Consistency in F1

It has long been argued that the race stewards at F1 races should be permanent staff who go to every race. At the moment they are suitably qualified volunteers and change from race to race. Consequently maintaining consistency of implementing the rules seems to be lacking. Here are a couple examples:

24th August 2008: European Grand Prix at Valencia
Filipe Massa having stopped for fuel and tyres is released by his team into the path of Adrian Sutil in the pit lane. The stewards determine that this was unsafe and decide to financially fine the team after the race.

28th September 2008: Singapore Grand Prix
Filipe Massa having stopped for fuel and tyres is released by his team with the fuel hose connected to the car, the hose is wrenched from the fueling rig knocks over several team members and trails fuel all along the pitlane. Filipe stops the car at the far end of the lane but leaves the engine idling, the team members come along remove the hose and he carries on with the race. The stewards determine that this was unsafe and issue a drive through penalty (once through the pits).

Notice the difference in penalties.

Now consider the following:
In the first instance, Massa was leading the race when the incident happened, he ended up winning having suffered no on track penalty.

In the second, Mass was leading the race when the incident happened, but by the time he rejoined the race having had the fuel hose disconnected, he was last place. His punishment resulted in no on track penalty.

So can someone please explain to me how the above decisions are consistent and why Ferrari appear to be given preferential treatment dependent on race circumstances?

general

Comments (1)

Permalink

NHS^WQuantum Time in waiting rooms.

Over the last few years I have had the pleasure of spending a reasonably large proportion of time in waiting rooms at either hospitals or Doctors Surgeries. On and off I have given the matter some thought and it is time to share these with the world.

I have two case studies, first the Doctors Surgery:

If you have an appointment at a medical centre and it is the first appointment of the day - it will be late, on rare occasions it will be early but it will never be on time. After that as the appointments continue through the day, they get later and later. So a 9:10 will happen at 9:30 (even if the 9:00 took place at 8:50), the 9:30 will be at 10:00 and so on. But the 12:20 appointment (the last before lunch) and the 18:00 (the last of the day) will always be on time. I cannot explain how this works but it does. Using the above principle that the 17:40 appointment will be at least an hour late but the last appointment at 18:00 will still happen then - the obvious answer is to either get the last appointment in a session or the first knowing that the wait will be the least of all the patients excepting the last.

Second case study, the hospital clinic:

Here things work differently as an NHS clinic can have three sorts of patient:
1. The pre-booked weeks in advance by the appointments clerks patient,
2. The pre-booked by the consultant appointment and
3.The ‘oh shit’ needs to be seen as they came in via A&E and need followup patient.

So what happens here is that your appointment will never happen on time. This is because the consultant earns a packet on the NHS, they also earn a packet doing private work and want to retire and play golf. So they don’t care if they stay late in the evenings because more work now means more golf later. So accordingly they deal with the emergency patients first, and the booked ones get fitted in. Where this goes to pieces is that the appointments booked by the clerks have filled all the bookable slots, so the emergency cases and the ones the consultant wants to see because they need to be seen have to be fitted in.

BUT there is something that the patient can do to speed things along. It is quite simple, fairly cheap and hopefully most patients can manage it in this day and age. Ready? Take a book. Really it works. My own observations have come to the following conclusions:
1. If I don’t take a book I have to wait hours sometimes (appt at 3 taking place at 6 for example).
2. If I do take a book and I am the only person with a book, it will take an age to get into the book because of distractions (more on this in a bit) but once I do get into the story I will be seen fairly quickly.
3. Everyone takes a book in which case the wait is minimal (though I have to admit I have yet to see the nirvana of a quiet waiting room because everyone is waiting) and everyone gets seen fairly quickly, this is i have to admit theory.

So really take a book. At the worst it will keep you entertained.

Back to distractions, these vary from a toddler screaming, a couple having a row, the old boy snoring in the corner (perhaps he went to the wrong clinic) and my all time favourite ‘The Complainer’.

The Complainer is a special breed and work their way up into full flow in stages:
1. they cannot find a chair they like in a location they like, so they settle on a chair and move it to where they want it, which is invariably in everyone else’s way. They sigh.
2. the waiting room is either too hot or too cold and so they keep taking their coat on and off and sighing loudly about how hospitals should have air conditioning.
3. even though they arrive early, they will keep checking their watch, the more they check the louder they tut.
4. they find a book/magazine and start to read and then stop, sit bolt upright and announce that there is either not enough or too much light for them to read comfortably.
5. the insist on talking to the people in the immediate area - particularly the person who is trying to read a book.
6. once they have started talking they then start complaining that hospitals were never this bad under the previous government and that something should be done.
7. they have now realised that their appointment should have happened 10 minutes previously and they go and see the receptionist to complain that they should have been seen. They then return in a huff and repeat point 6 above.
7. Around twenty minutes later a nurse or one of the admin staff will announce that the appointments are running approximately 45 minutes late and thank everyone for their patience. This is the final straw, they stand up and announce that this is completely unacceptable as their appointment was book six months previously and a hospital should be able to keep appointments made in advance.
8. They simmer for a while, then find the nearest member of hospital staff (who it is is irrelevant) and repeat the point just made adding in about tax payers money and how they are very important, how hospitals have gone to the dogs and that they have an appointment at the hairdressers / bookeepers / whatever in 20 minutes that is much more important than sitting in a waiting room at a hospital. The reply they receive varies dependent on the member of staff:

a. the cleaner - shrug - ’speek leeetle Ginglish’
b. the receptionist - ‘the appointments are booked, you will be seen and no I don’t know why things are running late - medical reasons I expect’
c. a nurse - ‘look we are very busy, I know you have a booked appointment but we do have emergency cases that need dealing with as a matter of priority, you will be seen in due course’
d. the consultant - ‘I have been here since 8 am, performed several operations this morning, had a dodgy cheese sandwich for lunch and am now trying to do my clinic, if your case was urgent I would have seen as soon as you came in, everyone will get seen and nobody will be here later than me, so please sit down and shut up’.

