Corporate Knowledge

The corporate sponsorship requirements of the upcoming Rugby World Cup are making for some interesting observations at the moment. To protect profits, any sponsor or business not involved in the tournament funds is being ruthlessy shoved out of the way, sometimes gently, but other times absurdly, like making charity ambulances cover up the sponsors that keep them operating.

Most noticably so far in Wellington, with it's naming rights sponsor not being involved in the RWC, Westpac Stadium has lost part of it's external signage:
This fits with the 'clean' requirement, but does make the stadium look like someone has been busy with a giant label maker lest anyone was wondering what the big round thing was (although it now reflects what most locals call the thing anyway). It still lights up at night, making the incongruity even more special.

Another sponsorship curiosity has been highlighted by this TV ad:

I quite like it. It is sweet and nostalgic, and neatly sums up the disappointment for fans resulting from the arguably best team in the game not winning its premier tournament for a generation. Steinlager have sponsored the All Blacks since the mid 80's, and are re-introducing the old style white cans for the duration of tournament, which I also like.

The first thing though is, if security is halfway competent, there is no way our loyal fan is going to get his talisman through the gate at the game venue. The second thing of note is that while Steinlager might sponsor the AB's, the official beer of the tournament is Heineken, so the latter will be the only beer available at any game :).

You're spelling "Wellywood" wrong

It should be spelt "C-r-e-a-t-i-v-e P-r-o-c-e-s-s F-a-i-l".

So after a furore last year that I blogged about here, here and here, and a 'putting on hold' and 'consideration of other ideas', imbecilicly Wellington International Airport Limited has returned and announced it will go ahead with exactly the same freaking idea that caused the re-think in the first place.

The stupid. It burns.

Campbell vs Ring: Fight!

NB: Apologies for the link-fest, but there has been a lot of comment on this today. NBB, not 'alot'.

So John Campbell lost his objective cool somewhat last night and went pit-bull on deliverer of weather, fishing, and earthquake 'opinions' Ken Ring, giving him a thorough savaging on live TV (link) Campbell has since apologised for what one commentator called 'a disgrace to the interviewers trade'. Interestingly that commentator (who has delivered a few savagings himself in his time) has now made an apology of sorts to Campbell. There have been many comments today across several blogs and boards criticising Campbell's conduct. There have also been a few backing him up.

I am inclined to agree with the critics, but only partly. It may have been a set-up, and after dodging the first question and provoking his interviewer, Ring was effectively run into the ground and not really allowed back into the conversation. It was ugly and unnecessary. In attempting to discredit his subject, Campbell only made him look like a hapless victim. A better approach would have been to give Ring some rope and let him discredit himself.

And here's the thing: I think the interview itself was a mistake and doomed from the beginning. It gave Ring's theories a bit of extra seriousness and credibility they don't deserve. If you subject them to proper rigorous analysis, they fall apart. In light of the earthquakes in Christchurch his 'opinions' (he doesn't call them predictions, I guess in case someone gets into trouble after following them) are getting more consideration from the spooked and the wary population of NZ. They don't deserve it, and the people don't deserve the stress. Ring is at best misguided, at worst a cynical charlatan con artist. He bases his predictions on the Moon and tides, and uses such a scattergun approach that he is bound to be right some of the time, pure Texas Sharpshooter style. An excellent analysis was put out here today showing just how full of it his opinions are. If your maths isn't so hot, the graphs are an excellent summary. Representatives of GNS have also offered responses today. Some are arguing that it isn't a fair discussion if both viewpoints aren't given equal exposure and credence, but when it comes to bad science like this I disagree, since giving it equal exposure only adds unwarranted merit.

While I don't agree with Campbell's style, I am glad he did it, because someone in the media needed to. Ring has had fairly uncritical media exposure for some time, with his weather prediction almanacs given prominent space in some bookshops. I am glad someone stood up and had a proper go at a peddler of pseudoscience and woo, even if it backfired somewhat. While on the face of it these opinions seem harmless, to the lay person who can't tell the difference between them and actual good science (through no fault of their own) they are potentially dangerous if taken seriously. In a wider context it adds to what sometimes feels like a popular anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-expert sentiment, something I find unsettling. Often though the people who buy into that sentiment are ignorant or misinformed about how science actually works.

