[Dujon] I have to say that I think you have the good fortune to live in one of the most beautiful parts of the world that I have ever seen.

[BtD] Sleeping outside? Is your house better or still falling down?

bool- house is fine, just very hot. please excuse the formatting, this is being posted from a mobile.

[CdM] I had gathered you'd been here, but hadn't realised that you had visited the 'mountains'. Though they are not very high there are some majestic parts of them, for sure. I'm pleased that you enjoyed the place.
[All] I hope that everyone else has had some relief from your oppressive weather - I know from experience that it can be quite ennervating, especially the 'getting to sleep' bit. Urrk. As a matter of interest, Bob the dog, if you were escaping the heat then why the sleeping bag? You have me intrigued.

Dujon] Its a summerbag - simply for keeping the dew off - not that there has been much. There is also the discretion factor as I sleep in view of neighbours who are very good friends of ours - but who would probably be offended by the sight of my lack of attire. Come to think of it - a topic of conversation here in the UK recently has been the unusally large moon close to the horizon...

[BtD] So do you hop out the back door in your sleeping bag, sack-race style, or do you tiptoe out once you think they're asleep?

(Btd) The moon, full or otherwise, always looks big when close to the horizon. It's an optical illusion, which nobody can really explain. If you actually measured it you would find it's smaller near the horizon than when high in the sky, other things being equal. This is a simple geometrical effect.

[Rosie] No, I think, surely, you would find that the Moon is the same size in the sky no matter whether it's high or low. After all, it only takes a few hours for it to rise or set - it's not going to change in apparent size as it does so. The apparent growth of the Moon when near the horizon is of course some kind of psychological effect.

The reason the Moon has been looking even bigger than usual near the horizon this week is that full moon has coincided (almost) with midsummer. The Moon is full when it is opposite the sun in the sky. The sun is at its highest at midsummer. Therefore, if the Moon is full at midsummer, it will be as close to the horizon as it ever gets whilst being full. Therefore the "Mendex" or Moon Illusion is at its strongest.

When I say that the Moon doesn't change in apparent size while rising or setting, I mean that the area of sky that it covers surely doesn't change. Obviously its apparent size does change because it looks bigger closer to the horizon, but it extends over the same arc of the sky (and indeed of the retina).

The moon should appear to be smaller when on the horizon than when at the zenith. Reason? It is further away when viewed at a tangent to the Earth's surface than from a perpendicular. This slight change is measurable though unlikely to be noticed by a casual observer.
Why we generally perceive a full moon to be larger on its rising as opposed to when it is high in the sky has often been said to be as a result of it being in proximity to our more normally observed everyday horizon (trees, buildings, horizon line) than when it's clear of such. In other words the sense of scale becomes more evident.

(Breadmaster) Dujon has explained what I meant by the "geometrical effect". The moon is measurably about 1.7% larger in apparent diameter when overhead than when on the horizon, other things being equal. We're simply closer to it when it's overhead. The same applies to the sun, strictly speaking, but as the distance of the sun is 23500 earth radii the effect is barely measurable even with instruments.

reference is made to: http://petergreenaway.co.uk/games.htm

Many of the films of Peter Greenaway, at least the feature films that I have seen, have the structure of games. The best example is probably Drowning by Numbers. I have only recently discovered MC and I find the similarity to Hangman's Cricket to be striking. Does anyone know whether Greenaway has played MC?

[Rosie] Sorry to steal your thunder, old son, but Breadmaster's comment had been sitting for quite a few hours without response.
[Effable] Hello. I cannot answer your question but, on the law of averages, my guess would be 'yes'. The reason for that is that I believe I'm the only person on Earth who hasn't played a serious game of M.C..

(Duj) No problem, mate. I've never played MC, either live or on these sites. It is essentially a performance in which the audience and panel enter into a mutual conspiracy about the complexity of the rules. Very few people I know have ever heard of it, which is rather disappointing. You could go up to anyone over the age of about 40 in this country and say "Bal-ham", and the almost instantaneous response would be "Gateway to the South", but say "Mornington Crescent" and you'd get mostly blank looks.

[Breadmaster] I just re-read your earlier post vis-à-vis (sorry!) full moon and the midsummer situation. This is not true. On average there are thirteen full moons per year. As viewed from Earth (the Sun always 'sees' a full moon) such an event can only be seen from one point on Earth and will happen at a specific time. To be technically correct a proper full moon will only occur during a total lunar eclipse, which is when the Sun, Earth and Moon are truly aligned - even then it can only be termed a 'full moon' by a person standing/sitting/lying on the direct line between the Sun, Earth and Moon at the time that this occurs.

