Friday, 8 October 2010

Friday Bafflement

Courtesy of BigHead, the best headline I've seen in months: "Samoan Clerics Finger Homosexuals Over Global Warming".

Honestly, that's just too damn brilliant to even get annoyed by. By far the most interesting part of the article is it's attempt to be even-handed and work out a potential rationale behind the accusation:
It may be that the clerics are understandably worried about rising levels of sex tourism in Samoa fuelled by cheap air travel and consequent rising energy consumption, though why this would be a gay-only problem is a mystery.
Remember, people, local whores are the environmentally responsible choice!

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Quz 7

Another month, another quiz. This time I've included the bonus round as well, because I am lovely. It's deliberately a bit easier this time around. 37 is the score to beat (three teams got all five of the bonus questions correct).

Round 1: Words

(Each answer is a word in which the letters are in ascending alphabetical order. Moreover, the five answers are themselves in alphabetical order).

1 To loathe or detest utterly. Abhor

2 To confront boldly, or approach with a greeting, question, or remark. Accost

3 The only venomous snake native to Britain. Adder

4 To roar, bawl, shout, or generally emit a loud utterence. Bellow (though I accepted "cry")

5 A word originating from French meaning "jewel" Bijou

Round 2: Redheads

1 Which fictional detective solved the case of the Red Headed League, a group which briefly offered meaningless but well-paid clerical work to the applicant with the reddest hair? Sherlock Holmes

2 Which implausibly-proportioned cartoon red-head told a disbelieving Eddie Valiant – played by Bob Hoskins -“I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way?” Jessica Rabbit

3 In what century was Frederick Barbarossa, also known as Frederick Redbeard, crowned as Holy Roman Emperor? 12th

4 Native to several countries, to which mountain range is the red panda endemic? The Himalayas

5 Which red-haired singer lost her life in a controversial boating accident off the coast of Mexico in December 2000? Kirsty MacColl


Round 3: Sharks

1 What skeletal feature separates sharks, along with their relations rays, skates and chimeras, from all other forms of jawed fish? They are made of cartilage

2 Which 2003 film included three sharks; Bruce, Anchor and Chum, who had formed an abstinence group under the slogan “Fish are friends, not food”? Finding Nemo

3 The surviving crew of which sunken American vessel, which went down on 30th July 1945 just after delivering parts for the first atomic bomb, found themselves enduring four days of repeated shark attacks before the remainder were rescued? USS Indiana

4 In which country has shark-fin soup been considered a delicacy for hundreds of years? China

5 Which English city's basketball team is nicknamed “the Sharks”, having changed from “the Forgers” in 1994? Sheffield



Round 4: Pigs In Fiction

1 Who gives her full name as “Pignathius Lee”? Miss Piggy

2 Which author wrote a series of books which feature Lord Emsworth, who owns a resplendent pig named “The Empress”, who lives at Blandings Castle? P. G. Woodhouse

3 Who defeated the Erymanthian Boar? Heracles/Hercules

4 In George Orwell's Animal Farm, on whom is the pig Snowball based? Leon Trotsky

5 In the original Winnie the Pooh illustrations by E.H.Shepherd, what colour was Piglet's jumper? Green



Round 5: Madonna

(Each answer is a song title, described here in a cryptic/lateral manner)

1 Vacation. Holiday

2 Weep Not Over My Fate, Buenos Aires. Don't Cry For Me Argentina

3 Cooled Into A Solid State. Frozen.

4 No Evangelising, Father. Papa Don't Preach

5 Non-Ugly Non-Acquaintance. Beautiful Stranger



Round 6: Japan

1 The failure of both of Kublai Khan's attempts to conquer Japan led to the first use of what Japanese term, used to describe the massive storms which badly mauled the Khan's invasion fleets? Kamikaze

2 Introduced first as a villain, which Japanese character soon became a defender of the Home Islands, fighting off attacks by robots, pterodactyls, giant moths, etc? Gojira/Godzilla

3 Seventh largest in the world and less populous only than Java, which is the largest of the Japanese Home Islands? Honshu

4 What name is given to the highly-stylised Japanese dance theatre well known for its elaborate make-up and costumes? Kabuki

