About this time last year, I finally called time on the inkjet printing thing, and moved solely to laser. To be exact the Samsung ML-1440, which has done us proud for it’s 8,850 pages. In fact, if it were possible to get parts for it still, I probably wouldn’t have changed it..
But change it I did – to a super special offer on a Xerox Phaser 6125, which is a lurvely colour laser printer. Sure, images don’t match up to an Inkjet on photo paper – but pictures are still jolly impressive, are a fraction of the cost, and (best of all), if you don’t print for several weeks the thing still works!
The only small fly in the ointment is the lack of Linux drivers, which meant I had to use the rapidly dying Samsung to print from Linux. But I need fret no more – thanks to those lovely people at OpenPrinting, I know how to get it up and running from Linux over the Ethernet.
For those who want to play along, the page is
http://www.openprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=Xerox-Phaser_6125 which in turn links to http://www.fujixerox.com.au/support/downloaddriver?productId=307&operatingSystemCode=Linux which in turn has a lovely ZIP file to download containing the drivers bundled up in a RPM, and a fairly idiot proof PDF which leads you gently by the hand though the process of installing it…
I’ve added it twice – once as “phaser” and once as “phaserbw”, with the latter being the default printer on my system, which outputs in black and white and lower quality (b/w being significantly cheaper than colour, even on a laser).
Enjoy!
PS – When I need to print photos? That’s what photobox is for!
Derren Brown’s latest stunt (where he ‘predicted’ the lottery numbers) has been the cause of masses of discussions at work about how he did it. There are plenty of theories about how he did it – so here’s my analysis.
First of all, what do we know?
He turned around a plastic podium containing 6 balls which appeared to show the numbers drawn for Wednesday’s lottery.
Nothing that he said or showed during the program was necessarily true.
Nobody knew what Derren’s ‘prediction’ was in advance – his ‘prediction’ was only revealed once the answer was already known.
Actually that’s about all we can say for sure.
However, to this we can add some reasonable assumptions:
The BBC draw is broadcast live.
Time travel is not possible.
The machine (if not tampered with), does not have a systematic flaw – and it is
therefore impossible to predict any given draw based on past performance.
It is impossible for him to have filmed every possible outcome in advance.
He was always going to get the 6 balls right, so the rest was showmanship.
… so there was no element of chance or luck.
The machine cannot be influenced by ‘physic power’
So, as he said on Friday, there are three sensible options for how it was done.
The numbers on the balls were only set once the numbers had been drawn (what he called “fixing the ticket”).
The numbers were genuinely predicted in advance.
The machine was fixed.
While he was very quick to discount number 1, it is the most likely by a country mile. Given the assumptions above, we can immediately reject (2). The probability of him getting even 5 balls right by chance is infinitesimal. While I haven’t looked up the coin tossing ‘experiment’, conditional probability is a bizarre and counter-intuitive creature (best displayed by that game where you have to choose the door that the prize is behind). However, the lottery isn’t conditional – what has gone before has no bearing on what happens next. I am disinclined to go with the third – but I wouldn’t discount it altogether, and it would also explain his reticence to showing his ‘prediction’ in advance… A lot of questions would be asked…
The really big question is why doesn’t he shows us his prediction in advance? It’s a thousand-fold superior trick if he shows us the numbers before (or even as) they’re drawn. As it stands he doesn’t actually predict anything – as I explained above. There are two reasons I can think of:
He doesn’t know the numbers (“fake the ticket”)
He does know the numbers (“fix the machine”)
Either way, there is no ‘prediction’ – the question is simply then how did he do it?
The whole “wisdom of crowds” thing is a nonsense in this context, and the group of 24 is a red herring. Notice on the Wednesday night they don’t get to know the prediction – he gathers in all the numbers, and works it out for himself. My theory is that the guy on the second draw who adds them up is a plant, and the lottery show is being showed with a delay. Either that or the whole thing is faked with 24 actors, but that feels like a bit of a cheat too far for me.
Secondly, the set up with the studio is just that – a setup. I believe that everything up to the cut away to the back camera has been pre-recorded, and we only become live once we cut back to what is almost certainly a camera on a tripod (either computer controlled, or with software shake).
That said, I believe Derren Brown was broadcasting live from a studio, with a TV showing the BBC, and he then walked over and turned around a podium that had six balls with the six lottery numbers actually written on them.
I believe there was either a second studio with an identical set-up and synced tripod movement, or a pre-recorded sequence of the exact same movement. A split screen from the live podium to the pre-recorded one was brought in, the balls were written on with the correct numbers, the dude doing the writing ran out, and the split screen returned to live.
This is exactly the trick used in 1,001 spy films (and Speed) where they pre-record footage, and replace the live feed with that pre-recorded footage. Heck, I’ve even done something similar with my noddy vision mixer. The two twists here are that only half the screen is replaced, and that there is a small amount of motion.