Ooh Arr, hello Rosie. Simulpost.
I trust you agree with my little piece on celestial mechanics? Or have I mislead myself?

[Rosie] Well, I'm very nearly fifty and I only learned of the existence of MC a few days ago. Now I'm hooked. It is as though it had been out there waiting for me to discover it, seems so right, so well suited to my motley talents. It doesn't bother me that it is so obscure. That is part of the appeal. And I am confident that many people have played MC without knowing what it is called. The pattern is a common one in many circles with intellectual pretensions.

[Effable]

"... The pattern is a common one in many circles with intellectual pretensions."

Your research, Sir or Madam, is exemplary. Welcome to the world of wannabees, couldavebeens and mightwellbees. I suspect that you will fit quite well into this society of misfits and miscreants. As a relative newcomer to the M.C. world myself, I'm quite sure that you will understand the deep and meaningful discussions, the amazing word play and generally unintelligible literary references which pepper this and other M.C. sites. Should I be correct then maybe you could help me out when I get stuck?

[Dujon] Yes, of course technically you're correct about the full moon - I was using the term in the slightly vernacular sense, meaning the moon when it is as full as it is getting this month, as it were.

Living in Norfolk and often driving through the fens, I have frequently seen "full" moons on the horizion and they never look any bigger than when it is up in the sky. The moon does look huge however when it is a very fine crescent rising just before or setting just after the sun on a red sky.

[Boolbar] Do you have only one good eye? The "moon illusion" is much less if you close one eye (or really only see well out of one), or stand on your head. If you don't want to stand on your head, you could bend over and look through your legs. Noone would think you're strange. Honest.

[flerdle] No-one is normal in Norfolk, so such behaviour would be ignored, or even actively encouraged. I have two good eyes last time I looked, although one looked bigger than the other . . . .

[Boolbar] Does the eye look bigger when it's closer to the horizon?

[Dujon] I answer to neither Sir nor Madam but will admit to the y chromosome. It is possible that my participation will be of some small benefit to the community.

(Duj) Strictly speaking you're correct but the term Full Moon is used, even technically, to mean that the ecliptic longitude of the moon is 180° more (or less) than the sun, whatever its latitude (-5° at the last full moon). (Effable) To save you putting your foot in it, so to speak, I too must admit to the Y-chromosome. There is at least one other person here who does the same. But beware; there are people here with no Y-chromosome whatever, some, moreover, with non-gender-specific monickers. Truly a minefield. :-)

This site has had the same games on the front page for an offally long time. Time for a bit of turnover, perhaps?

[Rosie] I really don't mind. I'll watch my step and try to be PC.

[SM] You Know You're Getting Old... is unkillable

[SM] S'true. We've tried everything.

Which, I suppose, is ironic in a way. You know you're getting old when you stop caring about killing games, since you expect even the short ones to outlive you.

I have tried to dispose of the Furcation game, but we have another non-standard winning move situation.

I think that one might be protected by administrative fiat. Still, I must admit that the prospect of my ever making the promised move is not getting greater as time goes on.

Wow - last night in Herts was the most spectacular display of lightning... torrential rain, at least half an inch... whoooo-wee! Marvellous. Anyone else get anything ?

[pen] I got a nice bit of fish for tea.

[pen] I got a squash racket for my birthday.

[pen] I got leaks. The lightning was rather good though, very blue in colour.

Pen] Notmrsbobthedog claims to have seen ball lightning. She was out making sure the chickens were safe when there was a massive boom. Looking up she saw what she described as a lightbulb-shaped white glow which hung in the air for a few seconds after the strike.

Meanwhile, I was stuck in Brum, attempting to get the train back after a trip to York. I was sat in a metal hanger during the best of the storm. Sadly, the Selfridges building escaped divine judgement. All trains (including mine) were cancelled for two hours due to the weather. I got home very late.

[Btd] woweee.
[Chalks] Good idea. I'd fish the fish out of the freezer if I was going to be in tonight, but Flatmate's mum is taking us out for dinner - local chinese does THE BEST Szechuan Stir-fried green beans with salt and pepper.
[Tuj] Happy Birthday. Are you going to play grown-up squash? ;o) I once got through to the country trials in my younger, squash-playing days, mainly due to my killer serve which I could drop dead in the back corner. Unfortunately the rest of my game let me down. But I enjoyed the acoustics in the squash court - my best friend and I would spend an hour singing songs from The Jam, Duran Duran, The Teardrop Explodes and Gary Numan rather than playing squash.
[Boolbar] Leaks? Oh dear. The husband of one of my colleagues, in the midst of a huge house-improvement project, of which he is very capable, chose yesterday to take off the roofs off their porch and garage. Ooops.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Birmingham, here is an image of the Selfridges building on the new Bull Ring.