Of course, if Ring's 'opinioned' big March 20 earthquake arrives (and I survive) I will reconsider my opinion. That's how scientific method works. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Note to media

Emergency landing at Blenheim

1. A DHC-8/Q300 has nose wheels (2) rather than a nose wheel.
2. If said nose wheels fail to lower properly they are not 'missing'; just not where they should be.
3. What happened to a Beech 1900 a few years ago has nothing to do with this.
4. This isn't a 'crash landing' as TV3 news apparently put it, there being no crash.


In other vaguely related interest generating yesterday:
Air New Zealand shoehorns its new toy into Wellington.

Quite liking the comments thread on that one. The report doesn't mention that being empty, the aircraft actually used less runway than some of the regular users. Fully laden it would be a different story (hence why this is something of a one-off), but the take-off was quite spritely as the pics here demonstrate.

It reminds me of the once upon a time (early 80's to be exact) when Boeing 747's used to regularly fly in to Wellington (pic). I was about the age of the kid in the middle at the time (pic is from 1984), and remember them quite well.

Faded Glory

This has been circulated a little bit this week, but I happen to agree with it and think it is an excellent and accurate bit of writing, so I am passing it on again.

Steve Coogan goes a long way toward explaining why Top Gear just isn't that good anymore.

And explaining why 'PC gone mad' is a cop-out argument to boot.

Top Gear used to be appointment viewing. We even built a weekly social occasion around it. Somewhere along the line though, the magic went. The great moments that the episodes used to be full of got fewer and far between, the 'spontaneous' banter and wind-ups more obviously scripted, and the famed challenges more obviously contrived (usually to ensure that Jeremy won), and everyone involved just looking like they were going through the motions. The episodes got less and less enjoyable, less memorable, and we eventually just lost interest, after years of loyal viewing. This whole mexican thing just illustrates how bad it has gotten (while nicely parallelling our own recent experiences with a certain breakfast TV presenter). There has always been a boorish element to it, to be fair, but seldom this daft. What happened? It used to be fun.

Not quite catching the moon

So after the nearly full moon in the last post, it then clouded over for the better part of a week, denying the oppourtunity to photograph the full and waning moon. I'll just have to try again next month.

It has been a busy week, mostly aviation related due to an airshow over the weekend (photos to come in the next few posts). Still moon related though, A link to this was passed on to me today, and I liked it so much I thought I'd share it. It is pretty much self explanatory, and it works beautifully (even if the moon at 0:39 is upside down to my southern hemisphere eyes):


Also moon related is this little thing I found. You know how all the moon landing-hoax theorists go on about the whole thing being filmed in a soundstage? Well Michael Bay has done pretty much just that for the new Transformers movie:


Aside from the obvious (to me anyway) accuracy fails with the Apollo spacecraft, and the clever (if misleading) use of real footage, it is remarkable how Bay's depiction of the astronauts looks almost nothing like the real footage, in more ways than are obvious. Not that I would expect accuracy or realism from a Bay movie, but it is an interesting theory tester, and hopefully might convince a few hoax proponents of the lunacy (pun intended) that the hoax theory is. On the other hand, it might inspire a whole new wave of people who don't know any better to fall for the poorly researched, utterly discredited non-science woo that sadly still undermines one of our greatest acheivements.

Somebody think of the children!

Dire Straits now officially offensive after decades of being one of the safest rock bands ever.

I get that a throwaway lyric that is actually a quote, in a song that is a parody of both the quoted and the thing he was referring to, could be considered to be offensive language.

But I don't why has it taken twenty five years of virtually continual airplay of a song that was the biggest hit off a monster album (including a radio edit produced at the time of the original release that doesn't feature said lyrics, after they caused controversy then) before anyone got riled up enough about it to officially complain. Again. Especially when there are far more and worse examples of homophobic or otherwise derogarotory or potentially offensive lyrics and themes in other innocuous sounding hit songs.

