Month: March 2011

around the web in a few minutes

Just got back from lunch and went through my usual routine of checking the web (and writing this up) before burying myself in the books.  Admittedly, much of what I found came from YahooNews, but it was fairly interesting stuff nonetheless.  So, here ya go:

First, a series of clips of the world’s most dangerous aiports.  The one on the golf course cracks me up. I can just about imagine the pro-shop: clubs, extra balls, tees, gloves, shirts, hats . . . ear plugs.

Here’s something for those wanting to generate catchy CV–specifically, what not to do. Either I have a wrong idea about what a CV is meant to look like, or I’m in the clear because I took a straightforward approach.  (I’m open to advice and even criticisms).

Finally, a look at the dreaded, ‘Let’s just split the bill and call it even‘ ploy at group dinners. Reading between the lines on this one, I kind of got the feel that the writer (Donna Fergusen) was using this story to get some stuff out of her system.  I could be wrong. 

All right. Back to the books for me.

I got gas . . .

Recently, I’ve seen not a few people, mostly from the States, voicing displeasure over current gas prices.[1] I’ve heard of prices for ‘regular’ grade nearing the $4/gallon mark in Atlanta (my home town), and just under $3.50/gallon in Cincinnati (a former place of residence). I think the lowest price I’ve heard thus far is $3.29/gallon. Sure, these are drastic prices to pay, and they certainly give cause for lament. But to borrow (loosely) from one of my favourite writers: ‘if anyone has reason to lament, I have more.’

At present, our average fuel costs (in Cheltenham [England], where we live) are £1.31 . . . per litre. This means, with 4.54609188 litres in a gallon,[2] we pay £5.95/gallon. On the current exchange rate (i.e. today, about 5 minutes ago), this means we’re paying $9.59(ish) for a gallon of gas.[3] So, the next time you get gas (at c. $3.50/gallon), just be thankful you don’t have to endure the pain I feel when I get gas.

[1] For the Brits: read ‘gas’ as ‘petrol’.
[2] The figure for an ‘imperial gallon’.
[3] Sure, we live on an island but technically so do people in the Americas; but more than that: we’re closer to the primary source, so shipping cost should be (in theory) less.

no surprises

Joel, over at Unsettled Christianity, posted the results of what Carl Jung has to say about his personality. Out of curiosity, and to see if things have changed (they haven’t, really), I also took the test. Here are the results:


For those of you who know me, this outcome should not be a massive surprise. For those of you who barely or do not know me, now you have a basic idea. If you want a description of what this outcome means, go here and/or here. I was, however, a bit disheartened to see that what I’m passionate about is not on the list of possible careers. Goes to show that these sorts of things aren’t flawless, or at least they can’t measure everything. 😉

olympic logo and eisegesis

Read this first. I’m not really sure what bothers me more about this story: the firm belief that the 2012 Olympic logo spells out ‘Zion’, or the passionate resolution to act in an unnecessary way because of that firm belief. The second would be perfectly understandable if (and only if) the first were true.

However, I’m just not seeing the word, ‘Zion’ in the logo–at least not on a normal/natural reading. The only way I can see it (and even this is iffy) is by reading it top-to-bottom, left-to-right with a rotation of the head 90 degrees for the last ‘letter’. (Raise your hand if you read like that on a regular basis). This way of reading only proves one thing: I have to force myself and change what is seen in order to see what I think I see in the first place.

If this is the sort of logic used by those threatening to boycott the Olympics, then I would hope to see similar complaints from the people of Isso, Italy and Ossi, Sardinia; personnel from the Open Source Information System (OSIS), the Sense of Smell Institute (SOSI), Izzo Golf, Zizo Systems International, and from Ozzi’s Steakburgers–just to name a few. Why these people? Because if you toy around with the ‘letters’ of the Olympic logo, these are the groups referred to by the toying.

More to the point, I seriously have my doubts that the organisers of the Olympics–much less those in charge of creating logos–purposely sought out the best way to sneak in the word, ‘Zion’ just to anger a particular group of people. It is more likely (and more reasonable) that the organisers and designers were simply being creative with the elements on hand–especially the numbers 2, 0, 1 and 2. As I suggested before, the only way that ‘Zion’ can be seen in the 2012 Olympic logo is if one wants to see it and is willing to distort what is seen in order to see it.