The term Bimbo architecture has been used in association with this building.
Bimbo Architecture means buildings designed to attract customers but lacking in architectural integrity. RIBA president Maxwell Hutchinson said: “Bimbo architecture has a big smile and a pretty face but nothing between the ears. It is ‘hi-tech’ architecture without the tech and with an exclamation mark after the ‘Hi’ “.

Wow, that's ugly. I don't think the lens helped here but still ... are people expected to shop here or is it an office building? It looks like something from a bad SciFi movie. "The Blob That Ate Bull Ring!"

[Effable] I've never been there but I understand it is for shopping and not purely offices. For what it's worth, I quite like it.

Bull Selfridges Ring - it's much nicer in the flesh.

What a visual insult! Come friendly bombs and fall on Birmingham. It makes Croydon look like a pretty little market town, which it ain't.

At the risk of offending someone, that looks about as attractive as a beached whale.

[Duj and other detractors] Like most things - the edifice needs to be viewed in context.

[pen : hot beans] - how's your digestive system this morning?

[Chalky] But OTOH, I like it just on its own. [Btd] I can't resist asking (in the typical debate-starting manner) why this bit of architecture is less intelligent than, say, St Paul's Cathedral. The best reason I can think of is that while this building looks like a jokily scaled-up sequinned amoeba, St Paul's Cathedral looks like, well, a cathedral - which depending on your POV suggests that Christopher Wren was less decadent than Future Systems. Also, some architecture critics have pointed out that Selfridge's is basically a shell-concept, with little of architectural interest inside it, so not a coherent bit of architecture? Are these your reasons for disliking it?

What does Maxwell Hutchinson mean by "architectural integrity"? To me, that would mean "it satisfies the purpose it was built for, keeps out the rain, and doesn't fall down", but he appears to have some moral concept in mind. Googling for some reviews of the place, I didn't see much mention of whether it works in that sense. I did see a lot of photography that one might accuse of lacking in architectural integrity, i.e. shots taken from unusual angles that give no idea of what the thing actually looks like.

[Projoy] Ever seen St Paul's from above? The facade is not part of the structure, so it's a shell just like Selfridges. It gives a nice impression from the street, but it's not what it appears to be.

[Chalks] Perfect, thank you :o)

Projoy and debate] I'm not that good at debating well because I feel very strongly about some issues and have a tendency to be both self-righteous and politically correct. However, I will present my own reasons for disliking the Selfridges building and why I think that Maxwell Hutchinson quote on Bimbo Architecture is a spot on reference to it. I would not like to think that I have offended anyone (as I have done when I fail to understand why people should play golf, wash their car on a Sunday, get married, get pierced, get tattoos, wear high heels or do any of the other multitude of bizarre things people do unquestioningly in order to comply with a convention.

I have no idea whether St Paul’s is good Architecture. It has stood the test of time in terms of its foundations and stability, it is a huge and well laid out edifice with some stunning work by a range of crafts people, it has a fascinating and well documented history.

My first reaction to the Selfridges building was ‘wow!’ It really is impressive. It is not out of place and it fits the nature of what it contains. My issues are more to do with the nature of consumption to which it is a cathedral. In one respect, I can see that there is some validity in the design. The shallowness of the outside is perfectly complimented by what it contains.

There is no reason for its appearance other than to attract consumers. It is simply a fashion statement. I have no idea how long it will last, but if its predecessor (which was greeted with similar acclaim when it was built) is any reference, it will be pulled down in 2030 amid claims that it is an eyesore. The building materials may be novel, but are not sustainable or easily repaired or updated. There are already worn and grubby areas. Despite this, I hope that it does survive, as an historical reference to the fashion of the age and so that no more hardcore, plastic reinforced concrete and fibreglass is dug into land-fills and left to contaminate the countryside.

I have no issue at all with the look of the building (apart from the fact it will get very mucky very quickly) and I would have welcomed a far more radical design (something by Anish Kapoor would have been perfect) had there been any thought to social and environmental sustainability when it was built.