For example there is one very popular mainstream radio song from the late 90's, with a bouncy catchy riff, and very inoffensive sound, widely played by radio and featured in a few hit movies and TV series even, that is actually about crystal meth addiction, and features lyrics that explicitly reference sex and drug taking. I love the irony of it getting almost daily airplay on my local family friendly mainstream radio station among others. No-one listens to the lyrics apparently :)

Sucks to be a cyclist in NZ right now

5 cyclists doing nothing wrong taken down by careless, thoughtless, and reckless motorists in as many days, all dead, with another touch and go today.

Story link

As a cyclist and a motorist, I refuse to call these accidents. Accidents are genuinely unexpected and unavoidable in foresight. All of these deaths are neither.

At last count there are 470 comments attached to the above story following the usual antagonistic divide of motorist vs cyclist, with far more blinkered examples of the former, and few voices of reason. One should be wary of seeing this as a representative sample of population since it is self selecting, but an astonishing number seem to subscribe to the belief that cyclists have no right to be on the road, no right to any expectation of safe passage; whatever happens is their fault for being there. Dedicated cycling infrastructure in the form of designated lanes and safe areas and the like is slowly appearing, but is still rare, and nowhere near the norm, so bikes and other traffic are forced together. To be fair, while a lot of drivers (either maliciously or ignorantly) don't react to cyclists well, there are many stupid cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by thinking the road rules don't apply to them because they aren't in a car, or worse translate the at times palpable antagonism on the roads into deliberate provocation. I could rant about my own experiences as a regular commuter cyclist, but that would take an entire other post.

While as cycling becomes more popular there is something of a quiet culture war going on around it at the moment, the bigger point being missed as the heads bang on the comment threads is just why these incidents keep happening. It should be a scandal that a young driver thought there was nothing wrong in navigating a blind corner at speed on the wrong side of the road (a practice that killed three cyclists in one incident). It isn't, because it is accepted that as a nation we suck at driving. Across all road users (cyclists included) there is a certain element with a huge attitude problem, mostly centred around 'me first, screw everybody else', and a total lack of consideration for other road users, and a lack of awareness of potential consequences.

It's everywhere, constantly. Just in one ten minute drive home tonight on quiet suburban streets I counted three separate incidents of the type of driving that causes crashes. On a long drive on the open road dangerous driving is a typically regular sight, people risking lives to get where they are going a minute or two earlier. Local readers can try a challenge if they want. Next time you drive, if it is safe, try sticking exactly to the posted speed limit, and see how long it takes to pick up a tailgater, then a queue. It won't take long.

Driver training and licensing in this country is a joke (again to be fair, there is no formal licensing or training for cyclists at all, despite a formal road code being drawn up for them. Bicycles are also not subject to vehicle related road user charges or levies, although most cyclists are car owners, and pay levies accordingly anyway). No formal education or training required, essentially just a multichoice test and practical assessment and you are good to go. Enforcement of driving laws is similarly laid back, no matter how much those drivers for whom speed limits are only a guideline bleat about speeding tickets being an easy means of revenue gathering (hint: if you don't want a ticket, obey the bloody LAW! ). We are very good at licensing car operators rather than drivers. Formal and defensive driver training should be mandatory because the fact that you are in control of a big piece of metal that has mass, inertia and momentum, which you only need to screw up handling once to kill yourself, or worse somebody else, seems to be lost on people. I won't claim to be a perfect wheel, but on observation most drivers are nowhere near as good and safe as they think they are. They think it won't happen to them, if they think of it at all. I've survived both serious bike and car crashes, so I know it can and will if you let it.

Sad but True

Despite our nice reputation, a lot of Kiwi's just can't handle booze. Combine it with losing in a sport held dear and things get pretty ugly.

Rowdy crowd mars Eden Park Test

Eden Park 'louts' anger

Unruly Eden Park mob a League problem

As usual, the comments are more telling than the stories themselves. The last one is an opinion piece, and the title isn't really right. Go to any major sports event (and even some not so major ones) and the pathetic, embarrassing behaviour on show at that match is evident. Some people go to watch the game, others just go to get drunk and have 'an awesome time', which is usually less than awesome for those around them. I've seen dickheads at every big sporting event I've ever been to, and had my manhood and sexuality questioned on more than one occasion for not enthusiastically joining in with childish obscenity laden insults directed at either players or officials (going back as far as high school). Not everyone does this, but the idiot minority is usually big enough to be unavoidable.

