February 14th 2007
From ToonArmyUSA
You have to feel for the poor Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man. Utd. fans don’t you? The drudgery of showing up week after week, watching your team chalk up win after monotonous win. Week’s go by and there’s nothing but praise in the national press (oh how they sing for your team!) for your team and your manager. Your players are all technically gifted; talented beyond their years; physically imposing; midfield generals, prolific strikers, and born again defenders. Jesus, even your coach is better than he’s ever been (dare I even say it, he’s ‘rejuvenated’).
In a word, life for you is boring. Your annual collection of silverware is the equivalent of the ritual summer holidays to Spain (predictable and never as good after the first time), your lack of scandal/player unrest/manager uncertainty the equal of a life lived in Devon (think sex, missionary position, for life), and your chairman’s cozy and stable relationship with your manager reminds me of Tuesday’s (nothing ever happens on a Tuesday).
How you must yearn for the whispers of backroom unrest, or perhaps some skullduggery in the dressing room. How about a manager that has “lost the players” or a striker who calls the manager a liar on national TV? Well heaven is a tight space son, and I’m afraid the Geordies have restricted it to waiting-list only.
Life as a Newcastle fan is one full with contradictions, unlikely resolution, apathetic defeats, improbable victories, predictable failures, uncanny coincidence, surprising resilience, and disappointing affirmations.
Liverpool took the miserable, rainy ride back to Merseyside thinking of what could have been last weekend, while the rest of us were left to ponder just how we can beat the scouse thoroughbreds one week and surrender to Fulham the week before.
How badly does the typical cockney-blue or Franco-highbrarian yearn for the chaos of a season-in-the-life of your average Geordie? Like a middle-class Essex housewife dreaming of a leg over with the young window cleaner’s apprentice, how he must clamour for the unrest of the chairman abusing the fans’ trust, or manipulating the press to get his hands on the clubs’ assets. Oh, the thrill of seeing his own players fighting each other DURING A GAME. The local papers covering your most recent “young” star out on the town crashing his Ferrari into a bridge/jailed for GBH/questioned for rape. And that’s just what’s going on off the pitch.
How about beating Barcelona at home (with a Tino hat trick) and then surrendering a 12 point lead for the league. Sacking a manager that gets you into the Champions League (and saves you from relegation) and then hiring a replacement not fit to lace his boots?
And again, there’s giving up away to Fulham and beating Liverpool at home.
Aye, as the words to the great song go, “no one said it was gonna be easy”. And to be honest, I’m not sure we’d have it any other way. Would you really cash in this soap opera of highs and desperate lows for the constant, steady, sleep depriving drip of success? Would you meet the devil at the crossroads and trade your life affirming (and divorce inducing) support for the sup of a pint of success? Howay Man.
And if you were ever in any doubt as to what I’m talking about, consider an email sent yesterday by a fellow fan to the ToonArmyUSA message board. It wasn’t enough for us to send the scousers home with nowt, he had a right go at Roeder for playing Dyer up front and Taylor out of position. Get in there son! You just can’t buy that now, can you?
I mean it’s not like we’re struggling for players or anything, is it?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
'Beer goggles' effect explained
From The BBC.
Alcohol is not the only factor in the beer goggles formula
Scientists believe they have worked out a formula to calculate how "beer goggles" affect a drinker's vision. The drink-fuelled phenomenon is said to transform supposedly "ugly" people into beauties - until the morning after.
Researchers at Manchester University say while beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, the amount of alcohol consumed is not the only factor. Additional factors include the level of light in the pub or club, the drinker's own eyesight and the room's smokiness.
The distance between two people is also a factor.
They all add up to make the aesthetically-challenged more attractive, according to the formula.
The formula can work out a final score, ranging from less than one - where there is no beer goggle effect - to more than 100.
The formula can work out a final score, ranging from less than one - where there is no beer goggle effect - to more than 100.
Nathan Efron, Professor of Clinical Optometry at the University of Manchester, said: "The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too. "For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect."
The research was commissioned by eyecare firm Bausch & Lomb PureVision.
A poll showed that 68% of people had regretted giving their phone number to someone to whom they later realised they were not attracted. A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive". Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model.
KEY TO FORMULA
An = number of units of alcohol consumed
S = smokiness of the room (graded from 0-10, where 0 clear air; 10 extremely smoky)
L = luminance of 'person of interest' (candelas per square metre; typically 1 pitch black; 150 as seen in normal room lighting)
Vo = Snellen visual acuity (6/6 normal; 6/12 just meets driving standard)
d = distance from 'person of interest' (metres; 0.5 to 3 metres)
An = number of units of alcohol consumed
S = smokiness of the room (graded from 0-10, where 0 clear air; 10 extremely smoky)
L = luminance of 'person of interest' (candelas per square metre; typically 1 pitch black; 150 as seen in normal room lighting)
Vo = Snellen visual acuity (6/6 normal; 6/12 just meets driving standard)
d = distance from 'person of interest' (metres; 0.5 to 3 metres)
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
The Guardian
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)