The reactions tend to vary as follows:
a. ‘well you are bloody useless’ - and move on to b.
b. ‘you should know it is your job’ - and move on to c.
c. ‘that is completely unacceptable I demand to be seen now’ - and then sit down in a huff.
d. ‘oh’ - at which point they either sit down quietly or they walk out in a rage threatening to write to their MP etc.

general

Comments (4)

Permalink

iKnit - London 2008

Some time ago Mrspao bought some tickets for a knitting show.

So at the weekend we went to London. Arriving at the show I noticed that the place was rather full of rabid women with pointy sticks pouring over yarn, fleece, books and other knitting related paraphernalia. Not being a knitter it seemed best to keep out of the way, so taking the bags and guarding the mounting purchases, I found a chair sat down and read.

There came a point however when things became more interesting, so it was a good job I had my camera.

Click to embiggen and see the ladies heads!

Oh and the Yarn Harlot was truly excellent.

Tip for single heterosexual men: learn to knit, get a T-shirt with “I am single, straight and knit” printed on it, go to a knitting show and it is very likely that you will pull!

general

Comments (4)

Permalink

Quality

I am just dumbstruck by the quality of this one…

general

Comments (3)

Permalink

Security - Oh dear

I was amused (I think) this morning, when I went online to request a repeat prescription for allergy drugs to find the following:

Important note: Your password is now CaSe SeNsItIvE for added security

Important note: Your password is now CaSe SeNsItIvE for added security

I suppose that the only consolation was that at least it has always been SSL encoded via https (well that is what my browser reports) and that they had a valid certificate.

general

Comments (2)

Permalink

Where the penny drops on the Christian homosexuality debate.

Up on campus as reported moderately regularly by the media we have the Lambeth Conference. Which is pretty much a ten yearly gathering of Anglican bishops to discuss the way forward for Anglican Churches. Anglican churches are pretty much those that were founded by the Church of England as the British Empire colonised the world.

Now you can call me a bit dumb or a half witted ignorant fool if you like, but finally it occured to me today that there is more behind the gay bashing conservative bishops than the media would have us believe and that the situation for the liberal bishops is in some ways more privileged. So whilst the two groups of Bishops studiously ignore the media and concentrate on other matters (except Gene Robinson who seems to be courting the media) which are probably in Church terms much more important, I want to explore why it is such an issue and why the Lambeth Conference has no chance of sorting it out at the moment.

So bear with me whilst we go on a short biblical history lesson.

Now the bit of the Bible that is frequently quoted by the conservatives is quite clear, it categorically says and I quote from the book of Leviticus:

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

So taking that at face value, if you are a practising homosexual according to the book of Leviticus then things don’t bode well for you. Consider also that Leviticus was apparently written in roughly 1450BC and that the Old Testament

Moving forward in the Bible to the New Testament which was written entirely in the period 40-100AD (or thereabouts) and in the main considers the life of Jesus and the life of the early church. From what I have read and with a bit of Googling Jesus says not a single thing about homosexuals and the often quoted phrase from Matthew is:

22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Now I am not to say what is in context and what is not, mainly because I am neither wise nor a scholar of the Bible. But it is not too hard to see why contradictions arise and why at face value some of the Bishops are at loggerheads.

At this point we put the Bible to one side and consider the following two points:

1. In Britain, America and other countries in the Western world it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals and this is where many of the liberal viewed Bishops hail from.
2. In Sudan, Nigera and other countries in the developing world it is illegal to be a homosexual and the penalties range from imprisonment to the death penalty, unsuprisingly many of the conservative Bishops are from these parts of the world.

So since legally the two opposing parties cannot agree with each other without risk of persecution or worse in their home nations, how can they be expected to provide a unified Anglican church view? Since any unified view will have to take on side or another is it really too difficult to appreciate why the sexuality debate that the media would love to see (Bishop punch up at Lambeth anyone?) is pretty much being deliberately avoided?

Finally consider that it was not that many years ago that homosexuality was illegal in the now liberal countries in the western world.

general

Comments (0)

Permalink

Fail

At least for a novelty it is not just Windows…

photo

general

Comments (1)

Permalink

How apropriate

Today at the Lambeth Conference is the discussion on sexuality, with the contrasting views that are polarizing the Anglican church I was highly amused to find the following in the campus shop.

photo

general

Comments (2)

Permalink

Bird Bath

A while ago we decided to buy a birdbath with which to keep the local birds happy….

photo

general

Comments (5)

Permalink

Canterbury in Norwich?

At lunchtime today the wife and I wandered around the exhibition centre for the Lambeth Conference. I was highly amused to see the following sign:

photo

general

Comments (2)

Permalink