Too rational for a Restaurant

You may have noticed a bit of a dearth of blog entries lately. If you have, this suggests that you have been checking regularly enough to notice a lack of regular updates. If this is the case, it implies to me that your life has even less going on in it than my own. In which case, kudos to you for not going stark-raving mad. Assuming you haven't. If you have, that's understandable. I probably would.

The reason for my lack of updating is that, during November, I swore I'd take a break from the online activities to concentrate on:

A) Things I'm being paid to do.

B) Finding more things that people will pay me to do.

I'm looking for regular work, essentially. I have several projects on the go that keep me active, but nothing concrete and reliable as of yet. So, as much as I enjoy my cynical waffling, skeptical networking, science satirising etc., I decided to put my virtual procrastination to one side and find some real work.

This provided some interesting results.

One of the things I've found when you apply for work in the scientific/academic fields is that they take quite a while to reply to you, if at all (this may be just me, admittedly). Once an application has been sent, I often find myself in some form of employment quantum superstate, in which I must keep applying for jobs because I don't have one, and must refrain from making too many applications as I might have an interview to worry about soon. If they don't bother telling you, being rejected instantly and being considered for interview feel exactly the same.

But one piece of advice I've been given is that if you're already working you're more likely to get a job than those who have been unemployed for a long period. This seems like a weird system to me, but I'm not in charge, so don't get to do anything about it. So, as a result, I've been applying for more 'mainstream' jobs in and around my local area.

So, I give you the story of why rational thinking meant that I'll never be a marketer

I recently applied for a role in a marketing company in the city centre. I saw the vacancies notice, sent off my CV, and thought no more of it. The ad read like some standard admin role, possibly with some events organising included (which I do definitely have experience in). I didn't have long to not think about it though, as I got a reply within 10 minutes. This struck me as odd, and it said something along the lines of 'can you come for a quick 10-15 minute interview next Monday?' The words 'cattle call' were at the forefront of my mind; this was obviously one of those occasions where they just invite everyone who included enough correctly spelled words on a CV which wasn't written in yellow crayon to turn up, and see if they're suitable face-to-face. Reading just takes time, doesn't it? And as for having to assess information...

I never enjoy this sort of thing, but I had Skeptics in the Pub that evening so needed to be in town anyway, so thought 'why not?'...

Why do I never attempt to answer the question 'why not?' I don't really know anything about marketing companies apart from what my Dad tells me and what I read in Dilbert.

Anyway, I went to the interview, suited and booted, with another copy of my CV as requested (I'd emailed it to them twice already, but I guess they were low on printer ribbons). After filling in a form with all my details which I had already emailed them (printer issues again, I guess) and waiting for about 30 minutes, I was ushered into an office, introduced to a guy who's name I instantly forgot (not deliberately, I'm bizarrely crap with names) and began the interview. It was basically a monologue about the company, how it's expanded 40,000% during the recession (not an exaggeration, that's what he said, which suggests that this company covers a decent fraction of the Earth's surface), how they were desperately looking for people to train up to management level within 6-10 months, as opposed to 3-5 years. It was lucky he had a copy of my CV, as he needed something to doodle rough diagrams on while he spoke, just in case I had trouble understanding what was being said. I'd have brought him a load of scrap paper if I'd known in advance that's what they wanted to do.

[by the way, it may seem like I'm being quite condescending towards the company and people involved, as if I'm some sort of superior being with my doctorate, mocking the intellectual proles who have to make a living in the commercial sector. I assure you that is not the case, my scorn is undeniably deserved, as will become clear]

He asked how I felt about the company and position they were offering. I felt 'OK', seeing as I was still unsure what they were on about. Asked how soon I could come back for a second interview/observation day, to 'see how the company operates and were you'd fit in', I told them the following week, already having prior commitments for the rest of that week. Apparently, this was too long, they were looking to hire people right away. I conceded this and apologised for wasting their time, and left.

When I got home, there was an email waiting for me, telling me that they had been very impressed with my interview and wanted to invite me to an observation day in 2 days time. This was followed by another email saying that they had rearranged the day to the following Monday in order to suit my schedule, but would be unable to change it again. Not bad for a 20 minute walk, I thought.

I was reluctant to go spend an entire day at this weird company, but as my wife said, "what have I got to lose?"

I really need to stop assuming questions like this are rhetorical.

The email explained that the day would be spent shadowing other members of the company as they go about a typical day, so I could learn the ropes, so to speak. I'd been assured that they didn't do cold-calling (something I could never do, I genuinely balk at the thought of it), they only deal with big corporations, and they operate at a number of levels. I assumed this day would be spent travelling round the various offices, seeing what's what and who goes where etc. I was advised to wear comfortable shoes as I'd be on my feet all day, which makes sense.