5 In which decade was Crown-Prince Akihito raised to the rank of Emperor following the death of his father, Emperor Hirohito? 1980s



General Knowledge

1 Who is the ghost of Slytherin House? The Bloody Baron

2 Lancaster, Pennsylvania became the capital of the nascent United States for one day when members of the Continental Congress fled which city, which had been captured by the British? Philadelphia

3 The two closest capitals in the world (excluding Vatican City) are Brazzaville and Kinshasa, which face each other across which (African) river? The Congo

4 Which musical was based on Puccini’s La Boheme by writer Jonathan Larson, and includes the song “Seasons of Love”? Rent

5 For how long was John Higgins suspended following a ruling he had brought the game of snooker into disrepute, including the time he spent suspended during the investigation itself? Six months

6 Who was recognised in 1991 by the American Institute of Architects as “The greatest American architect of all time?” Frank Lloyd Wright

7 What kind of creature was Puzzle, who the ape Shift persuaded to wear a lion skin and impersonate Aslan in The Last Battle, by C. S. Lewis? A donkey

8 What exactly is a petard, by which people so often find themselves hoisted? A bomb, or grenade.

9 How many time-pieces can be seen in Salvador Dali’s painting “The Persistence of Memory”? 4 (3 are melting, 1 is covered in ants)

10 Frederick Kekule’s day-dream of a snake swallowing its own tail led to him deducing the molecular structure of which chemical compound? Benzene


Bonus Round

(I'm going to give you the names of five films. I want the name of the book it was originally based on.)

1 The Golden Compass. The Northern Lights.

2 Apocalypse Now. Heart Of Darkness.

3 Total Recall. We Can Remember It For You Wholesale.

4 Clueless. Emma.

5 A Cock And Bull Story. The Life And Opinions Of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.

Moths And Motoring

Every now and then Garathon and I bat around ideas and problems over the interwebs. Last time round, we searched for the identity of one of these hideous creatures, which accosted us as we left the pub at the end of July (The Other Half had to tackle it, as I had been reduced to a useless quivering wreck).

(Trust me, it was a lot more scary at night and whilst it's trying to GET INTO YOUR FUCKING CAR.)

Turns out, it's a "swallow-tailed moth", though frankly "Satan's Vampire Moth of Malevolence" would suit it somewhat better. Anyway, this time round Garathon has posed a question that warrants careful consideration. The Court of Justice of the EU has announced that it is "legally inappropriate" for insurance companies to vary their premiums on the grounds of gender. Although such things are currently legal, so long as there is sufficient actuarial and statistical ground, that might be about to change. Garathon pointed this out in reference to car insurance, so that's what I've been focussing my thinking on.

Since immediate inspiration eluded me, I decided to gather together my brain trust: BigHead, Brutal Snake, edenspresence, Crematorium del Masque, and Doc Zero (and by "gather together" I mean "go to coffee and harangue them"). I then demanded their takes, I'm still horribly confused. I asked C as well, just after a glorious 3-0 badminton victory that will echo through the ages, and I'm still not sure.

Having said that, though, I've a least least managed to pull together a few thoughts. First of all, whatever people may think of the necessity to prove a first order biological difference before allowing variable services according to sex, I don't see how you could come up with a blanket rule any other way. The argument that cultural distinction is not a good enough reason seems to me pretty sound. Otherwise, to take an American example, you could argue black people should be forced to pay more for health insurance because so many of them get shot or die of overdoses. Perhaps this would allow white people's premiums to go down, and it seems reasonable to assume insurance companies would be for it if they could (once you start refusing to offer coverage to people with minor medical issues they weren't even aware of, you lose any chance whatsoever of being given the benefit of the doubt), but that seems a sure-fire way to reinforce a status quo that we should be deeply disastified with.

(As an aside, this is also why I don't find myself convinced by C's argument that insurance companies shouldn't be made to act as if the world were perfect; there is plenty of evidence to suggest that equality follows legislation, rather than the other way round.)

So the law itself seems like a reasonable idea. I should also mention that I have a problem with the idea that differentiating on the grounds of gender is reasonable simply because it works and it's easy. I think the court is right to note the massive amount of other, less measurable variables that are far more important in judging one's aptitude. The idea that it would cost insurance companies more to check them is something I am not particularly bothered by, even if it would increase my premiums, though I realise that this is easily said without knowing exactly how much it would cost. Indeed, much of this comes down to degrees, most particulary how much statistical evidence courts would require - a problematic consideration if ever I heard one.

Moreover, there are two obvious problems to stating only clearly recognisable biological factors should be considered. The first is that if we're going to limit ourselves to what can be directly linked to biology, we might not be able to justify increased premiums for the very young, instead having to use non-decreasing functions to track people as they head inexorably towards their dotage. At least, I think that's what would happen, I'm hardly an expert; perhaps there really is a demonstrable biological cause behind being 17 years old and acting like a total dickhead. I'm not sure it would hold up in court, though.

The second, which I think is more important, is that my example of American insurance, besides being shaky (opinions differ on just how shaky) on the grounds that car insurance is optional for living in a way health insurance isn't (or at least, shouldn't have to be) fails to take into account the fact that UK anti-cartel laws are, to my understanding, a great deal stronger than the US equivalents, or lack thereof. We're not talking about people being unable to gain insurance. Considering age might work as a comparison to gender, but there exist insurance companies who specifically cater for older clients, assuming they have sufficifent no claims bonus. This is the advantage of the no claims idea, it actually provides a way of determining how good a driver one is (imperfect though it obviously is, but that's probability for you; a fickle mistress at the best of times).

Indeed, it occurs to me that there is a possible solution here to both the above problems, which is to increase the initial premiums, but then increase the degree to which those premiums fall after X years of no claims. I'm not claiming this is a brilliant solution - certainly I haven't put any number on it - but it's at least an alternative which would make one's payments more dependent on actual skill, rather than simply what demographic you can most easily be placed in. An alternative would be to put together a test which gives a percentage score to one's driving, and base the premiums on that. Of course, such tests already exist, more or less, and many (including myself) choose not to undertake them because of the cost involved. I suppose at that point we're talking about insurance companies discriminating against the fiscally unwise, which pretty much sounds like their perogative. Unless of course they discriminate against fiscally unwise men more.

But then again, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Staying Home

Courtesy of Vomiting Mike (who was also responsible for me reading Accelerando), I spent part of this lunchtime reading author Charlie Stross' breakdown of why extra-terrestrial (meant in its most literal sense) colonisation is beyond implausible. Almost none of it was new to me, but he sets it all down in a fascinating and logical manner.

The one thing in there that was new, or at least a point I'd never considered in quite so clear and elegant a manner, was this (a quote from Bruce Sterling) :
I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach.
Obviously, there are two comebacks to this; we would try to inhabit the Gobi Desert if we literally had no choice in the matter [1], and we'd probably be far happier to try it if the Gobi Desert proved to be sitting atop, say, massive gold reserves (I know we haven't found anything compelling on Mars yet, and it's hard to imagine anything being worth the cost of the trip, but...). Still, it's an excellent point, and as Stross notes, even the sudden discovery of pure awesometanium on Mars still won't make anyone want to stay there, any more than oil-riggers in the North Atlantic decide to stick around once their shifts are over.

Anyway, the whole thing is well worth reading.

(Image by Lynette Cook)

[1] The only part of the analysis I find particularly questionable is the idea that we should have no personal interest in the survival of the species after our own deaths. Whilst I understand how one could believe that, and even grant for the sake of argument that such a position is the most logical one to hold, I think arguing against such feelings is pissing in the wind as far as human nature is concerned. You might as well argue it's stupid to want to save cute puppies when there are so many ugly, ugly dogs still unsold.

Monday, 4 October 2010

The Politics Of Sunni And Slattern

This is interesting. Apparently the residents of Rutherford County have decided they can't get away with nixing mosques with bullshit planning regulations, and have had to find another way to stop them dirty terrorists from mixing with decent folk.

Their answer: claim Islam isn't a religion, it's a political movement.

