I pointed out Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
If Variety isn’t mistaken (and how I hope they aren’t) then Elton John’s production company may actually have come up with an even better adaptation.
I long to see this film. Already the very idea of it makes me feel warm and tingly inside, like a first crush.
originally sent on 24th February 2004
—
It’s finally happened.
Today, my Robotic Housemaid arrived.
OK, so unlike the robots we were promised in the 1950s it doesn’t do the dishes or make cocktails, but the Roomba is a fully-mechanised robot vacuum cleaner.
It’s about the size of a large dinner plate, and approximately four inches high. It has a little bumper on the front which tells it when it’s hit something, and a tiny dust collector which you need to empty after each room.
Some grainy pictures of the Roomba in action:
http://fatpigeons.com/pictures/2004/02/roomba1.jpg
http://fatpigeons.com/pictures/2004/02/roomba2.jpg
http://fatpigeons.com/pictures/2004/02/roomba3.jpg
You set it in the middle of the room and press a button. It sings a jaunty little tune, and then starts cleaning by circling around in a spiral. After a few minutes it starts zig-zagging its way across the room, vacuuming as it goes. After about half-an-hour, it stops and sings a different tune to let you know it’s finished.
An overnight charge from a wall-socket gives you about ten vacuuming cycles.
One thing it’s missing is the ability to run to a wall-socket and re-charge itself when the battery runs low. To be honest, I’m surprised they didn’t do this – it’s perfectly feasible with today’s technology and would mean I had to spend even less time worrying about vacuuming than I do at the moment. (You mean I have to actually plug it in to the wall every so often? I want my money back!)
I’m still trying to work out how it ensures it covers the entire floor. My guess is that it’s got some fairly simple rules that it applies locally, and just relies on the fact that over a long enough time it’s bound to have covered almost everything. Have you hit something? Turn forty-five degrees right and move on. Hit something again? You’re on a wall. Head along it for a while.
Every so often it stops and does what I’m currently thinking of as “seeking” behaviour – doing a half-a-dozen spiral turns before heading off again if it hasn’t hit anything.
It also has some quite smart programming to stop it getting trapped under tables – after it had tried turning through 360 degrees trying to get out from underneath a chair, it used a curving path to escape.
Not only is it cheaper than a cat (over the lifetime) it actually cleans your room for you. The perfect robotic pet.
Now – where’s my flying car, god-dammit.
I’m just back from having a read over at the Guardian of Julie Bindel’s latest rant. Here’s a quick summary:
Now, number one on that list, I happen to agree with. At least the “can” part.
Seems like a bit of a strange choice to me – why not just love whichever sex or sexes you happen to love, and not stress about it?
But I can see that if you dislike men and the patriarchy that much, you might want to restrict your relationships to women. Fair enough. Good for you.
But then we get to the second point. I’m taking evil as shorthand for violent oppressors here – please feel free to substitute the second phrase for the first if you feel it too strong. I don’t.
Here’s a few phrases to show why that’s the message I’ve taken from the article
“I also suspect that it is very difficult to spend your daily life fighting against male violence, only to share a bed with a man come the evening.”
Personal opinion, no evidence to back it up – but we’ll give her a pass on that one, as it’s obviously flagged as just her own thought.
“We live in a culture in which rape is still an everyday reality, and yet women are blamed for it, as it is viewed as an inevitable feature of heterosexual sex.”
Um. Hold on, you lost me there.
Rape is viewed as an inevitable feature of heterosexual sex? When did that happen? By who?
A vague generalisation without a source is useless.
As, for example: Piers Beckley is viewed as a better writer than Julie Bindel.
Without further evidence, it’s positively misleading.
“Domestic violence is still a chronic problem for countless women in relationships with men.”
And for women in relationships with women. And men in relationships with men.
Well, lookee here, it’s some academic research: Apparently 40% of women in this survey had experienced violence in a same-sex relationship. Or this research gives a figure of 22% for women experiencing domestic violence in same-sex relationships.
(There’s more research here, if you want it.)
Either way, it’s not the “none” implied by the article.
Assuming that domestic violence moves only one way – from men towards women – doesn’t help. Broken Rainbow provides help and support for LGBT people threatened by domestic violence.
“Domestic violence is still a chronic problem for countless women” is true. But when you add the words “in relationships with men”, it begins to look like wilful misinterpretation.
Then again, it doesn’t seem that Julie believes that academic rigour is necessary in order to make bold claims.
I, however, do.
Some people in the comments section have labelled the piece hate speech against men – and I actually think that’s a fair call. Especially given her past form (trannies, in this instance).
Because it’s basically: Men are evil. Become a lesbian. And there’s no justification for the first of those two sentences contained in the article.
