innocent_lex: (Default)
This is CNN's headline. Am sitting in T5 where there was no change to security that I could discern (though I did expect it to be overblown and reactive yet again). And then I come to the lounge and discover that not only is Bin Laden dead, but he managed to kill Sunday before he was shot. That's impressive, but why pick on Sunday? I like Sundays - they're relaxing. Couldn't he have picked Tuesdays? Tuesdays are always a bit blech.

Not sure what to make of all of this. Clearly it's taken a very long time to get to this point. There are many other terrorist leaders to take his place. Seeing lots of people dancing and chanting in the streets over death looks very familiar - just different location from previous events.

Yes, it was inevitable that this would happen. I hope there is a lot of work going into getting to the root of the problems that led to this situation, but I see no evidence of it. Will anything change? Can't see it happening. Will people get their rights back? Can't see that happening either. I've never believed the death penalty solved anything, whether with or without a fair trial. A great deal to ponder.
innocent_lex: (Default)
There's a series running on BBC4 that started last week called Beautiful Minds. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s0ggv

Last week it was all about Jocelyn Bell Burnell and her discoveries, for which other people were awarded the Nobel prize (she's a woman, so...). Tonight it's James Lovelock, which will be fascinating (he's the chap who came up with Gaia theory), and next week it's Tim Hunt, who I don't know but looks like he's a biologist. Truly interesting stuff.
innocent_lex: (Vin cowboy)
Don't freezer designers know that's where the Haagen Dazs is stored? What kind of pathetic late night snacks are these people eating that they don't know a light in the freezer should not be an optional extra?
innocent_lex: (Default)
Over the weekend I got quite interested in this twitter trending phenomenon, mostly due to the #amazonfail stuff. But [livejournal.com profile] carlinjona mentioned a woman singing on UK's Got Talent (or whatever it's called) over the weekend so I searched out YouTube (it's here if you want to see) where over 2.5 million people had been ahead of me. I popped into twitter to see how the amazon thing was turning out, and... there is Susan Boyle (the above-mentioned singer), trending in 3rd place on twitter. The internet is absolutely intriguing me at the moment.

Huh

Jul. 17th, 2008 08:37 pm
innocent_lex: (Default)
I've just realised I don't understand 'holy'. I mean, I know the dictionary definition, I just don't... understand 'holy'. It's a word I've used often enough in my life and always known what it meant. But now I don't. Not sure what's changed.
innocent_lex: (inspiration)
I think I might have found it. The device. The one that does (almost) everything I want. Maybe. Perhaps.

It's the HTC TyTyn II. Review at CNET.

My requirements list was:
- a phone that I don't have to charge up every couple of days just because I've used it to make half a dozen phone calls
[it says it has 7 hours of talk time]
- that I can read and edit documents on
[it comes with windows mobile 6, which means it either has word on it or I can load it on]
- that has wifi
[check]
- and hsdpa
[check]
- and bluetooth
[check]
- and other connectivity options
[USB, VoIP]
- that will synch with my diary, contacts, notes and so on
[MS active synch]
- that has a touch-screen
[check]
- that I can write on anywhere with a stylus
[hmm, don't know]
- that has a speaker
[yes, speakerphone]
- that I can use all over the world
[GPRS, check]
- that can play music and video
[definitely music, not sure about video]
- that has the usual random apps that come with any PDA
[GPS (though buying cities might cost), browser, alarm, SMS, etc, etc]
- has email
[check]
- isn't locked to a specific mobile provider
[check]
- and that doesn't cost the earth.
[uh oh...]

Plus Qwerty keyboard that slides out. And a camera.

Pretty. http://www.htc.com/uploadedFiles/Common/Product_Documents/UK/DLflyer170807.pdf

ETA: No, never mind, it's got a shedload of crappy reviews on Amazon from people who've actually used it in earnest.
innocent_lex: (writing)
I wrote about 800 words yesterday, some of which might even be good. I wrote some notes yesterday, too. And today I've started by writing some notes, and thinking in a bigger space. I currently have flipchart paper and coloured post-its everywhere so that I can see all kinds of things at once. Just need to stick this stuff on the walls and I'll feel better. Am aiming for at least another 800 words today.

On the topic of new things, I've created a journal at InsaneJournal just because. Don't really know what's going on with LJ at the moment, and it's nice to have options. I'm here: http://innocent-lex.insanejournal.com/
innocent_lex: (Default)
So, Schroedinger's cat. There's this thought experiment where there's a cat in a box, and also in the box is a radioactive isotope and a vial of poison. If the isotope decays it will trigger the vial, the poison is released and the cat dies. So far, so... kind of gross, actually, but let's go with it. The experiment addresses the concept of quantum superposition, whereby a sub-atomic particle is in all states until it is measured / observed, whereupon it collapses into one particular state.

With me so far? The thought experiment goes that due to the bizarre nature of the physics the cat is both dead and alive until someone opens the box and observes the experiment, at which point the superposition collapses and you see the cat as either alive or dead.

Which is extremely odd all on its own, and gets even odder when you ask: why are we excluding the cat from the experiment as an observer? Yes, that's what's been bothering me for days now. And also, the cat is not a sub-atomic particle. And also, how does the particle-cat know it's being observed and therefore have to choose a state (and what if it can't make up its mind?). And quite frankly, extending that experiment into the real world brings all kinds of problems for people who live alone, as they would spend their nights floating around at home like some disembodied and indecisive cloud of particles unless someone else happened to look in the window and see them. Yes, fine, so I'm possibly exaggerating and in reality the single person could become multiple single people in different universes, some of whom watch Torchwood and some don't. Or not.

I think the point of the experiment (this was back in the 1930s) was to remind people that quantum physics was (and still is) incomplete and that people should start thinking a little more intelligently about the problems and how they'd work in reality and not get blinded by pretty maths. But then I've never actually been taught nor studied any quantum physics and am apparently out of my depth on this one. Where's Rodney McKay when you need him?

Profile

innocent_lex: (Default)
innocent_lex

April 2013

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 04:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios