Dude is a social recluse that also happens to kick ass at programming. Starts a hedge fund using a ‘machine learning’ algorithm to determine which trades to make, basing it primarily on market volatility. The algorithm becomes sentient [how?] and tries to get rid of the dude because he’s interfering. Dude ends up looking insane.

It’s no surprise to most of you that I like theatre: I worked on the technical side for two years in NZ, and 4 or 5 years in Australia. I never really got into it over here in the UK, but that’s mainly because there was so much else going on. Instead I started to actually pay to go to the theatre (surprising, I know, but it is only £6).

I’ve been going to the theatre rather steadily for a while now (I think at last count my ticket stubs added up to around £200) and, as with most things, consider myself knowledgeable enough to make educated comments. So when the opportunity came up to go and see plays for free, and in return share my musings with the world, I jumped at it!

[Spoiler: If you want to see the review, you can go straight to it]

So, I signed up, got my free ticket to the play and went along. I even took a notebook with me so I would look like the real deal (I’d seen one of my friends do this previously). Not only that, but I even took notes, complete with pertinent quotes,  in the half-light reflected from the figures on stage (I’m sure there’s some poetry/deeper meaning there somewhere). I dutifully munched on my mango sorbet while musing about such lofty things as set construction, the soundtrack, stage direction and whether or not the spoon in the ice-cream is big enough. Then the second half, more jotting in the notebook and home to write the review!

Well, that was the idea anway.

Being an engineer it’s been a while since I had to write an essay on anything that wasn’t dry, dull, or purely technical. As such I had a little difficulty starting the review. Okay, so the first sentence took me about an hour. But there was too much other stuff on the internet clamouring for my attention! After that though, it was plain(er) sailing. About two paragraphs in though, I started to run out of verbs that mean ‘portrayed’. And then I started running over the word limit (it’s never been a problem before…). But, after much use of online thesauri and a bit of pruning I managed to get it down to something reasonable. Let me know what you think!

A viking village is plagued by dragons; they always steal the sheep and burn the buildings. The city’s big boss has a son who’s pretty weedy and whom he pretty much disowns, but the son manages to capture the most dangerous of all the dragons, a “Night Fury”, unbeknown to his dad. He frees the dragon instead of killing it, then they become best of friends, and during a romantic evening soar they come upon the mythical “dragons’ nest”. The kid’s dad uses the Night Fury as a beacon to find the nest (to kill all the dragons) but the son has to save the day aboard his fun new pet.

[Editor's note: I've not done a political rant on here for a while, but the recent Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN has got me all riled up. You have been warned. Also, as the Middle East is not my main area of expertise, I'm sorry if I get details wrong]

So, Palestine is trying to get recognised as an official state by the UN. This is a great idea, it will give Palestine clout on the international stage and theoretically allow them to be treated as equals by Israel in their ‘ongoing’ negotiations. Except it won’t. Mainly because the US will veto the move.

Surely the first step toward a balanced and equal peace and reconciliation process, which both parties say they want, is that they become equals in the eyes of the UN (and the rest of the world). Then the two states can come to the negotiating table—perhaps not chaired by the US this time, as their record is less than exemplary—and work together to find a solution. Or at least give it more than a half-hearted attempt. Benjamin Netanyahu I’m looking at you, son.

But unfortunately this will never happen, well at least not in that order, and not if the US has anything to say about it. I see this as somewhat hypocritical of the US as they’ve been pushing for an end to negotiations for years, and Obama spent a lot of political capital trying to restart talks in 2010. To no avail of course. So why on earth are they promising to veto any move by Palestine to obtain statehood (which, by the way, isn’t enough for some Americans)?

I think there are at least two things at play here. The first is the large Jewish lobby (or at least Israelophile lobby)  in the US, and the other is America’s stake in Israel. The Jewish lobby is seen to be a large power in American politics, and presidents tend to try and avoid annoying such a large (and powerful, and rich) section of society. Unsurprisingly this means denying the Palestinian bid for statehood and I think also extends to a lack of impartiality on the subject of the Middle East negotiations, hence my call for someone else (perhaps the EU, or the UN) to chair negotiations.

Secondly US has a large stake in Israel (it’s where Israel gets most of its weapons, for example), and therefore has a vested interest in ensuring the continued prosperity and ‘safety’ of the state of Israel. A Palestinian state would mean equality between the two states, (hopefully) leading to a more balanced and responsible negotiation between the two sides. If this negotiation were overseen by a pan-national body such as the UN or the EU (with the co-operation of several Arab states), then that body would be in a position to impose tariffs or trade restrictions on Israel if it failed to stick to its side of the bargain. The same goes for Palestine, though most of the territory around the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is controlled by Israel anyway. This would expose the US and its unwillingness to be tough on Israel, hopefully sending home the message that it will not be tolerated on the international stage.

As to the final terms of the deal, well I’m not informed (nor politically deft) enough to know what that would look like, but Palestinian statehood is surely the first (and best, given the results of negotiations thus far) step on the way to peace in the Middle East.

A dude (Frankenstein) leaves home, becomes a prodigal student in all things science. He figures out the secret to life, and makes a monster of gargantuan proportions in the lab. He then freaks out and leaves the monster to fend for himself, leading the monster to be pretty peeved really. The monster then gradually destroys everything of worth to Frankenstein, before going to burn himself to death at the North Pole.

[Wiki]

[Editor's Note: This is the first of a new series of posts where I'll attempt to sum up the movies that I see in four sentences or less. Enjoy.]

A jury (in Chicago) tries to decide whether a young dude is guilty of killing his dad or not. In the first vote 11 out of 12 reckon the kid did it, one stubborn guy just wants to talk it over (it is the death penalty after all). He manages to swing it to 6-6. A little more psychological warfare later he swings it to 12-0 and the kid walks free, justice is served.

[IMDB][RottenTomatoes]

Dear Google+,

Firstly, welcome! I know things have been hard for you over the last few weeks (what with you having to close invites again and again), but keep sticking at it. Sure, you have some detractors, those who call you the Facebook for geeks and other such derogatory-sounding things, but stick to your guns; if Google can’t break Facebook’s domination over social networking, then who can?

Admit it, you’re basically just entering the fray in order to raise your profile, aren’t you? (And because you’re jealous of all that super-scrumptious personal data that Facebook is skimming every day) Ah well, heck, who’d blame you? I’m sure you can use all the additional data to make your search a whole 0.01% better (every little helps).

Honestly though, I love what you’ve done with the place. The interface is nice (though I’m still getting used to the ugly black bar at the top, we should talk about that), and the tools are easy to use. Oh, and the circles are cool, and well animated. But, let me make a few suggestions about some more interior decorating that wouldn’t go astray:

Venn Circles

I’m a nerd/geek (call me what you will), as are all the people on Google+, and we like to play with tools like Circles. We like being overly anal about the way we organise our friends, and where the overlaps and differences are. And this leads me to the first point: Venn Circles. Wouldn’t it be awesome if you could see exactly how your social circles overlap (or don’t)? I can assure you I’d spend many hours playing with that tool, just to give you even more delicious personal data, sounds good eh?

Sharing Permissions

I know that you’re looking into this, but privacy is one thing that really hacked everyone off about Facebook, so surely this should be one of your prime concerns (behind giving me a fun Venn diagram tool to play with). The first thing was the ability to re-share items that had originally been posted with limited scope, which is basically uncool. But I hear you’re working on that, nice. The next is the ability to change the scope once something’s been posted. Now changing from public to circles is probably a little pointless, as the metaphorical horse has already bolted, but there are several cases where you might publish something to just your circles and then want the whole world to see it!