So, I arrived at the office again, in my suit and shoes. I had to fill in another form (I guess they lost the last one), and was eventually introduced to the manager on duty; Mitch.

Mitch was as Mitch sounds; every cliché of the slick marketing manager you could think of. Custom made suit, highlights, false tan, overbearing bonhomie, a tendency to speak very loudly in corporate jargon. Needless to say, I did not take an instant liking to him. My friend Dave puts it best, when he says you just known Mitch is the sort of guy who uses his own name as a verb. As in "You just got Mitch-slapped!" when he beats someone in a drinking game or pissing contest, or some other meaningless display of macho prowess. Mitch introduced me to the guy who would be showing me around all day, who wasn't objectionable enough to warrant naming here, so let's call him Phil. Mitch said the following.

MITCH: "Hi Dean mate, this is Phil, he'll be showing you around today. The good news is, we're looking to employ 3 people by the end of the day. The bad news is, we already have 15 guys out in the field, so you'll have to pull all the stops out if you want to impress me today"

Unfortunately, I didn't really feel the need to impress Mitch. I'd met him 30 seconds previous, and had already thought of about a dozen ways in which he could meet his untimely demise. Arguably, this is impressive, but I doubt he'd have seen it that way.

So, Phil leads me out of Mitch's office, out of the reception area, toward a nearby bus stop where we're picked up in a car by 3 other marketers, then driven out of Cardiff for a 40 minute journey, and dropped off somewhere. Where? No idea, somewhere I've never been at any rate. Apparently, this is the territory Phil has to cover. And I have to follow him.

Remember when they said they didn't do cold calling? They don't. They do cold-knocking. My observation day was basically following a guy as he went door to door, trying to get complete strangers (in their own homes) to sign up to a different internet provider. I won't say which provider, but it rhymes with 'balk balk' (appropriately enough).

This was unpleasant for many reasons. I hate bothering people, I hate invading the privacy of others, I loathe the whole pressure sales thing, I hate the thought of having to talk about the merits of a major corporation as if I genuinely believe them, I resent wandering around unknown housing estates in winter in the freezing cold for 6 hours (I found out what we were doing and how long we'd spend there once we arrived, of course, they didn't think I needed to know beforehand so didn't have a coat). These were all negatives about the situation as I saw it.

However, this came to a head when, faced with a disabled man in his own home who claimed he hadn't heard of 'Balk balk', Phil says 'you must have, they sponsor the X Factor". Disabled man said he didn't watch that sort of thing. Phil told him he should because 'it's really good'. He then turned to me and said 'isn't it!', expecting confirmation.

As someone who has handled corpses for a living, I can say with certainty that there are many things I'm willing to do for money. Lying to the face of an innocent disabled man in his own home on behalf of Simon Cowell is not one of them. Poor disabled man jumped on this clear break in the ranks and pointed out that I didn't like it, so it must be no good. Phil responded by saying it's worth watching for the early rounds, where they show all the 'mental people' who can't sing, and it's a big laugh.

I'm not a sales expert myself, but even overlooking the major ethical concerns of that view, is bragging about how you like to mock the possibly-handicapped really a good way to win over a disabled person? Disabled person felt the same, and we were eventually ordered to leave his property. Rightly so.

At this point, Phil must have realised that my heart really wasn't in this job which I didn't have and was deceived into doing. He must have assumed it was because I felt it was beneath me (a fair assessment, I feel it's beneath anyone with a conscience). He decides to explain to me why it was a necessary task, through the medium of what he called 'the restaurant story'. Here is the genuine conversation that ensued.

PHIL: You know why everyone has to start at the bottom level, don't you?

ME: I can guess...

PHIL: It's because of the restaurant story.

ME: The restaurant story?

PHIL: OK, so, I own a restaurant.

ME: Really? OK... well done.

PHIL: No, in the story. I own a restaurant.

ME: Ah.

PHIL: I own a restaurant. It's really successful, it makes a million pounds a month.

ME: Wow. You ever think about franchising that out?

PHIL: No, it's just one restaurant, it makes millions.

ME: ...OK Heston, go on.

PHIL: SO, I make so much money, I realise I don't need to work there any more, I decide to go on holiday and hire a manager to run it for me, which is you. I give you the job of manager, how much do you think I'm paying you?

ME: Well, a first time manager, but in a high profit business, I'd guess £30,000 to start off with?

PHIL: No, £100,000!

ME: ...well, if you insist. I must be a good negotiator, yeah?