The best evidence for this theory is the well documented “jumping ball”. The leftmost ball (rightmost after they’re turned around) moves up a small amount between the last ball being drawn and Derren Brown walking back behind the podium. Clearly time was extremely tight – which might explain the ‘mistake’. The second piece of evidence was the unnatural movement of the camera – suggesting a tripod mount being moved by a servo.
Eight years ago I was at a BMVC conference in Manchester for the week. I had been browsing an art gallery(!), and wandered out and switched on my phone. Text message from my supervisor, saying he was in the Wetherspoons Pub. This in itself was a bit weird, as he would never normally willingly enter a Weatherspoons…
We found it, and discovered the rest of the crew absolutely glued to the telly.
Someone’s flown two planes into the twin towers.
Sorry?
We just saw a plane fly into the World Trade Center, and then saw both towers collapse, live on TV.
I look at the Telly. There is New York, without the twin towers, but with masses of smoke and dust. Soon enough they replay the clip of the second plane hitting, and then of both towers collapsing.
Hard to take it in, to be honest. A plane flying into a building is Hollywood fare – especially with the time-lapse element and constant review and analysis on voice over.
There was no arguing with the New York skyline though. I have photos from the Empire State Building, clearly showing the twin towers. And they are simply not there anymore.
But I did recently watch one of the C4 documentaries – 100 mins that changed the world (or something like that). This was a real-time review of that morning, spliced together principally from amateur footage that the public took that day, overlayed with phone conversations and radio comms.
This was the first time the event had struck me a real way. If I’d have been in NY that morning, I would have acted in exactly the same way. Stared in amazement in shock at the terrible accident – how can there have been an explosion like that? Then when the second plane hits it becomes clear it’s not an accident – suddenly panic. If I had been in a tall building I would have got out as fast as I could.
And I hadn’t appreciated the sheer scale of the disaster – when the tower came down, the wall of smoke and debris rushing down the avenues.
I am so grateful I wasn’t in New York that morning. And my heart and prayers goes out to all the souls that were on the planes and in their offices that morning, and those they left behind. My heart and prayers also go out to all the civilian causalities there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq since then…
I’m working on a little theory about why we watch television, or rather what we watch what we watch.
This comes from two observations – firstly the popularity of soaps, which I completely fail to grasp, and secondly the shows that my 5-year old likes to watch.
I should add that I’m excluding programmes that are principally about disseminating information, such as the news, or documentaries. In other words, we’re talking about entertainment! I might need to exclude ‘direct’ comedy too.
Here’s my theory; we enjoy watching shows that we (secretly) wish we were in. It’s like a whole vicarious living thing.
So the programmes I like:
Doctor Who – who wouldn’t want to be a Time Lord (or at least his assistant)?
Top Gear – I’d love to be driving fast cars round a race track!
QI, Have I Got News For You – yup, would love to be a panellist (or, at least, clever enough to be a panellist).
Star Trek – again, how cool to be on the Enterprise?
Northern Exposure – this probably falls into the comedy bracket, but there is a part of me that would love to live in the wilds of Alaska. Just stunning.
Friends – again, we all want to be living in that situation.
Midsomer Murders, Sherlock Homles, Poirot – the whole point of detective shows is trying to solve the case before the chief protagonist.
24, Lost – harder call. I was hooked for one episode, which I think was novelty, but subsequently lost interest.
Bond – not TV I know, but probably the strongest example. Every man wants to be 007.
If we move on to my boy – he loves various programmes, but he strongly associates with the characters on the screen. To the extent he will lean sideways watching them. He will also go away and ‘play’ that character, or games based on the TV show.
The best example of this was Escape From Scorpion Island (sort of Survivor for 11 year olds) – when the series was over, his question was When can I go onto Scorpion Island, and do all those things?.
I’m obviously on dodgy ground when I start extrapolating to shows I don’t like – but I wonder if the same applies to soaps? That somehow the community being portrayed, however dysfunctional, is desirable? I guess society today is so fragmented that geographical communities like Albert Square or Corrie simply don’t exist anymore.
On the comedy note, I wonder if it applies backwards. Take The Office – it takes a situation we are in (or can closely related to), and twists it into something we wouldn’t want to be in. Maybe it’s actually all down to emotional response, be that happiness, sadness, fear, laughter, tears, outrage, disgust?
I had some creme fraiche and maple syrup cobbling around the fridge, so I decided to do an ice-cream experiment.
I thought that something else in the mix would be nice, so I experimented with various combinations, and settled on added chopped up walnuts.
My approach was simplicity itself. I’ve guessed the quantities, as I didn’t bother measuring them.
Ingredients (makes about 500 ml ice cream)
~300 ml creme fraiche
~100 ml milk
50-100g sugar
4 tbsp maple syrup
75g-100g chopped walnuts
Method
If using a ice-cream maker, do the freezy bowl thing plenty in advance.