Couple of things this highlights:

-Some people in this country know how to drink responsibly, but for a vast amount their drinking habits stopped developing before leaving high school: drink as much as you can for as long as you can. I understand in other countries it is embarrassing to be seen drunk in public; here it is practically an expectation. I started out that way, but always being something of a cheap drunk (my alcohol tolerance has always been low for my body type, so low in fact that terrifyingly I can be what I would consider drunk and still have a blood alcohol level that would let me legally drive), as I have gotten older I find myself drinking less and less. I'll partake if it suits, but don't need it to have a good time. I like the buzz and the relaxing effect, but hate being drunk, and hate being around drunk people when I'm sober, and a hangover now just means a morning or a day wasted.

-Combining the latter group of excess drinkers with sports exacerbates a second tendency: national insecurity. The need for validation means we can be incredibly ungracious winners (as supporters-the sportspeople themselves are generally well grounded about winning and losing), and incredibly bitter and sore losers. Combine this with a perceived 'right' and need for alcohol while watching sport (I know people who wouldn't bother going to a game if it was dry) and idiocy ensues. Supporters wearing an opposition jersey, or applauding opposition points skilfully scored are asking for trouble, and I am not talking about good natured banter, I'm talking real hatred and harrassment. I've seen it happen, and it disgusts me. I have trouble reconciling it with our supposed image as a laid back easy going friendly nation.

-Another facet of the insecurity thing is our supposed fundamental rivalry with the Australians in almost every area possible. It is there for sure and one or two sports almost revolve around it, but the truth is the rivalry is massively one way. We care about it way more than the Australians do.

We've clearly got issues.

Just because it's there it doesn't mean you have to shoot it

So a party of five Norwegians came to New Zealand, went on a hunting trip, and shot some endangered species (link).

Wankers.

Aside from their ignorance and arrogance at coming here and assuming anything they see is fair game, shooting a Kereru on a branch is just fricking lazy. I could hit a Kereru on a branch with a stone if I wanted, given how large and slow moving they are when not flying. Hitting one with a rifle is hardly a display of awesome hunting skills and marksmanship (unless you throw the rifle at it).

Book Review

I know you got soul (Jeremy Clarkson, 2005).

I picked this up cheaply (very cheaply) at a book fair the other day, having seen a more upmarket edition in the shops a while ago and thought it interesting (although not interesting enough to actually buy it). The idea of the book is that certain machines can transcend their inanimate nature and become charismatic entities, able to be regarded with affection and mourned when their time has passed, quoting such examples as Concorde, the Flying Scotsman and various other planes, cars, ships and other machinery. As a motoring journalist and co-host of sort-of-about-cars TV Show Top Gear, Clarkson is in theory well placed to comment on the subject.

It's an idea I completely agree with, and think would make a great book. Unfortunately, that isn’t this book. As I progressed (rapidly, it isn’t exactly Dawkins or Fisk) through its 233 pages, I quickly reached the conclusion it was aimed at people who know nothing about the subjects under discussion. It was also apparent that the author (or his editor) doesn’t know much about them either, just enough to appear knowledgable to the uninitiated. The writing style is that of an excitable fanboy who thinks he knows more than he actually does rather than a genuinely knowledgable enthusiast.

The book is littered with inaccuracies, mis-representations, mis-interpretations, exaggerations, omissions and simple errors of fact on almost every page. Some basic fact checking would have been handy. The best entry is the one about the Millenium Falcon, which being fictional says a lot about the entries concerning the real-world rest of the book. As someone who does know something about some of the subjects, it quickly became a frustrating read, and one which I hurried to finish and be done with. I didn’t expect it to be great (I mean, with this author it's not exactly going to be a definitive reference work), just not as bad as it is.

Having enjoyed his other scribblings about cars in particular, a subject he actually does know a lot about, having established a career as a motoring journalist before the fame of Top Gear (although that said, I’m not exactly a car guru), and even acknowledging that Clarkson doesn’t pretend to be a serious authority on things, I was expecting better. It's just not very good, even by the standards of the author. Yet it's a bestseller. Go figure.

It’s good for a no stress no brainer read, but don’t be surprised if you quote something from it and someone corrects you.

Yet more Yeah but Nah

The story was getting better, now its close to perfect.