However, I don’t believe that censorship is sensible, or just. I think anyone from the BNP, Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Theorists, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all should be allowed to say whatever they like.
But if what you say is basically stupid, then you deserve to be mocked. That’s the corollary of Free Speech. And that’s why I’ve taken an hour out of my day to mock this piece, which is truly stupid, and does not reflect well at all on either the writer, or whoever at the Guardian thought it worth publishing.
But then again, I would say that.
I’m an oppressor.
originally sent on the 19th February, 2004
the original URL now gives no information; replaced with the copy referenced at http://www.dibbukbox.com/
—
My name was not picked out of the hat this week. I shall return each week
until they damn well do.
In the meantime, why not draw up a seat closer to the fire – yes that’s
right, just there – and listen to the spine-chilling tale I like to call
“The Terror Of The Haunted Wine Cabinet”.
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/rubyc/eBay_dibbuk.htm
Don’t have nightmares.
Oh, all right then, do.
Piers
Paying a reader to give you notes on your script is like paying a prostitute to give you notes on your sexual technique.
Yes, they’re a professional.
Yes, they’re good at what they do.
And yes, if you’re just starting out there’s a case to be made that advice from someone who’s been around the blocks a few times is going to help.
But in the long term, both of them have a vested interest in continuing to receive your custom. And that means two things.
One: You’re never going to be told you’re that bad
Two: You’re never going to be told you’re that good.
To keep your custom, they have to always see that there’s room for improvement, while also approving of your current skills and grasp of technique. Especially the techniques that they happen to like.
Now, if they’re being paid by someone else to judge your work, then you can trust ’em – to a point at least.
They might not like redheads, or muscleboys, or people who dress to the left, but that’s just life. If someone else is paying them to evaluate your performance and they don’t like you, that’s just incompatibility. Bad luck. And they can be as sharp as they like with their critique, because you never get to see it.
But if you’re the one paying for the evaluation, they’d be a fool not to give you what you’re asking for. Really asking for, which is recognition of the skills you’ve got, tips for improvement, and a haven’t-you-done-well.
Whether you actually have any skills, or need any improvement.
In other words, you get what you pay for. Not necessarily what you need.
I-Spot Guide to the worst films ever.
I honestly thought I’d get more than that.
Catwoman’s on the shelf at home. That’ll help.
Memed by the delightful Lara to answer the following question:
“When it comes to writing, what do you know you’re good at, and what aspect of writing are you worst at? (Procrastination is not permitted as either part of the answer.)”
What do I know I’m good at? Nothing, for sure yet. I’m still moving through my apprenticeship here, so there’s lots of work to do in all areas.
But I’ve just spent the last half-hour or so going through various bits of feedback over the last couple of years, and the answer right now seems to be:
Good at: set-pieces, high concept, story.
Less good at: creating characters. (I’m fine working with other people’s, but I get notes on characterisation for those I’ve created from scratch.)
So I guess that’s what I’ll be trying to improve in 2009.
Passing on the question to Gallagher, Smith, Arnopp, and Perry.
As previously mentioned, the quest to watch Doctor Who from beginning to end starts tomorrow, with “An Unearthly Child“.
Oh, and we made a mistake with the previous calculation. At two hours a week, it’ll take a nudge under four years.
If you want to join in, there’s a mailing list. Just email doctor.who.mission+subscribe@fatpigeons.com, and my automatic butleroid will add you to the email list.
See you next year.
Thanks to some excellent reviews and sold-out shows, I’m pleased to be able to say that A Christmas Carol has been extended through to the 11th January.
Hoorah! Merry Christmas! God bless us, every one!
I blame Paul Cornell.
On a panel at Eastercon this year, he said that he was about to commence once more the task that every true Doctor Who fan should complete at least once in their lifetime.
(A secular hajj, if you will.)
And that’s to watch every broadcast episode of Doctor Who.
In order.
From the start.
Mad fools that they are, Messrs. Arnopp, Turner, and Harrison (who appears to have no bloggish presence on the Internet, alas) have agreed to join me in my quest. Outside of the three of us, I know that Una is also making the pilgrimage (and is at least three seasons ahead of us already to boot).
Sadly, the tapes to many of the earliest adventures were recorded over in the seventies. After all, who’s going to want to watch an old black-and-white show when we have Colour TV now, the thinking went? And tapes were expensive…
Not put off by this, we intend to listen to the audio tapes of the missing episodes instead, in order to have the full Doctor Who experience.
Because that, by God, is the type of people we are.
If you want to race us, join in, or just watch the occasional story or two, we’d love the company.
The plan is to watch a story a week. If a story lasts for more than four episodes, we’re going to round up (so you can take a fortnight to watch a six-parter, frexample).
At that rate, we should be done in less than three years.
The mission begins on the 1st January 2009.
