Saturday, 26 July 2014
Now see here
You might be interested to see here what I have to say about the execution in Arizona that took two hours.
Saturday, 19 July 2014
The Burning of The Midnight Lamp
Further to my earlier post, here's something else that they always get wrong on TV shows and films set in times or places without electric light.
Paraffin lamps with glass chimneys (or kero-seen lamps in America) or hurricane lanterns (hurricane lamps, ditto) in such productions invariably have the glass coated with a thick layer of soot, so that only a dim glimmer of light penetrates. The wick is usually turned up too far as well, so that what light there is flickers crazily.
Paraffin or oil lamps with chimneys need to have the wick trimmed so it burns evenly when it's lit, and when the chimney is lowered into place, the wick must be turned down immediately, before it covers the glass with soot, because the increased draught produced by the chimney causes the flame to burn higher, producing more smoke.
Incidentally, the crops of rape which blanket the countryside, burning the retina with its violent yellow blossom and assaulting the nose with its glutinous aroma, nowadays in pursuit of EU subsidies for the benefit of the processed food and biofuel industries, and looking so alien and out of place in the landscape, were, surprisingly, previously a feature of the Victorian countryside.
Before the oil and petrochemical industries existed, fuel for lamps was extracted from rape seed, known as colza oil (from the Dutch/German for 'cabbage seed', rape being a member of the brassica or cabbage family), and whale blubber, known as train oil (from the Dutch/German for 'tear', from the way blubber 'weeps' oil when heated).
Paraffin lamps with glass chimneys (or kero-seen lamps in America) or hurricane lanterns (hurricane lamps, ditto) in such productions invariably have the glass coated with a thick layer of soot, so that only a dim glimmer of light penetrates. The wick is usually turned up too far as well, so that what light there is flickers crazily.
Paraffin or oil lamps with chimneys need to have the wick trimmed so it burns evenly when it's lit, and when the chimney is lowered into place, the wick must be turned down immediately, before it covers the glass with soot, because the increased draught produced by the chimney causes the flame to burn higher, producing more smoke.
Incidentally, the crops of rape which blanket the countryside, burning the retina with its violent yellow blossom and assaulting the nose with its glutinous aroma, nowadays in pursuit of EU subsidies for the benefit of the processed food and biofuel industries, and looking so alien and out of place in the landscape, were, surprisingly, previously a feature of the Victorian countryside.
Before the oil and petrochemical industries existed, fuel for lamps was extracted from rape seed, known as colza oil (from the Dutch/German for 'cabbage seed', rape being a member of the brassica or cabbage family), and whale blubber, known as train oil (from the Dutch/German for 'tear', from the way blubber 'weeps' oil when heated).
Friday, 18 July 2014
The Locomotion, but not by Little Eva
As I mentioned in http://robocono.blogspot.no/2014/07/confusing-fashion-tip-in-popular.html, while at a wedding recently I noticed a generational difference in the way people dance. Under the age of, say, 40, they all jig up and down on the spot and wave their arms in the air in time to the music. All of them, in exactly the same way.
Of course different generations have their own styles of dancing, and between the 1950s (in the UK, with jiving, in the US a bit earlier, with the Lindy Hop) and some 15 years ago, different youth groups had their own styles - punks pogoed, skinheads did the moon stomp, bikers headbanged, and so on.
But generally speaking, since the passing from fashion of moving around clasped in each others arms and following the steps of the waltz, or the military two step ("Oh what a pity the pubs in the city all close at half past ten" / "Oh what a pity she'd only one titty to feed the baby from") or whatever the music dictated, individual dancers moved individually, perhaps echoing their partner in doing The Twist, or The Hitchhiker or whatever, but not in any case repeating the same movements all night.
I've noticed another generational difference in movement, this time on the street, and I've watched it appear and grow in popularity over the past five years or so.
In walking, the natural way to move your arms is to swing them backwards and forwards, in turn, at the side of your body, in line with the direction of travel. This action is seen at its most exaggerated in soldiers marching, when the arms are raised level with the shoulders.
Some years ago, I started to notice young women in their twenties swinging their arms from side to side across the front of their body when walking. Then I noticed slightly older women doing it, and then I noticed young men doing it.
I've tried doing it myself to see if there's anything in it, and it feels not just counterintuitive and odd, but actually contrived and awkward - it breaks the rhythm of your pace, and you have to swing your upper body from side to side to accommodate it.
I'm not saying everyone under the age of forty walks like this, but it's definitely getting more popular.
Where does it come from? Who started it, and why?
Old, left, New, right
Of course different generations have their own styles of dancing, and between the 1950s (in the UK, with jiving, in the US a bit earlier, with the Lindy Hop) and some 15 years ago, different youth groups had their own styles - punks pogoed, skinheads did the moon stomp, bikers headbanged, and so on.
