Friday, June 05, 2009
Toys for the boyz
Treated to a demonstration of an iphone earlier in the week. A truly wonderful toy that also served as a mobile telephone and a camera. Resolution of the screen amazing. Clever new ways to interact with the touch sensitive screen. Awash with gadgets. One of which was very puzzling, to wit, a spirit level. A by-product of this was that the thing knew which way up it was and rotated pictures to keep them the right way up as you rotated the iphone. Now the concensus was that the iphone would not waste space, which must be very much at a premium, on a real spirit level. So how did it do it? Maybe in theory it could get satellite fixes on the four corners and work out orientation from that. But that, apart from straining credibility on resolution, would presumably require four radio receivers, which would presumably take up as much space as two (or possibly three) spirit levels (one for each axis). Remain puzzled. Overall impression though is that the thing is an expensive toy. The main point is to show it off in pubs and to provide an alternative to Soduko over breakfast. Real men use raspberries.
Another attack on Mr G. this morning. I had heard it alleged that it was not always possible to refuse a gift. I was not to sure about this, but I was fairly sure that it was always possible to refuse that special sort of gift, a legacy. Something that dishonourable children sometimes did, rather than attempt to honour their father's debts. So I get around to trying to check. And it seems that gift law is indeed complicated, being all bound up with tax law, most large gifts being taxable. And so, it follows, a happy hunting ground for lawyers and accountants. Now while without flashing the plastic, I was not able to get a simple statement that 'yes, refusing a gift is always an option', it did seem to be that this was the case. The catch being that one had to be pretty smart about refusing a gift before the presumption that you had accepted it kicked in. I am reminded of the case when the public service purchaser finds an expensive present from a wannabe contractor in his drive one morning, where the public service rules are quite clear. Deliver the thing up to the HR people instantly or face instant dismissal. The defence that you tasted the whisky (or whatever) before you found the card from the contractor would carry very little weight. Or even that there was no card. Persons in the important position of public service purchaser have a duty of care which means that they cannot taste whisky turning up in their drive without prior exploration of its provenance.
Yesterday off to the rose at Kingston upon Thames to see the Midsummer's Night Dream for an update, the last time I had seen the play being the multilingual version at the Round House a couple of years ago (see March 10, 2007). Put on by the British Shakespeare Company, an outfit from up north who appear to specialise in outdoor and foreign performance. They also plot to build another theatre in the form of a large bus shelter, like that near the Tate Modern, aka The Globe, up north. Good Puck, good bumpkins and a good leading quartet (Hermia, Lysander etc), but the rest of the casting not too hot. Titania and her fairies rather too muscular while Oberon was not muscular enough. Interesting in that, the production omitted nearly all the heritage music (on heritage instruments by on-stage musicians) which seems to be mandatory at The Globe. In the first half at least one was able to focus on the words, which was just as well as some of the enunciation was not too hot. But it made a change to listen to words, rather than watch a pantomime. This rather changed for the play within the play in the second half, a major production which had the audience laughing big. But a bit too slapstick for me; one lost the sense that this was the court of a nobleman rather than a pothouse. See comment on Roundhouse effort in this connection.
Honourable mention for the ass's (asse's?) head. Simple construction, not involving fur, real or otherwise, but clever and very funny in action.
Another attack on Mr G. this morning. I had heard it alleged that it was not always possible to refuse a gift. I was not to sure about this, but I was fairly sure that it was always possible to refuse that special sort of gift, a legacy. Something that dishonourable children sometimes did, rather than attempt to honour their father's debts. So I get around to trying to check. And it seems that gift law is indeed complicated, being all bound up with tax law, most large gifts being taxable. And so, it follows, a happy hunting ground for lawyers and accountants. Now while without flashing the plastic, I was not able to get a simple statement that 'yes, refusing a gift is always an option', it did seem to be that this was the case. The catch being that one had to be pretty smart about refusing a gift before the presumption that you had accepted it kicked in. I am reminded of the case when the public service purchaser finds an expensive present from a wannabe contractor in his drive one morning, where the public service rules are quite clear. Deliver the thing up to the HR people instantly or face instant dismissal. The defence that you tasted the whisky (or whatever) before you found the card from the contractor would carry very little weight. Or even that there was no card. Persons in the important position of public service purchaser have a duty of care which means that they cannot taste whisky turning up in their drive without prior exploration of its provenance.
Yesterday off to the rose at Kingston upon Thames to see the Midsummer's Night Dream for an update, the last time I had seen the play being the multilingual version at the Round House a couple of years ago (see March 10, 2007). Put on by the British Shakespeare Company, an outfit from up north who appear to specialise in outdoor and foreign performance. They also plot to build another theatre in the form of a large bus shelter, like that near the Tate Modern, aka The Globe, up north. Good Puck, good bumpkins and a good leading quartet (Hermia, Lysander etc), but the rest of the casting not too hot. Titania and her fairies rather too muscular while Oberon was not muscular enough. Interesting in that, the production omitted nearly all the heritage music (on heritage instruments by on-stage musicians) which seems to be mandatory at The Globe. In the first half at least one was able to focus on the words, which was just as well as some of the enunciation was not too hot. But it made a change to listen to words, rather than watch a pantomime. This rather changed for the play within the play in the second half, a major production which had the audience laughing big. But a bit too slapstick for me; one lost the sense that this was the court of a nobleman rather than a pothouse. See comment on Roundhouse effort in this connection.
Honourable mention for the ass's (asse's?) head. Simple construction, not involving fur, real or otherwise, but clever and very funny in action.
# posted by Jim @ 11:41 PM 