Put the creme fraiche in a mixing bowl, and beat in the milk until it has the consistency of single cream.
Now beat in the sugar and maple syrup.
Do a taste test – the mixture should be very sweet, and maple flavour should be very strong (both get suppressed by the cold). If not, add some more syrup.
Pour the mixture into the ice-cream maker.
A couple of minutes before it’s ready – when the mixture has thickened – pour in the walnuts.
If you’re not using an ice-cream maker, add the walnuts, and transfer the whole lot to the freezer. After 3-4 hours, whizz it up with an electric whisk to break up all the ice, and return for a further 3-4 hrs until it’s fully frozen.
Enjoy (or transfer to the freezer).
This melts pretty quickly – probably because it’s a fairly light base. If you like richer/heavier ice-cream you could hold back on the milk, or use a creme fraiche custard base. No idea who that person is – first hit on Google for creme fraiche ice cream at time of writing!
Couple of quotes from yesterday that caught my eye.
Of poor leaders they say We did it despite them
Of good leaders they say We did it with them.”
Of great leaders they say We did it ourselves.
And (at the risk of doing a Bernie), the difference between charismatic and inspirational leaders:
They say after an audience with Hilter, you came out saying He can do anything.
They say after an audience with Churchill, you can out saying I can do anything.
The point of both is that you seldom hear of truly great and inspirational leaders, because what they do is enable others to achieve amazing things.
While I have no pretensions of being a great or inspirational leader, I would rather see someone that I have walked alongside do extraordinary things than to do extraordinary things myself. I don’t want to be great, and don’t imagine I ever will be – but I do want to try and help others be!
I spent today in Leeds, at a Growing Leaders training day (“training the trainers”), and I’m really excited.
I’ve been reading the book of the course, and there’s a lot of it that excites me because of what I believe to be my overall calling in life, but also that resonates with stuff that I think God has specifically been saying to me over the last few years.
Two of the verses in the bible that excite me the most are Ephesians 4:11-13 (NKJV)
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
And Jeremiah 3:15 (NIV)
Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding.
That phrase equipping the saints just sums up perfectly where my passion lies. The Jeremiah passage I find hugely encouraging – it’s kind of a two-way promise. To the people, it’s a promise of good shepherds, but to the shepherds, it’s a promise that they will be made into good shepherd’s for God’s purpose.
In terms of stuff I think God has been saying. Well, I’ve discovered contemplative spirituality over the last few years in a whole new way. Exercises the like Awareness Examen and Lectio Divino, and experiential bible meditation. I have to give a huge nod here to Mark Yaconelli, in particular his book Contemplative Youth Ministry: Practicing the Presence of Jesus with Young People (link is to Amazon), which I think should be required reading for anyone in any form of Christian leadership. The title is misleading in a way, as I believe the principles apply across the board, and it’s a hugely accessible way into a more contemplative and reflective (as opposed to anxious) way of life.
The other stuff has been about shape and direction (in particular, Rick Warren’s S.H.A.P.E acrostic). I find it very easy to strive for balance, and being able to do everything. If there’s a particular ministry or activity I struggle to do, I easily see that as a failing, and try to rectify it. I’m slowly becoming more accepting of who I am and how God’s made me. That means I’m good at some things, and rubbish at others. It means that my character traits are not inherently good or bad (they just have associated strengths and weaknesses).
Two examples.
First – youth work. Broadly speaking, I am academic. I think, ponder, reflect, pontificate, and review. I try to give a considered response to questions, that I can back up with a solid argument. (It drives my wife mad!). I often s.p.e.a.k ….. q…u…i…t…e … … … … s….l…..o……w…..l…y. (not always, but often). My co-leaders are not wired up this way. They are dynamic, exciting, enthused and responsive, and most of time are bouncing off the ceiling.
I find it very easy to think they are “better” than me, because they connect very easily with the youth, and find it much easier to joke and laugh with them then I do.
But I think the reality is both are important. The youth need to connect, for sure, but I think I bring a depth that might not otherwise be present. I spent the first couple of years as a youth leader trying to be hip and exciting like the others. Now I accept that God called me into that role, as I am, and me being me is far more valuable and real than me trying to be a 21 year old. In addition, I have come to see that some of the (particularly older) young people actually find it easier to connect with someone who’s a bit more quiet and reflective in their approach…
The irony here is that one of the key aims of ministry to teenagers is helping them to feel comfortable in their own skin, and accepting of who they are!
Second example – DIY. In direct contradiction to what I just said, I also tend to rush in. I get excited by new things, and by getting things done, and tend to charge on in, without always taking the preparation steps that really the job requires.
This is not always a good thing where DIY is involved. In fact, it is rarely a good thing.
