Great thing, chip and pin. Just one gripe - it makes shop assistants think I'm stupid.
The thing is, I know how to work a chip and pin machine thingy. I know which way my card goes in, I know how to type in my pin number, and I know to when to take my card out. After all it's not difficult, and there's handy instructions on the little screen. Having said that, I'm still probably in the minority.
The problem is that the shop assistant sees those instructions on their screen a second before I do. So, just before I see the instruction to 'Insert Card' the shop assistant says "Insert your card", with a hint of impatience. A split second before I see 'Enter Pin', the shop assistant tells me to enter my pin. And not wanting to remove my card before the machine has finished with it, I wait for the screen to tell me to 'Remove Card', by which time of course, the shop assistant has already told me to remove it as if I was an imbecile just staring at the screen waiting for a doughnut to pop out.
Now, I understand that this, along with most of my rants, probably doesn't register on your radar. But I've just been to B&Q for the fourth weekend in a row and I just had to get it off my chest.
All I'm asking here is for one second to prove my technological superiority over the other 75% of the population. Is that too much to ask?
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Just In Case
If I were an iPod designer I would be furious. Imagine - I've spent countless hours working on the perfect curves, the space-aged look, the miniature dimensions, the ideal materials. And what do you do? You stick it in a tacky rubber case. Grrrr.
Now, I know why you have a case for your iPod. Sure - it makes it bigger, bulkier, harder to operate and it looks awful. But hey, in three years' time when it finally gives up the ghost, at least it will be in pristine condition when you throw it in the bin.
You're the equivalent of the old lady who keeps the plastic covers on her sofa.
Now, I know why you have a case for your iPod. Sure - it makes it bigger, bulkier, harder to operate and it looks awful. But hey, in three years' time when it finally gives up the ghost, at least it will be in pristine condition when you throw it in the bin.
You're the equivalent of the old lady who keeps the plastic covers on her sofa.
Cutty What?
So the Cutty Sark was set on fire and now 'needs' another £18 million spent on it. The original bill for restoration was a whopping £25million. Can we really not think of anything better to spend £43 million on?
Before I go on, I know all the usual counter arguments - it's our heritage, it brings in the tourists, it's a unique part of our history. Hmmm,...well, yes to an extent - but £43 million? When finished, the Cutty Sark will probably only be about 10% original - so why not just build a replica? Or why bother at all?
A few years ago I visited Angkor Wat in Cambodia - a huge network of temples nearly a thousand years old. They were, of course, 'restoring' some of them, the result being awkward brand new blocks of stone laid among the beautifully aged ones. It looked awful.
Conversely, the smaller temples in the jungle have had no such restoration, and there are trees and vines climbing all over and through them, pushing the stones out of place and slowly destroying these centuries-old monuments. These temples looked fantastic - hundreds of years of decay right before my eyes.
Ok, so these temples and the Cutty Sark will disappear for ever if we don't save them - but the cost of restoring them, and the ridiculously fake result of doing so, is proof that we should just leave them be.
I await the day that one of the rocks at Stonehenge finally falls over, and we rush in with a gleaming block of sandstone to replace it to 'preserve' it for future generations.
Before I go on, I know all the usual counter arguments - it's our heritage, it brings in the tourists, it's a unique part of our history. Hmmm,...well, yes to an extent - but £43 million? When finished, the Cutty Sark will probably only be about 10% original - so why not just build a replica? Or why bother at all?
A few years ago I visited Angkor Wat in Cambodia - a huge network of temples nearly a thousand years old. They were, of course, 'restoring' some of them, the result being awkward brand new blocks of stone laid among the beautifully aged ones. It looked awful.
Conversely, the smaller temples in the jungle have had no such restoration, and there are trees and vines climbing all over and through them, pushing the stones out of place and slowly destroying these centuries-old monuments. These temples looked fantastic - hundreds of years of decay right before my eyes.
Ok, so these temples and the Cutty Sark will disappear for ever if we don't save them - but the cost of restoring them, and the ridiculously fake result of doing so, is proof that we should just leave them be.
I await the day that one of the rocks at Stonehenge finally falls over, and we rush in with a gleaming block of sandstone to replace it to 'preserve' it for future generations.
