Archive for January, 2007

Quizmania confused viewers, viewers confuse everyone else as to why they watch such rubbish while sober

Quizmania confused viewers

Ofcom has criticised ITV over a Quizmania question which had bizarre and confusing answers.

The late-night show on ITV Play encourages viewers to ring premium-rate phone lines to answer questions which are posed on the programme.

Complaints were received after the audience was asked to guess 14 answers to the question “Whats in a womans handbag?” After viewers guessed items including a mobile phone, plane tickets and driving licence they were told they had failed to identify others, including a balaclava and DIY Rawlplugs.

Ofcom upheld the complaints, stating that the “unreasonable” answers could not have been guessed.

What is a rawlplug? What is wrong with these people? If these questions are not too difficult to use on the program, I’ll gladly sell them at a very reasonable rate. You can see how much I respect “intellectual property”.

Leave a Comment

On the virtues of frugality

From an interview with the inestimable Bill Bryson, a truly great man:

[Bill] Bryson doesn’t consider [frugality] a shortcoming. “Cheapness,” he says, “is a great virtue.” Part of his appeal, the reason why reading him confers such pleasure, is his sensitivity to small gain. His pecuniary cheapness allows for a sort of extravagance of experience, an appreciation of the value that can be wrung from insignificant things. He still, for example, gets a jolt of pleasure every time he enters a hotel room. “I don’t know why, but I go in and I look around and say, this is my new home and look at all the lotions and shampoos… ooh, this is Molton Brown, and really have a happy minute or two.” The day before the interview he was walking through South Kensington, past the Victoria and Albert Museum: “And I had a moment where I thought, God, I’m really lucky that this is my life, and I’m not just a tourist here and I get to live here and see this stuff all the time.”

A legend of our time. Despite the nonsense that is the honours system, I’m glad he got an OBE, which is technically honorary due to his not being a British citizen. [The linked-to article claims that his Short History of Nearly Everything is partly about the English language, when it is not at all. Oh dear.] Why don’t you get ye olde British passporte, Bill? Is it because it now costs £66? Good on you. Thanks for the plug, by the way: it fits the sinkhole perfectly.

Leave a Comment

To the inventor of instant ramen: may you RIP. Now that you’re dead.

The apparently undisputed inventor of ramen, Momofuku Ando, has died from a heart attack, only days after giving a speech to employees of Nissin, the company he founded 60 years ago in the wake of the Second World War. This is ironic, given how without his help I would probably be dead now from starvation. Instead, I am malnourished, but I won’t blame that on him, because it’s Sunday.

In memoriam, I was going to upload a picture of the “vermicelli” — known variously as cellophane noodles, or 粉丝 (written as fen3si1 in pinyin, which means “dust threads”, sort of) — I ruined instead of Mr. Ando’s offerings which I usually eat, but as I haven’t developed the negatives yet, you’ll have to make do with this superlative tribute to the great man, reproduced here, courtesy of lax copyright enforcement:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Adieu, sir. And thank you.

Leave a Comment

The Cutest Thing Ever (notwithstanding hyperbole)

The sea otter backpack:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting [courtesy of aquariumofpacific.org, an aquarium in Long Beach, California]

Its cuteness is only diminished somewhat by looking as if it has been hunted for the sole and arguably inhumane purpose of being turned into a backpack.

Leave a Comment

On an actual otter-cat

Its existence had been formerly hypothesised, but never did I expect to be given evidence that there is a species of actual otter-cat — known to its sadly misinformed friends as a jaguarundi, and to its grandmother as Herpailurus yaguarondi — roaming this otherwise-godforsaken earth. I’m not sure whether the fact it earns an entry on wikipedia makes it more or less likely that it’s all a hoax. For now, I’ll believe it, because it would be so wonderful if it were true. There is some hope for this world yet, although according to the IUCN, who are in turn trusting the plainly and modestly named Cat Specialist Group [oh, how I would love to attend their annual meetings], there is concern over the otter-cat’s “conservation status”, or in normal-speak, their chances of survival in this cruel universe, though on their scale this concern is described as LC, which stands for “[Of] Least Concern”, which is indeed confusing, until one realises it is only relative to concern for other endangered species. Someone should really sort that out.