It's hard to decide which part of this desperate attempt to legalise bigotry is more ridiculous. It's definitely either the idea that a religion that demands a certain way of living is actually a political movement, or it's the idea that political movements aren't protected by the First Amendment in any case. You can toss a coin, pretty much.

I got this story from Glenn Greenwald's twitter feed, which he accompanied with a comment along the lines of "Look what the Republican big-wigs have wrought" (that's a paraphrase; I don't think Greenwald's the type to call someone a "big-wig". See, I think he's being unfair here, because if we look at what the Republicans are actually demanding:
DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom.
it becomes entirely clear that the last thing they want to do is stop religious movements from prescribing what the entire country can and can't allow. Remember, kids, we must make sure that Christians never lose their inalienable human right to not be taught by someone they don't like! Gays are icky! Unwed sexually active women are whores [1]! We must ensure our teachers are free from sin in order to conform to a religion that specifically states no-one is free of sin!

Doubtless DeMint will be denouncing these people any minute.

[1] Note that Jim DeMint doesn't stake out a position on batchelors who are getting laid. He's a despicable prick, but he's not totally stupid.

Friday, 1 October 2010

Friday 40K Blogging: Extra Devouring

It's been distinctly quiet on the painting front round here for a while now. That's partially because I've fallen behind due to the stresses of moving, but also because I haven't had much of interest to show you.

Arguably, I still don't. But I've spent the last three or four months putting together some reinforcements to my Tyranid horde, and I'm sick to death of them. I may as well get something out of them whilst I wait for C to blast them to pieces.

As always, they are purposefully "retro", which in my case is synonymous with "gaudy and poorly painted". Still, en masse I quite like them. I've put together a Broodlord (which is truly embarrassing in its simplicity, and sports authentic Patriarch colouring because I apparently still haven't realised we're out of the early '90s) and a brood of ten of the new plastic gargoyles.


Here's the plastics mixing with the older lead miniatures.

I know, I know. The 'Eavy Metal team will not be losing any sleep. And all these months of work translate into only a hundred points or so of models, if that. Still, this is all to make my horde large enough to work in concert with one of these babies, so in a few months, it should all be worth it.

(Also, I'm four models away from getting up to 1500 points with my Tau, which will be a good excuse for another army showcase, particularly since the first time I photographed my cadre, I still had no idea how to actually work the camera).

Turning Children Into Monsters


The initial trio of stories is now complete. We know who Lucifer is, what he wants, and exactly how really, really killed you'll be if you get in his way. It's time to raise the stakes.

No surprise what the theme is this time around: children and monsters, and how one becomes the other. We're given the answer very early on, actually, in the prologue to the story proper. Being trapped in the womb for 4 000 years, murdered each morning by miscarriage; that's the kind of thing you'd expect to fuck a kid up. Trapped in time and inside its mother, the foetus becomes something monstrous, a mindless killer, violent frustration personified.

Right from the start, then, we understand one thing very clearly: being trapped is bad.

This is important, because pretty much everyone in Children And Monsters' four issues are exactly that. The idea toyed with in A Six-Card Spread - that defining your life by your opposition to God is no less liberating than living entirely according to God's will - is back full force. This time, though, the point is generalised. We're no longer just talking about the way we define ourselves with regard to our God, but how we define ourselves with regard to our fathers.

For four of the characters in this story, of course, the two things are the same. Two, Michael and Amenadiel, are still loyal members of the Host. Two, Lucifer and Sandalphon, are renegades. All of them, though, are caught in the same trap. Living according to the boundaries their father has set. Obsessing over the rules their God has laid down for the cosmos.

Obviously, this preoccupation takes different forms for each. Amenadiel is sanguine and combative, a man desperately trying to please an absent father by travelling further and further along the path he is convinced his maker wants him to follow. Digging himself deeper and deeper under a mound of corpses. He negotiates with the Cherubim to alleviate the body count, but there is little doubt that he did so only to increase the chances of gaining the full support of the Host, and none whatsoever that he would have proceeded without them if necessary; killed anyone he had to in order to get to Lucifer. He spends untold numbers of angels in the attack, torn apart by Musubi's blades or swallowed whole by the ravenous spirit of Erishad's child, and he does it without blinking. He is doing his Father's work.