Thursday, 7 February 2008
What Was I Thinking?
Ever had that mind slip where you say something out loud, and someone else is convinced you said something else? For example:
"I'm just taking the dog out for a walk"
"You mean the dog?"
"That's what I said - the dog"
"Nope, you said dishwasher. You said "I'm just taking the dishwasher out for a walk""
The weird thing for me is that both people are in absolutely no doubt about what was said - 100% positive what they heard/said. Nothing can convince either of them otherwise. And because of this total and complete certainty coupled with the lack of any suitable evidence, it often leads to major rows, with both sides fighting for their sanity.
How can the brain get it so wrong?
"I'm just taking the dog out for a walk"
"You mean the dog?"
"That's what I said - the dog"
"Nope, you said dishwasher. You said "I'm just taking the dishwasher out for a walk""
The weird thing for me is that both people are in absolutely no doubt about what was said - 100% positive what they heard/said. Nothing can convince either of them otherwise. And because of this total and complete certainty coupled with the lack of any suitable evidence, it often leads to major rows, with both sides fighting for their sanity.
How can the brain get it so wrong?
Dear Sir
Had to chuckle the other day. I love the letters page in the Metro (the free newspaper for commuters in major UK cities), and often write a crafty letter in just to get people's backs up - and that is something that's very easy to do on letters pages.
Contributions over the last week had people in a rage about the pronunciation of the letter 'h' (it's 'aitch', not 'haitch' in case you are one of the offenders). As amusing as I found all this, the best letter towards the end of the week went along the lines of:
"With response to all these people writing in about the pronunciation of the leter 'h' - have you all got nothing better to do than write in to the Metro about such pointless things?"
Oh, the irony.
Contributions over the last week had people in a rage about the pronunciation of the letter 'h' (it's 'aitch', not 'haitch' in case you are one of the offenders). As amusing as I found all this, the best letter towards the end of the week went along the lines of:
"With response to all these people writing in about the pronunciation of the leter 'h' - have you all got nothing better to do than write in to the Metro about such pointless things?"
Oh, the irony.
Smile
At work the other day, we started discussing (again) how gullible the general public can be when it comes to crafty marketing campaigns on the telly, and even got onto the riveting subjectof razorblades - well you have to have a break sometimes don't you?
I'm certainly the most cynical person when it comes to TV ads. The shampoo ads always boast hair four times as shiny, three times as nourished and six times as strong - results from a survey of twelve women who all received a free sample for their time. Hmmm, not personally convinced that those results are reliable or significant.
So what about the latest razor with 4 blades (and one on the back for those 'hard to reach' areas). Well, I got a free sample through the post and it's the best razor I've ever used. I'm ashamed of myself. I have fallen for all the spiel, and I have been 'marketed to'.
Still, I fondly hark back to one of the greatest scams of all time. Remember a time when every ad for a toothbrush was extolling the benefits of having a bendy neck, so it could reach all the way to the back of your mouth. Are you kidding me? Touch your back teeth with your finger now - go on. It's about two inches maximum to my back teeth - and I hardly need an extra long neck on my toothbrush to get there.
If you have a bendy 'reach' toothbrush, you are either a sucker for lame ads or have a massive, deformed mouth. Not sure which I'd prefer.
I'm certainly the most cynical person when it comes to TV ads. The shampoo ads always boast hair four times as shiny, three times as nourished and six times as strong - results from a survey of twelve women who all received a free sample for their time. Hmmm, not personally convinced that those results are reliable or significant.
So what about the latest razor with 4 blades (and one on the back for those 'hard to reach' areas). Well, I got a free sample through the post and it's the best razor I've ever used. I'm ashamed of myself. I have fallen for all the spiel, and I have been 'marketed to'.
Still, I fondly hark back to one of the greatest scams of all time. Remember a time when every ad for a toothbrush was extolling the benefits of having a bendy neck, so it could reach all the way to the back of your mouth. Are you kidding me? Touch your back teeth with your finger now - go on. It's about two inches maximum to my back teeth - and I hardly need an extra long neck on my toothbrush to get there.
If you have a bendy 'reach' toothbrush, you are either a sucker for lame ads or have a massive, deformed mouth. Not sure which I'd prefer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
