Each to his own.

I think I've mentioned before that, many years ago, I took a course in Indian cookery, and one of the recurring ingredients was coriander.  I used to get it in bunches from a local Asian supermarket, and my wife and I would spend a happy half-hour or so at the kitchen table stripping the leaves from the stems ready for use. But it appears that everybody is not a fan - there are those it seems who have a particular genetic mutation which means that for them the herb taste nasty - somewhat like soap.  Pret A Manger, the high street sandwich shop has come under fire for its liberal use of what is described by these people as "the devil's herb".  The Americans of course call it cilantro, but I don't think that helps.  You either like it or you don't.  Presumably the Indians do?

Hmmm...

I still think on balance that we are better off inside the EU than we would be if we left it, but for me the margin is getting narrower.  In particular, the shambolic response (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, lack of response) to the problem of all these immigrants seeking to enter the EU calls into question the extent to which there is any real "unity" in the Union.  It's turned into an "every country for itself" situation. Where's the leadership?  Where's the policy?  Perhaps we're not in the best position to be critical, given that we deliberately opted out of the Schengen Agreement, but you have to start asking what is the point of the European Union if the countries it comprises can go their own way when it suits them. 

Sauce for the goose?

The DPP is coming in for heavy criticism over "Operation Elveden" - this was an investigation into journalists (almost all from the Sun and the now-defunct News of the World) paying public officials for confidential information which was then used to publish "exclusives" in their papers.  Why the criticism?  Well of the 29 prosecutions brought against journalists, only one resulted in a conviction, so she is being accused of wasting a significant amount of public money pursuing journalists who, as they saw it, were merely "doing their job". But at the same time, 26 public officials have been convicted under essentially the same evidence for taking the money.  And I find it difficult to get my head round the idea that accepting money for confidential information is an offence, but offering that money is not.  Surely inciting someone to break the law is itself an offence?  Or are journalists somehow a special case?

Explanation

For those who didn't get Wednesday's joke, I refer you to my post under the title "Why 10 isn't really a number" on 2nd December 2014.

Just have to deal with it...

So it's finally happened - 5p for a supermarket plastic bag.  I've had my say about that, and I won't bore you by repeating what I think about it.  Some people have taken to nicking baskets or even trollies - can't really see that these would be much use to them in the long run, so I think it must be people just doing it to get their own back on the supermarkets - which is a bit silly as it's not the supermarkets' fault.  In fact I was talking to a checkout operator the other day who said that they're not that happy about it - it's causing them a lot of hassle, and slowing down the whole checkout procedure while customers sort out the bags they've brought with them.  Ah well, it was just a matter of time...

Far too sensible!

One of the repeating themes on this blog is the absurdity of the so-called "war on drugs", which costs big money, ties up a lot of law-enforcement manpower, and has little effect on the extent of the supply and consumption of drugs.  All it does is make it a more profitable enterprise for the criminals who control the supply and distribution chain.  And now we have an official Treasury report saying that legalising and regulating cannabis would save millions of pounds in court costs and police time, and potentially raise millions more in revenue.  Will anybody listen?  What do you think?

Ha ha

There are only 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Hello, titch!

So Pluto is very much in the news at the moment following the pictures and data provided by the NASA space probe New Horizons.  But is it a planet?  It was considered so when it was first discovered in 1930, but in 2006 the International Astronomical Union reclassified it as a "dwarf planet" - a category which had not existed before then,  But why did they do it?  It seemed a bit mean-spirited at the time I seem to remember.  However it is now clear that the decision was taken on purely practical grounds.  Advances in space detection meant that new bodies were regularly being discovered in the outer reaches of the solar system, many of which were as big, or bigger than Pluto. And of course if Pluto was to be considered as a planet, these would also have to be similarly classified.  And it's bad enough having to remember eight planets - imagine having to cope with three or four times that number!  So by designating these as dwarf planets, it keeps the number of "proper" planets within reasonable bounds. 

That's a lo-o-o-o-ng time!

Question - why, when talking about radio-active material decaying, do we refer to "half-life"?  Why half??  Well, do you remember when we were discussing Zeno's paradoxes?  It's a bit like that - suppose you have 100g of uranium 235, which has a half-life of 700 million years.  This means that in 700 million years time there will only be 50g of it still active.  Another 700 million years after that, it will be down to 25g and so on.  And of course Zeno tells us that halving the amount like this every 700 million years means that we shall never reach zero - there is no such thing in decay terms as a "full-life", or more to the point, the time it will take our uranium 235 to completely decay is infinite.

No more money?

Yet another "NHS crisis" - we seem to stagger from one to the next.  We've talked about this before - the NHS is a financial black hole.  However much money you give it, it will never be enough.  As the overall health of the nation improves, so we expect more from our health service.  And then, we are living longer with all the health implications which go with that.  I've said it before - I think we need to decide just how much money we are prepared to give the NHS, just what they can provide with that money, and we have to accept that that is all we can expect unless we are prepared to take out private insurance to cover anything extra.  Not easy - not easy at all, but the much-vaunted "free at the point of delivery" mantra cannot disguise the fact that the NHS costs, and costs massively.  I think sometimes that tends to be forgotten.