Sleight of hand?

If you're trying to convince somebody of something which you can't prove, then one strategy is to take a closely associated subject which you can prove and keep throwing that at them in the hope that the fact that you can prove that will confuse them into thinking that you have proved the other.  This is exactly what the US (and to a lesser extent ourselves) are doing over this business of chemical weapon attacks in Syria.  We are being bombarded with images of people, and in particular children, suffering from the effects of what is probably sarin gas.  But this is the associated subject - nobody is really denying that sarin gas was used and that these people are the victims.  The question of course is who perpetrated the attack?  The US (and to a lesser extent ourselves) would like you to believe that it was the Assad regime who did this, and they may be right  - but where is their proof?  The US Secretary of State keeps saying "we know" this, that and the other, which to me is just code for "you'll have to take my word on this - trust me".  Now let me think - trust what a self-serving politician is telling me....?  Er...No.

Once bitten....?

You may have heard of the building in London which, because of its glass-covered concave shape, is reflecting and concentrating the sun's rays and causing severe scorching at the focal point - apparently it's blistered paintwork, burnt carpet and even fried an egg.  Whoops, you may think - until you find out that the same architect designed a similar building some years ago in Las Vegas, with exactly similar problems.  Talk about learning from past experience??

Missing the point?

The PM was apparently upset by some Kremlin official being reported as saying that Britain is "just a small island that nobody pays attention to".  So he went to some length to list Britain's achievements over the centuries.  But so what, is the obvious response - nobody is denying what Britain has done in the past - even though the PM did at times rather over-egg the pudding.  The question is, what clout do we have in the world today?  And you have to admit, the answer is - not much.   I think we are still seen by some as a sort of "elder statesman" whose views should be listened to politely even if then ignored.  But let's be clear - we are no longer one of the big boys.

Card game.

Earlier this year I read "The Kite Runner" - not my usual sort of thing at all, but one of my grandchildren had to study it for GCSE so thought it might help.  There's a point in the book where the main character and his mate play cards.  And as I read, I thought "I know this game - or at least something very like it".  We used to play it in Germany - National Service.  We called it "Droog", but I've never heard of it since. Anyway my recollection is - standard pack of cards, each player is dealt five.  Next card is turned up to designate trump suit, and the rest form the stock pile.  Player to dealer's left starts. He can play one, three or five cards to the table.  If he plays three, two of them must be a pair.  If he plays five, four must be two pairs or four of a kind. Next player must now try and "kill" as many of the cards played as he can (or wants to).  You can kill a card by playing a higher one of the same suit, or a trump. A card which is killed, and the card that killed it are put to one side and play no further part in the game. Any card which the player is unable (or unwilling) to kill must be picked up and added to his hand.  If either player now has less than five cards (which the first one obviously must have), they must top up their hand to five from the stock pile - if there's any left.  If second player has killed all the cards, he then leads to the next hand by playing one, three or five to the table - if not, the next player in turn leads and and the game proceeds in the same way.  Object is to be first to get rid of all your cards.  We played for money of course - everybody anted into a pot which went to the winner.

Left hand, right hand??

Do I understand this correctly?  On the one hand the Government intend to stop pupils retaking GCSEs over and over again in the hope of improving their grades - I think the rule is that you can have one retake and then that's it.  But on the other hand, the latest Government proposal is that if you don't get at least a C in maths and English at GCSE, you will have to continue studying those subjects and retaking the exams until you do.  Seems a bit contradictory.

Did you get it?

I'm afraid yesterday's post was a bit self-indulgent.  I found it amusing, but I imagine that there will be plenty of you who will have wondered what it was all about.  So - Heisenberg was a German physicist who is best known for his "Uncertainty Principle" which says (among other things) that as far as sub-atomic particles are concerned, you can know their velocity (how fast they are going) or their position (where they are) but not both at the same time.  Now read the joke again.

Ha ha (??)

Heisenberg is out driving when he is pulled over by the police.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" asks the officer.
"No, but I know where I am" replies Heisenberg.
"You were doing 80" says the officer.
"Now I'm lost" says Heisenberg

Book post

(see post of 18/11/06)

Ben Aaronovitch - Rivers of London - 6
Chris Ewan - Safe House - 7
John Grisham - The Associate - 7.5 
James Patterson - Jack & Jill - 7 
Ed McBain - Ax(e) - 7.5
John Grisham - The Confession - 7
Jim Kelly - Death Toll- 6
Lee Child - Tripwire - 8
David Roberts - The More deceived - 6.5
Lisa Gardner - Hide - 9

Explanation.

Talked the other day about irrational numbers (0.999... remember?).  This is one of those words which have a "technical" meaning which is not the same as its everyday meaning.  In normal speech, irrational is used as a synonym for illogical or unreasonable, but in mathematics it has a specialised meaning based on the root word "ratio", which is a rather old-fashioned term for what today we would more likely call a fraction.  So an irrational number is simply one which cannot be expressed as a ratio, a fraction.  So any number which you can't write in the form of a/b (where a and b are integers - whole numbers) is an irrational number.

I can breathe easier today.

Do you feel humiliated as a result of Thursday's vote against taking military action against Syria?  Well, I don't.  I think that for once Parliament - quite possibly for all the wrong reasons - got it right and accurately reflected what the majority of the country felt.  And isn't that what they're supposed to do?  We're well out of it.  If the Americans want to play "white hat, black hat" let them get on with it.  They claim to have the evidence to justify military intervention, but then, they were certain Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, weren't they?