Monday, February 15, 2010

Give me another angle please

I hate these TV shows (and even some movies) where they only use one camera during the whole production.  (For example, the series called The Office.)  They only use one camera to do the whole show, and zoom in and out like it’s some silly schoolkid garage production.

Although the show seems to be funny, I have never been able to watch it for more than 30 seconds.  Why this show is allowed on screen is a total mystery to me.  You can get drunk just by watching this crap.  It resembles some of the crappy African productions I’ve been unfortunate enough to be exposed to – just without the horribly bad childish acting, and with the presence of a slight plot somewhere in between the flashy zoom-ins and cameras floating across the floor to zoom into the other person’s face, just to zoom out again and swish around back to the other face – out of focus, of course. 

How do the editors manage to survive days and days of reviewing this junk?  Don’t they get sick all the time?  Why are people actually watching this show?  Do they put a blanket over the TV and just listen to the dialogue?

I think the government should ban shows that were made with only one camera on site.  They can cause serious mental heath issues, and kids who watch this may turn out to never have any hand-eye co-ordination - if they have the ability to focus their eyes at all.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Dodgy sparkies?

I have been following the whole roof insulation issue with a lot of interest. It’s amazing how people can become focussed on the political arena, and miss the whole point.

Let’s think about this before we blame the government or the opposition. Even though I’m no Labour supporter, I can’t see the reason why poor old Mr Garret now suddenly is to blame for this.

Think about this. Someone threw a few peaces of roof insulation in a roof. I can appreciate that some of these “installations” were done in a hap-hazard way, and that there should have been some sort of regulatory guidelines. Did the government really pay the rebates without doing any quality control inspections? Obviously quite a few people jumped on this gravy train and abused the stimulus package without thinking about the consequences. But this is not the issue.

Here’s the issue: How on earth can someone get electrocuted just because he was in the roof with “poorly-installed foil insulation”? If the electrical wiring in the house was done according to Australian standards, how is it possible that an item can become “live” just by putting it down on the roof ceiling?

Three people were electrocuted while installing roof insulation - how is that their fault? As far as I know, they did not perform any electrical work on site - the insulation is not powered up or connected to the switchboard in any way.

This whole issue boggles my mind. No one is asking the right question here. Where are all the OSH experts? Their first question should be “how on earth can this happen? Who did the electrical work on this site?” In addition to this, why did the RCD’s (earth leakage protection) not work?

And the most daring question of all: If the inside of our roofs are this unsafe, what are we doing about it?

Blaming a minister in government is not the solution to this problem. Someone needs to have a look at the quality of electrical work, and the minster who is responsible for regulating this industry is the one who should be answering the questions. (And plenty of minsters who filled this position before him, as this is not just today’s problem.)

"It's negligent or inappropriate, slack behaviour on the part of a very tiny minority," he said.

For the minster to blame "slack" roof insulation installers is not the answer here. Were they qualified electricians who were consequently supposed to check the electrical system in the house, or were they just roof insulation installers with no specialised knowledge of electrical systems?

Why is nobody asking these questions? The press has just elevated this to another political debate without getting any facts straight. Again. The mud is being slung around, but it’s about the wrong issue.

I’ll definitely think twice before getting into my roof...

Friday, February 5, 2010

Pay your dues

It has been rumoured that some airlines want to introduce a penalty for carrying obese persons. Obviously, the leftwing human rights greeny bunch scream "discrimination" again.

But no one mentions the fact that the airlines are still screwing us.

From an obese person's point of view, this is a bad idea.

But look at it from the point of view from someone who has always been shorter, smaller and, uh, let's say - not so round as some others might be. (Even though I seem to be catching up lately...)

Mr Little books in for his flight. He weighs a mere 75kg. His hand-luggage weighs 25kg. (Total weight - 100kg.) Under current discriminatory regulations, the airline makes him pay for extra weight. Even if he had been flying with one of the cheapy airlines like Jetstar, he would have the "option" of paying for 15kg or 20kg or 25kg of additional weight. For some reason the luggage may never exceed the limits without heavy penalties being incurred.

Next in line is Mr Big. He weighs 125kg, and his luggage has been trimmed down to 18kg. (His total weight is 143kg.) Mr Big ends up paying less than Mr Little. A lot less, I might add.

Talk about discrimination! We small people have been abused and trampled on by our larger counterparts for many years. I raised this issue with an airline more than 5 years ago - it's not a new idea.

Apart from the weight issue, there is also the additional wear-and-tear that is introduced by these large people. They add additional pressure on the seat that they're sitting on. They cause wear when they squeeze through the passage ways. They take up more room and make it uncomfortable for those around them. They probably even exhale more carbon dioxide and pollute the planet!

The airlines' solution to this problem is to make obese people pay 25% additionally for an open seat next to them. How ridiculous! They are still trying to screw us all. Although I like the idea that they should pay more, this is not a fair solution. All the airline is doing is increasing it's revenue, they're not reaching out to the Little customer who is actually saving them money.

This is how it should work:

There should be a combined weight limit. This would make more sense from a scientific point of view. What is the reason for these limits in the first place? Isn't it because the plane has a limit as to how much it can safely carry, and that the fuel consumption is influenced by the amount of weight the plane is dragging around? Why should Mr. Little pay more, even though it costs the airline less to drag him off to Hawaii? Now Mr Big can have an additional empty seat next to him for the same price as Mr. Little paid for his combined weight!

Air France even continues with this discrimination buy letting fat guys have a free seat next to them. Mr Big can request a free seat next to him at 25% cost, and get a refund if the plane wasn't full. Mr Little, however, can do the same - but without the refund.

Other non-overweight passengers could also book a second seat for a 25% discount, Air France said.

But they would not get the refund if the plane was not full when it took off.

Why are we not seeing some big class-action court-case (on behalf of normal-sized people) because of this? Why are only the Big people complaining and screaming "discrimination!!"?

But alas, most politicians and jetsetters who fly regularly are obese anyway, so the little guys will probably lose this fight. I wonder what Richard Branson's point of view is on this?