But generally speaking, since the passing from fashion of moving around clasped in each others arms and following the steps of the waltz, or the military two step ("Oh what a pity the pubs in the city all close at half past ten" / "Oh what a pity she'd only one titty to feed the baby from") or whatever the music dictated, individual dancers moved individually, perhaps echoing their partner in doing The Twist, or The Hitchhiker or whatever, but not in any case repeating the same movements all night.
I've noticed another generational difference in movement, this time on the street, and I've watched it appear and grow in popularity over the past five years or so.
In walking, the natural way to move your arms is to swing them backwards and forwards, in turn, at the side of your body, in line with the direction of travel. This action is seen at its most exaggerated in soldiers marching, when the arms are raised level with the shoulders.
Some years ago, I started to notice young women in their twenties swinging their arms from side to side across the front of their body when walking. Then I noticed slightly older women doing it, and then I noticed young men doing it.
I've tried doing it myself to see if there's anything in it, and it feels not just counterintuitive and odd, but actually contrived and awkward - it breaks the rhythm of your pace, and you have to swing your upper body from side to side to accommodate it.
I'm not saying everyone under the age of forty walks like this, but it's definitely getting more popular.
Where does it come from? Who started it, and why?Old, left, New, right
Friday, 11 July 2014
Contrived Opening for Anaphoric Humorous effect
Speaking of titles, which sounds laboured, but I was, here, in May; I reckon I can help 20th Century Fox out if they ever decide to make another Die Hard sequel.
They had Die Hard, Die Hard II, Die Hard with a Vengeance, and then I felt they lost their way a little. "Live Free or Die Hard" and "A Good Day to Die Hard" don't quite have the same ring.
How about Die Hard with a Fucking Vengeance and Die Hard with a Fucking Vengeance You Bastard?
They had Die Hard, Die Hard II, Die Hard with a Vengeance, and then I felt they lost their way a little. "Live Free or Die Hard" and "A Good Day to Die Hard" don't quite have the same ring.
How about Die Hard with a Fucking Vengeance and Die Hard with a Fucking Vengeance You Bastard?
 |
| Bloke in a vest © Reg Smythe |
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Confusing Fashion Tip in Popular Musical Hit
I went to a wedding recently, and due to the age of the happy couple and the bulk of the celebrants, I was exposed to music that would make me whizz the tuning dial past the station as fast as I could if I came across it on the radio.
I felt sorry for the mob on the dance floor - every tune sounded the same, and they all danced to every tune in exactly the same way, jigging up and down with their arms in the air, waving them in time to the music. And they weren't even on Ecstasy.
The music consisted of maddeningly catchy melodic hooks and choruses repeated without variation above a heavy baseline, with bursts of electronically enhanced yodelling and melisma. (Apparently, the first pop record to feature melisma was "To Sir With Love" by Lulu, 1967, although Stevie Wonder and Whitney Houston must surely have more to answer for in this respect, via a shared background in the conventions of US gospel singing.)
One tune that was repeated a few times, presumably by request, was "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" by Beyoncé Knowles. I remember this from when it came out, and was reminded of the mental response the chorus elicited when I first heard it.
It goes: "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it".
Number one, if the lyrics are directed at single "ladies", as the title suggests, and "putting a ring on it" refers to removing men from the market for sexual liasons by marrying them (or getting engaged?), it's surely not the men's third finger the women like.
Plus, it's necessary to interpret "it" as being used here to either = unattached men in general, or as an insulting, non-gendered substitute for "him".
2, if you don't know the title, the other lyrics are difficult to make out, and you might assume it referred to unattached women.
Either way, the logical interpretation is that the theme of this song is a recommendation of genital piercing.
I felt sorry for the mob on the dance floor - every tune sounded the same, and they all danced to every tune in exactly the same way, jigging up and down with their arms in the air, waving them in time to the music. And they weren't even on Ecstasy.
The music consisted of maddeningly catchy melodic hooks and choruses repeated without variation above a heavy baseline, with bursts of electronically enhanced yodelling and melisma. (Apparently, the first pop record to feature melisma was "To Sir With Love" by Lulu, 1967, although Stevie Wonder and Whitney Houston must surely have more to answer for in this respect, via a shared background in the conventions of US gospel singing.)
One tune that was repeated a few times, presumably by request, was "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)" by Beyoncé Knowles. I remember this from when it came out, and was reminded of the mental response the chorus elicited when I first heard it.
It goes: "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it".
Number one, if the lyrics are directed at single "ladies", as the title suggests, and "putting a ring on it" refers to removing men from the market for sexual liasons by marrying them (or getting engaged?), it's surely not the men's third finger the women like.
Plus, it's necessary to interpret "it" as being used here to either = unattached men in general, or as an insulting, non-gendered substitute for "him".
2, if you don't know the title, the other lyrics are difficult to make out, and you might assume it referred to unattached women.
Either way, the logical interpretation is that the theme of this song is a recommendation of genital piercing.
Saturday, 5 July 2014
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
Jewel-like Extravagance on a Minuscule Scale
Insects and arthropods inhabiting forest floor detritus, all less than 2.5mm in length (illustration from child's encyclopedia of science).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