But (and at the risk of retreading the discussion about value in music) why should such a building have any purpose for its appearance other than to attract customers? And if an architect sits down and asks himself, "How can I make this building attract customers?" then why is that any less of an intellectual challenge than any other building purpose? Similarly, in what sense does it look "shallow"? I'd have thought that if it makes sense to talk about shallowness in building design, you'd apply it to buildings that are unoriginal or that look like everything else. I'd say that this building had an original and unusual appearance. Whether it is an attractive appearance or not, or one that is compatible with the good functioning of what goes on inside, is another matter, but I don't really see what "shallowness" or "integrity" or "bimboness" have to do with it.

[Bm] Well, I don't think Btd is saying a building should have a better reason for its appearance, simply that if it doesn't, he doesn't think much of it. The intelligence of architecture, I would imagine, is in the way it interacts with the intelligence of the people that use it (rather than just whether it's a brain workout for the architect, otherwise a Temple Grandin abbatoir would be great architecture). Thus if all the Selfridge's building does is to drag you in and make you spend some money, then that's not a very intelligent way to be treated. If, on the other hand, it inspires you with thoughts biology or maths, that's rather more intelligent. If it manages to combine intellectual stimulation and its function, and make those two things interrelate, then I guess it's very clever indeed.

[Btd] All seems fair enough, although I must say, I've never worn high heels simply in order to comply with convention.

Projoy] Nearly there. I agree whole heartedly with your phrase "If it manages to combine intellectual stimulation and its function, and make those two things interrelate, then I guess it's very clever indeed."
Bread] I agree that an architect may if s/he wishes choose to design a building with the sole purpose of attracting customers. In this case they have and I am led to believe that they glory in that. My issue is that I (personally) find that approach unethical. Regarding shallowness - I did not say that it looked shallow. It doesn't, it looks interesting. The concept is shallow - one dimensional. If Joseph Beuys had piled lard on a chair to sell lard, it may have succeeded for a while but it would have been quickly forgotten. For me, the Selfridges building is just that, only more blingy. And with consumer culture responsible for so many of the environmental and social ills of our time, disposable 'environments' are a trend I would not wish to support.

[Chalky] Don't take me too seriously, my comment was made from that one image. I'm quite sure that if I happened to be in the area I'd duck in and have a look at the interior.
Still looks like a beached whale though. :-)

I learnt today that I didn't get the job I spent ages and ages preparing for. That'll teach me.

Awww - I didn't like to ask because I thought it might tempt fate ...

[Rab] but you still have the preparation. Surely it'll be useful the next time something comes up? But sorry to hear it anyway...

Kinda - next job will be in a totally different department with wildly different interests (might even be maths, rather than physics) and so a lot of the application and job talk will have to change accordingly.

At least I'll be a bit more prepared for the ridiculous questions they throw at you in the interview, though.

[Rosie] The drought has not broken, but it's most welcome - see here. I have been loath to say anything less I jinx the weather, but it seems to be clearing and I guess it's now safe to do so. Many farmers are rejoicing but others are forced to wait until they can get their machinery into the paddocks. As far as my local dams go, we'll have to see what run off finally arrives.
[rab] My sympathies, good sir.

(Duj) That's quite a splash, 150 mm in a week, and should be helpful. Back here the drought is slowly accumulating, the running 12-month total being just short of 600 mm instead of the normal 820 mm. And the two wettest months by far were last August and October. It's not desperate and no-one is going to die because of a hosepipe ban, even if a few plants do. But my raingauge needs some exercise, having got more in the way of seeds, dust and dead insects than water in it at the moment.

I broke my marching virginity today. And great fun it was too, waving placards. Having been exhorted to end capitalism now, all my future posts will be entirely in the lower case.

[Rab]Been There, Done That.

[rab] WHAT? I WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU.
[Rosie] You are in chalk country are you not? I would have thought that a 25+% drop in rainfall would have affected you more than most. We are still permitted to use hoses for gardening purposes twice per week (I think it's Wednesdays and Sundays - but I'd have to check), within limited hours, and it's breaking my green thumbed wife's heart.

It's ridiculously green out here (SW Qld). Green grass in winter, for pete's sake. The weather has really gone mad.

[rab] Marching virginity. Is that like galloping insomnia?

(Duj) Yes, it's chalk, which is why there are no rivers on it, just hundreds of dry valleys. The water sinks in to become groundwater and is in effect a huge subterranean reservoir from which the water is drawn via boreholes. The problem is that it takes ages to top up again after a dry spell but short-term fluctuations tend to be ironed out. (Projoy) Certainly won't give you a running sore.