On the other hand, jobs gets done. I actually get on and do stuff. I know of people with a more measured approach, who actually never end up getting anything done, either because they never get around to it, or because the preparation takes so long there doesn’t end up being enough time.
I am coming to see that neither approach is in and off itself better or worse. There are strengths and weaknesses to both. I get the job done, but with rather more mess or with less than ideal results. Others may do it perfectly, but take a lot longer to do it, if indeed they get round to it at all.
They key for me is self-awareness. If you know who you are, and what your character is, then you can get help in areas which don’t come naturally.
Ermm, forgotten my point now.
Oh yes, Growing Leaders. I’m very excited because it is all about equipping the saints. I’m so excited about learning more about my own calling and leading in a sustainable way, and then having the privilege of helping others do the same thing (and even better, helping them to then pass that on to others in turn).
Pete Broadbent (Bishop of Willesdon) said on Twitter:
It works right across the church spectrum. Much recommended. Growing Leaders is a gift to the Church.
(which is a pretty good recommendation)
Anyway, it looks like I’ve got a year to work through the course, and try to get a leadership strategy in place (there may be one already that I’m not aware of), and then we’ll kick it off Sept ’10 – Insha’Allah.
I’ve been jotting down some of favourite games that we play at youthgroup. Most of these are good for all ages, and have passed the test of time (several times a term for 2 or 3 years). There are some newer ones we’ve done once or twice, but which seemed good.
Games with no equipment or preparation
(except possibly tables, chairs and a large room)
Splat – An all time favourite game of quick reactions.
I’ve not mentioned any ball games – there are millions!
Also, any sort of relay race – particular if it involves candles, water, pancakes, or balloons. Popping a balloon with a candle is particularly satisfying.
Good explanation of this one on Uk Family and Wikipedia. The aim of the game is to make 4-of-a-kind, and pick up a spoon, OR to not be the slowest to pick up a spoon.
Start with a deck of cards, between 3 and 8 players, and one less spoon than you have players. You need to play this at a table so that everyone can reach the spoons.
The dealer deals 4 cards to each player, and then puts the rest of the deck on the table. He takes the top card, and adds it to his hand. He then chooses a card, which he passes on to the player on his right, by sliding it face down along the table.
The player on the right picks up this card, and then chooses one of her (now) 5 cards to pass on to the player on her right. In the meantime, the dealer has taken another card from the top of the deck, ready to pass one on.
In this way, the cards are ‘fed’ all the way around and back to the person to the left of the dealer, who places one card into the discard pile. No player may have more than 5 cards or less than 4 cards in their hand at any point.
Should the deck run out, the discard pile is shuffled, and re-used.
When someone manages to get 4-of-a-kind (4 cards of the same value), they pick up one of the spoons. At this point, everyone else has to pick up a spoon as quickly as possible. The person who is left without a spoon is “out”. One spoon is taken away, all the cards are returned, and the next round is played with one player less.
The player who first picks up a spoon should do so as subtly as possible – gameplay may continue for several seconds before other people realise a spoon as been picked up.
A spoon may only be touched when either the player has 4-of-a-kind, or another player has picked up the first spoon, although feints are quite allowed, as long as the spoon isn’t touched.
Requires a pack of playing cards. The aim is to lose all the cards in your hand.
All the players sit around a table, so that they can all reach the centre. The cards are dealt out to all the players as normal.
The person to the dealer’s left then puts his card into the centre, face-up, saying “One”. The player on his left then puts her card face-up on top of his, while saying “Two”. Play continues in this way (going “One”, “Two”, … “Nine”, “Ten”, “Jack”, “Queen”, “King”, “One”, “Two”, etc) until one (or more!) of the following happens:
The card just laid matches the card underneath (same as normal snap).
The card just laid matches the card number spoken by the player (e.g. they put down an Ace while saying “One”).
The card just laid is a Queen.
At this point, all the players must SLAM their hands on top of the pile of cards in the centre, and the last player to do so takes the entire pile, and puts them on the bottom of the pile in his/her hand. He/she then starts off the next round.
In addition.
If any player slams, or even starts to but jerks it back (“flinches”) they forfeit the round and pick up all the cards in the centre.
The game has two major variants:
When a player has used all their cards, they continue to say numbers in turn, and still have to SLAM when a “snap” occurs”. This variant never ends.
When a player has used all their cards, they cease play. The first player to do so is the winner, and the player left with all the cards at the end is the loser.
And there are several minor variations:
Numbers aren’t spoken – the players must keep track in their head!
When a player has no cards, their number still “counts” – i.e. if a 6 is laid, and a non-card holding player says “six”, that’s still a snap.
When certain numbers are spoken (e.g. “Jack”), play changes direction. Alternatively, keep the jokers in, and use them to change direction.
Have special words for certain numbers. So “cat” instead of “ten”, or “monkey” instead of “three”.