Some pictures of the poor, poor animal are necessary at this juncture:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting [courtesy of nhptv.org]

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting [courtesy of, but no thanks to, wikipedia and its acolytes]

Leave a Comment

Sinograms to delight and to potentially herald an end to zero productivity on my part

I know you love funky Chinese characters, and I still remember how impatient you are, so let’s get on with it:

(from here; linking from the character directly would introduce a misleading underline): a female rhinoceros, or the species rhinoceros indicus, or to be safe, a female specimen of the species rhinoceros indicus. Courtesy of a squirrel, who was aided by cojak.

(here, and almost nowhere else): “the profundity of the harem, the mysterious and profound of the forbidden palace, the flourishing and exuberant of the flame”, according to cojak. The possibility that this is a hoax, or at least a nonce-character, burns strongly in my paranoid loins. Assuming it is real (and can someone please explain how that is decided? Or even what it means?), the alleged radical is , which means ’sweet’, and is one of the rarer radicals. We shall come across it again, I’m quite sure.

(here) is, according to this self-described “curious article”, the most complex character currently in use, and it means, tingo-esque-ly, a “sound obscured by a stuffed nose”, or a “stoppage of the nose to speak with a nasal twang” according to its allocated cojak page, which in my admittedly non-expert opinion seems to be a quite similar definition. It is written with 36 strokes of the brush — if a brush is to be the writing instrument of choice — which is, to quote an eminent contemporary academic, “rather a lot of strokes”.

, , and (respectively here, here, here and, hold it, here) respectively mean, according to the sometimes-unreliable cojak, “ill-tempered; naughty”, “jade; precious stone; gem”, “master, chief owner; host; lord” and “king, ruler; royal; surname”. I am viscerally thrilled by their similarity in appearance [acknowledged by the use of the last character to represent the second one when radicalised, what with the "king" sense never being used as radical] which bears no relation to their diversity of meanings. Now of course you could argue, and I’m certain you will, that this is a facile enjoyment, a childish reason to be excited, and proof positive of my unquenchable racism, for doesn’t the equivalent phenomenon happen in English and other languages written with alphabets (let alone those written with abjads!)? This is true, but I don’t care. Let me be pleased if I can’t help it. Please.

and (referenced here and here respectively) mean ’seashell’ and ‘to see’ respectively [how striking that their English definitions sound similar too]. Their “traditional” variants are 貝 and 見. Isn’t that nice? They’re also radicals, delightfully.

and (here and here, here-fans): Yes, these characters are not identical, and neither are their pronounciations, though their meanings are mercifully similar, with the former meaning “pig”, and the latter meaning… “a shackled pig”. Isn’t it obvious? My feline source indicates that these devilish sinograms are no longer in use, but they could theoretically be sprung upon us in the name of Chinese, rather like an Irish parliamentarian insisting on his or her right to debate laws in Gaelic, so we have to be ready. Like the Irish parliamentarians who have to listen to the Gaelic. I think you get it now.

and (available for ogling over here and, hey!, here): These two have the same pronounciation [you did work out that you can find out how to pronounce any of the characters featured in this post by merely and utterly leaving the mouse cursor hanging over them for a moment or four? Well, how about now?], the same meaning (sweet, like their radical, , encountered earlier. I did warn you), and are, as you can possibly see, identical, apart from the minor dissimilarity of being the other way round to each other. My knowledgable, well-sourced and rather dishy source has informed me that only the latter one — yep, the one with the radical on the right — is in current usage, but who’s keeping count? Apart from these guys (and gals. And those in-between).

If you can’t see some of the characters, or if you’re wondering why I get so happy at discovering that squares are sinograms too, you need to make your computer understand Chinese. This isn’t as hard as making you understand Chinese, but it’s not so simple that I can help you. Use the power of google to aid you in your quest. Good luck soldier.

Leave a Comment