Privacy

Again with the privacy thing. Lots of people are complaining about how easy (too easy!) it is to find people on G+: stalky roommates; weird co-workers; that barista at the local coffee shop that somehow knows your email address, none of these people should be able to circle me unless I want them to. I hear you’re in the process of fixing this, but hey, step to it, you’re meant to be the Elysium to Facebook’s privacy Hades!

I think that about sums it up for now, but I’m sure we’ll chat again in the future. I look forward to seeing how things turn out, you’ve got a prime piece of real-estate, and it’s definitely in a good neighbourhood.

Love and kisses,

Will

No, this post won’t be about X-factor the TV programme. If you think I would even watch that complete waste of ad revenue then, well then you should read on anyway, but just bear in mind that I don’t like it.

Right, with that out of the way, on to the business of the day: covert romanticism. It seems to me that the onset of instantaneous communication has brought with it an unexpected side-effect, everyone getting overly romantic. I have no problem with lovers sharing

luv u babez

or

❤ u 4eva

after all, letters between lovers have been SWALK for several decades now. What people in love do on their own time is none of my business, and not my problem.

The thing I tend to get concerned about though, is the prolification of people signing off an email with an “x”. I don’t think. Many of these emails are of a reasonably informative nature, sent out by the graduates to let us all know what’s going on. If we interperet these x’s litterally, then the secretary is kissing all of the grads. Now I know this isn’t a pre-school playground where kissing is “yuck”, but still, pashing over 300 grads is a little wrong.

Of course if we just interperet it as a kiss on the cheek perhaps, or a sign of affection, then I suppose it’s more acceptable; I guess it becomes just like “sharing the love”. However, I do have several male friends who will sign off a text message

Sounds great! x

which still makes me frown…

I’m not exactly an avid (avian) bird-watcher, but I recently went out to Rutland Water with a mate to go and see the mating pair of osprey that they have out there. Apparently there used to be heaps of these birds around, but it’s proven difficult to re-introduce them into England and the UK. The Rutland Water guys are pretty stoked to have them, all in all I think.

Anyway, it turns out that bird watching is not as horrendously boring as I had originally thought; although it does require being quiet, which is not exactly one of my strong suits. There are heaps of birds to see, and if you’re with an accomplished bird-watcher (as I was) then you migh even learn a thing or two (which I did, but have subsequently forgotten, unsurprisingly).

So, on to the point of the post: We were sitting in one of the bunkers (I don’t know their proper name) , looking for these osprey when a most unlikely person sat down next to me. He was absolutely covered in intricate tattoos and spoke with a rough-as-guts accent, with multiple piercings to boot; a leather jacket would have made him the perfect biker gang boss. But nontheless there he was, with nuclear family in tow, admiring the birdlife and taking photos with his ultra-flash digital SLR with massive telephoto lens. An interesting lesson on not judging a book by its cover.

[Editor's Note: Yes, it has been a while. But it's amazing how much there is to do when one moves to the other side of the world. I hope to be a little more active on here from now on, PhD permitting.]

The British are notoriously good at whingeing. They don’t whinge about everything, mainly just the weather. And foreigners.

But curiously, when spring arrives, suddenly everyone in Britain decides that the weather will therefore miraculously improve. The central heating gets turned off (regardless of the outside temperature), and everyone starts wearing shorts (again, independent of the actual temperature).

Then there’s the gratuitous shirt-removal. Even though the British practically invented prudishness, as soon as some glimmer of sunlight shines from between those low suffocating clouds that England is so famous for, men start taking their shirts off. I’ve been in far hotter climes (Melbourne during the summer anyone?) where people still walk around in suits in 35 degrees.

And then comes the particularly Cambridge take on all this: punting shirtless. If the sun is shining (or even making a somewhat concerted effort to shine) then the Cam instantly becomes choked with punts, and a large proportion of these are piloted by men wearing only shorts and boat shoes. I suppose it does mean that there is less to get wet if one does fall in, but surely that’s just an acknowledgement of one’s lack of skill. In any case, it makes for a lot of half-naked men wearing silly shoes.