Sandalphon is the mirror image of Amenadiel; so unswerving, blindly dedicated to creating his army with which to raze Heaven the world has become reduced to a series of opportunities, obstacles, and irrelevances. He despises his father so much he is willing to sacrifice his children whenever it becomes convenient; indeed his master plan absolutely requires it. For him, this has never been about anything other than power. He moves his pawns, and mocks Michael for hesitating to kill his own brother. Where Lucifer wished only to be untouched by the power of others, Sandalphon wants that power for himself, but it comes to the same thing in the end. The sons must be rid of their father.

Caught in their traps, the children become monsters.

All appearances to the contrary, Michael actually begins the story free. He is chained in a pit by Sandalphon, yes, but that very fact allows him to exist outside his duty to God. Alone amongst the four angels, he is given the choice to be free, ironically enough by Lucifer, but chooses to return to service in the Silver City. He willingly walks back into the trap.

But can it be a trap if it is entered willingly? Is that the secret? Is that why Michael hesitated, why he did not become a monster? Perhaps. Nevertheless, he would undoubtedly have been more free in the second Creation. But if Micheal would been free had he stayed with Lucifer in his new cosmos, then how can Lucifer still be trapped?

It's because Lucifer has made a mistake. It will take him a long time to realise it, but he has erred. He has become a God in his own cosmos, because he believes that alone amongst the inhabitants of Creation, only God is free. Therefore, Lucifer needs his own reality to rule over, so that no-one can rule over him.

This, though, is faulty logic. The Morningstar knows that in a cosmos controlled by God, no-one else can be free. What he has missed is that whilst being God is a necessary condition for being free, there is no reason to believe it is also sufficient. Preventing everyone else from liberty does not guarantee that liberty for oneself. This is particularly true for Lucifer, who has progressed from defining himself in total opposition to God to instead simply setting up a rival business, offering the same product in different packaging. Some call Lucifer a monster already - he might not even trouble to argue the point. But things could get worse. Things can always get worse.

Having said all that, though, what alternatives are there? Even now, sixty issues and five years before Lucifer comes to the end of his journey, the solution seems to lie within Elaine. Almost every other character in this drama, from Lucifer to Cal, seems destined for ruination, either from blindly following or instinctively resisting the influences of their father. Elaine, though, has five father figures to juggle. There's the man she calls father, who took her in as a child, the one she spent her whole life believing had provided exactly half of the pieces necessary to build a jigsaw with her face upon it. There is the man who believes himself her true father, whose seed created the tiny cluster of cells which was pulled and twisted and kneaded and sculpted until it took her shape. Then we have Sandalphon and Michael, angels fallen or broken, the will and the fact behind her existence. That's a hell of a lot to contend with, even before we consider the fact that Elaine's grandmothers are disembodied bile-green immortal witches, and her grandfather gave birth to reality itself.

That's four. The fifth, perhaps surprisingly, is Lucifer himself. Certainly she cares more for him than the haggard, sleep-plagued man who travels across he ocean to meet her. And whilst Samael had no role in creating her, he has saved her life twice, and a life saved is a life given, after all. Lucifer might not return he affection - he has Mazikeen to kiss, and, like, loads of centaurs to make - but that doesn't seem to matter.

Perhaps that's what makes Elaine different - she doesn't seem particularly concerned about what she gets in return. Her life is about who she loves, not about what she believes she does or does not deserve from them, or how they can or must be forced to give them what they want or need. Perhaps having five father figures makes it impossible define yourselves within their intersection of their Venn diagram, any more than she could lie outside all five circles at once. Alternatively, it might be something within human nature that the angels, loyalist or rebel, cannot grasp. Or, in the end, it may simply be that Elaine is special, that though she keeps company with ghosts and witches and angels, it is she who is remarkable.

In other words, perhaps Elaine is an answer to a question Lucifer has yet to think to ask. In either case, Samael has created two things by the end of this story. His interest is fixed firmly upon his new universe, but somewhere in London, something else is growing inside a sleeping schoolgirl.

The story of Lucifer is now the story of Lucifer and Elaine.