still, Boris may introduce a fantastic set of proposals, so watch this space. I'd almost like him to stand for Mayor just because of it's fun interest value.
Will The Future 'Ad' Up
The International Herald Tribune reports that American broadcaster NBC has been conducting experiments on watching advertisements that are being played on fast-forward. It seems the public may still be taking the ads in.
Many people record TV shows for watching later and will skip the commercials by running the tape forward. NBC wanted to know how engaged viewers were with the ads when they were being fast-forwarded.
It seems that people are still engaged, despite the popular assumption that the ads would not be noticed the same way, if at all. Levels of engagement were high, even though the commercials were over in a fraction of the time they would at normal speed. And without any sound.
When trying to get to the next part of the show you are watching, you have to keep an eye open for it to show on screen again. I don't know anyone who presses the fast-forward button and then guesses when to press play again without watching the screen and the adverts whizzing past at high speed. The brain must be engaged to be actively focusing on finding the end of the commercial break and the start of the programme, so it's perhaps understandable that people registered highly when working through this.
The results of the experiments have so far uncovered even more brain engagement. On a scale of 1 to 100, anything registering above 60 is deemed as engaged. When viewing the advertisements at normal speed, engagement was a positive 66 score. Surprisingly, when viewed on fast-forward, the score was even higher at 68.
Perhaps the brain is more relaxed in the knowledge that the individual has the power to banish the ads and, unconsciously, takes in more through the relaxed state. After all, many people who watch a show straight off live TV will move away to make a drink or fix some food while the break is on, or get annoyed that there are commercials showing and actively distance themselves from them in protest.
Maybe the advertisers will have the last laugh. It is never precisely known what parts of advertising works, nor who the advertising works best on. Far from losing out, maybe this is the beginning of a whole new subliminal uprising.
Many people record TV shows for watching later and will skip the commercials by running the tape forward. NBC wanted to know how engaged viewers were with the ads when they were being fast-forwarded.
It seems that people are still engaged, despite the popular assumption that the ads would not be noticed the same way, if at all. Levels of engagement were high, even though the commercials were over in a fraction of the time they would at normal speed. And without any sound.
When trying to get to the next part of the show you are watching, you have to keep an eye open for it to show on screen again. I don't know anyone who presses the fast-forward button and then guesses when to press play again without watching the screen and the adverts whizzing past at high speed. The brain must be engaged to be actively focusing on finding the end of the commercial break and the start of the programme, so it's perhaps understandable that people registered highly when working through this.
The results of the experiments have so far uncovered even more brain engagement. On a scale of 1 to 100, anything registering above 60 is deemed as engaged. When viewing the advertisements at normal speed, engagement was a positive 66 score. Surprisingly, when viewed on fast-forward, the score was even higher at 68.
Perhaps the brain is more relaxed in the knowledge that the individual has the power to banish the ads and, unconsciously, takes in more through the relaxed state. After all, many people who watch a show straight off live TV will move away to make a drink or fix some food while the break is on, or get annoyed that there are commercials showing and actively distance themselves from them in protest.
Maybe the advertisers will have the last laugh. It is never precisely known what parts of advertising works, nor who the advertising works best on. Far from losing out, maybe this is the beginning of a whole new subliminal uprising.
Serious Sleep
Many of us are used to sleeping fewer hours than we would like during the week and trying to make up for it by having a lie in at the weekend. But Management Issues reports that researchers at Northwestern University in Chicago believe this type of sleep might not help us to catch up at all.
By continually sleeping less than the recommended eight hours a night, people can become used to this and stop feeling tired. Feeling awake on less sleep is one thing, but the performance of an individual on tasks can noticably change for the worse. The body can also take a knock in health without enough sleep.
Having the traditional weekend lie in could well be pointless according to the authors of the study. Lead author, Professor Fred W. Turek, suggests the possibility that in regularly sleeping less than we need, "The ability to compensate for lost sleep is itself lost, which is damaging both physically and mentally".
In the fast-paced culture that we live today, it is no wonder that we get by on less rest. Our situation is geared up to doing whatever we want, whenever we want, resulting in a loss of natural cycles. If you say 'let there be light', you can generally get your own way. What your body and brain thinks about the matter, however, could be very different.
By continually sleeping less than the recommended eight hours a night, people can become used to this and stop feeling tired. Feeling awake on less sleep is one thing, but the performance of an individual on tasks can noticably change for the worse. The body can also take a knock in health without enough sleep.
Having the traditional weekend lie in could well be pointless according to the authors of the study. Lead author, Professor Fred W. Turek, suggests the possibility that in regularly sleeping less than we need, "The ability to compensate for lost sleep is itself lost, which is damaging both physically and mentally".
In the fast-paced culture that we live today, it is no wonder that we get by on less rest. Our situation is geared up to doing whatever we want, whenever we want, resulting in a loss of natural cycles. If you say 'let there be light', you can generally get your own way. What your body and brain thinks about the matter, however, could be very different.
Laughing in the face of the ban
The ban on smoking in public places was guaranteed to introduce silly stories into the media. So it was no surprise to hear about a vicar who deliberately lit his pipe in a police station, in a protest against his disappearing civil liberties.
Political protest like this don't always succeed and, indeed, this protest made no waves. Citing the incident as an environmental health issue, the police were not interested in arresting Reverend Anthony Carr, so there has been little impact. However, with even a small media interest in the story, it is possible that copycat incidents could take place elsewhere in the country.
Readers of The Times appear to be having a bit more fun with the smoking ban and have written in their thoughts:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article2028319.ece
Political protest like this don't always succeed and, indeed, this protest made no waves. Citing the incident as an environmental health issue, the police were not interested in arresting Reverend Anthony Carr, so there has been little impact. However, with even a small media interest in the story, it is possible that copycat incidents could take place elsewhere in the country.
Readers of The Times appear to be having a bit more fun with the smoking ban and have written in their thoughts:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article2028319.ece
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)