A Wellywood sign would be a trademark violation apparently (story link). Also apparently none of the geniuses behind the idea thought this might be a possibility. Lolz all round.

More Yeah but Nah

This just gets better and better :)

Further to the Wellywood sign shenanigans of the last few days, the trademark owners of the real thing in Hollywood are now talking to their attorneys apparently....Story link from Stuff

In the meantime, you can make your own sign here, with the Wellywood Sign Generator, or just check out other peoples efforts at the gallery here.

UPDATE:

Even Hitler hates the idea (link, courtesy of The Dim-Post).

Yeah but Nah

Adding to the noise, but like many others, I couldn’t let the proposal by Wellington International Airport Limited to build a ‘Wellywood’ sign along one of the airport approach paths go uncommented upon. To be built in the style of the original Hollywood sign in Los Angeles, ‘Wellywood’ is apparently a satirical tribute, alluding to the fact that Peter Jackson’s production base and Weta Digital are literally around the corner, and is expected to become a tourist attraction.

If these links and comments below are anything to go by, I am not the only one cringing at the idea.

Wellingtonista

Wellintonista again

The Dim-Post

Stuff

Stuff again (original story break)

I don’t like it for a bunch of reasons, and I don’t buy into the ‘don’t criticize it if you can’t come up with something better’ argument. I’m not an artist or graphic designer, but I don’t need to be to form an opinion that this design sucks. I would rather see something original, that required more than ten seconds of thought to come up with, and doesn’t reek of deep seated cultural insecurity. And as far as I know, bugger-all people in Wellington actually use the term ‘Wellywood’. Just like ‘Cake Tin’ for the stadium (everyone I know just calls it ‘The Stadium’), it is more of a ex-Wellington based media generated appellation than a local term.

Frankly WIAL (and the city council that part owns it) have better things to spend money on, like safety fixes for the runway ends, which are still unacceptably hazardous for an international airport and a disaster waiting to happen.

Wait, you did what with your what?

Things you learn from the internet...

Caution: May not be safe for work (NSFW)

Linko 1

Linko 2

Discovered courtesy of The Blogess and The Huffington Post

Why I hate Masterchef Australia

Listening to: Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd

Noted from my limited viewing forays into Masterchef Australia (mainly centred around Friday night fish and chips with the family at my parents place).

It's not the wholly artificial time and presentation constraints.

It's not the needlessly antagonistic selection and elimination process.

It's not the pretentious and preening prima donna judges.

It's not the implicit hypocrisy of telling a contestant how rubbish they are, then eliminating them, only to tell them how great they are as they leave the building.

It's the shocking hygiene.

I might not be a chef, but I am trained in microbiology, and worked as an industrial microbiological technician for 8 years, with a main emphasis on not contaminating things with greeblies you don't want, plus a bit of microbial food testing for good measure. Bad microbial hygiene practice I've seen so far includes:

-We never see anyone washing their hands, even if it is implied.

-A contestant mixing wet ingredients in a bowl with her hands while wearing rings on her fingers and bangles on her wrists. Jewellery like this was expressly banned in the fermentation plant I worked at because of a high contamination risk, never mind the potential for rings or stones to end up in the food. You can't clean or sanitise jewellery by washing your hands, plus the bits of your hands underneath the jewellery won't get washed anyway. If you want clean hands the rings have to come off or you wear a glove you can sanitise.

-A contestant with her hair tied in long unsecured plaits thrown forward over her shoulders, at a perfect height to graze the workbench as she leaned over her dishes. Excellent way to pick up a staph infection, or just hair in your food.

-A contestant serving and presenting food with a fresh open wound on one of his fingers. Enough said.

I don't care if it is normal practice in professional kitchens. To see this stuff (and for the supposed expert judges (as shown/edited) to not even appear to notice let alone call anyone on it) is just gross.

Tsunami

So an earthquake and tsunami devastates areas of Samoa and Tonga, kills scores of people, injures more, wipes out entire villages. The tsunami is on its way to New Zealand. How do some Kiwi's react? Do they panic?

Nah, they just go to the nearest beach and wait for it to arrive (link).

Facepalm. Frankly I'm kinda embarrassed I have to share a country with these people.....