PHIL: Anyway, I go away on holiday, it's your first day. First thing, one of the kitchen staff comes in and says they can't find the washing powder. What do you do?

ME: Well, look for it I suppose. It'll probably be under the sink, or maybe in one of the stock rooms. Is it delivered in the middle of the day? I mean if it's first thing, we can't have got many dishes yet.

PHIL: ... no. See, thing is, you don't know. You haven't worked in the kitchens, so you don't know where things are.

ME: Well... if I'm managing the place I'd probably have a good look around before I start, I can't just turn up and wing it.

PHIL: Yeah, but, you don't know. And then people are coming in asking you where the washing powder is and the dishes are piling up. There's nothing you could do.

ME: Well, if I'm on £100,000 I'd send someone out to buy some. They could get two lots, I won't mind, I can afford it.

PHIL: No, you can't do that.

ME: Why not?

PHIL: Because you don't do that.

ME: Um...

PHIL: So then later on, a waiter comes in and says a customer has a complaint. What do you do?

ME: Depends, what's the complaint?

PHIL: No, it's just a complaint, it's not about anything.

ME: How can you have a complaint that isn't about something? I don't think you can logically have a generic complaint. Every complaint is about something.

PHIL: Well, this one isn't, what do you do?

ME: I have no idea, this isn't a logical problem.

PHIL: Thing is see, you can't do this job because you haven't done the job where you have to deal with complaints.

ME: Isn't that the manager's job?

PHIL: Yeah.

ME: But I am the manager, aren't I?

PHIL: Yeah.

ME: So I need to be the manager before I can be the manager?

PHIL: Exactly.

ME: Uh...

PHIL: So I come back from holiday and find you've not done the job properly. You've lost me £70,000, you're not experienced enough to be a manager.

ME: Well, I would have tried to tell you that in the interview...

PHIL: So anyway, I fire you, but you say you really need a job, so I agree to put you to work in the kitchens, and then you can work your way back up properly.

ME: So... I've gone from £100,000 manager to minimum wage pot washer in the space of a day?

PHIL: Yeah, because you didn't start at the bottom.

ME: But I have worked as kitchen staff before.

PHIL: Yeah, but not in this restaurant.

ME: So, everyone who's a manager in this restaurant used to wash dishes when they started.

PHIL: Exactly.

ME: So... how did it first start? You can't have a million pound restaurant staffed with just dishwashers.

PHIL: No, well, obviously I didn't start in the kitchens when I set it up.

ME: But you know where the washing powder is?

PHIL: Obviously, I'm the manager.

ME: ...

At this point, I decided that was enough for me, and said I wouldn't want to take the job even if it was offered to me. Phil, meaning well I think, offered to take me through the career path I could take. Turns out, if I did get the job, I would be able earn up to £150 a month! Until I hit my sales quota, at which point my monthly wage would increase by over 150%! Wooo! At one point he even used the dreaded C-word (commission)

Rather than wait until 9pm for the prearranged pick-up (prearranged without my involvement, of course), I decided to make my own way home. After walking randomly for 10 minutes, I remembered that I didn't have any idea where I was in relation to my home. So I had to take several busses, ask direction many times and make my way to the nearest train station, all while wandering in the freezing cold in my stylish but thin suit.

As I was sat on the train coming back, contemplating the wreckage of my potential career, realising that my tendency to apply rational thought and logic was not only off-putting to many people but actually made me less employable overall, and with no hint of opportunities in sight, that's when I finally came to a sudden realisation.

You don't use washing powder to wash dishes, you use washing up liquid! Who the hell uses washing powder to clean pots? This guy insists that he runs a million pound restaurant and he can tell the difference between powder and liquid? Maybe he is Heston Blumenthal?

"Here's the soup of the day, would you like a slice?"

Tit

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Galileo was right!

Pope Praises Galileo

Have you ever met one of those people who have more opinions than your average person, despite having only about 10% of the factual knowledge of the average person? They seem to be more common than ever these days, where the media seems to prioritise opinion over information, and every opinion is given equal merit. It's a dangerous way to be, and I doubt it can last forever, but for the moment, every person seems to have equally valid opinions, and there seems to be an inverse relationship between strength and conviction of opinion and the awareness of the issues it's based on. I.e. People who don't have the first clue how the economy works are the ones who protest the loudest when something about it changes in a manner which doesn't benefit them, whereas those who may disagree in the same manner but know how the system works usually just accept it.

But these people have been around for quite some time, long before the technology gave everyone a voice. Back where I grew up, long before the Internet connected us up, there were a rich variety of opinionated idiots. I once heard a woman in a shop moaning that all our kids are daft because we don't send them to school enough like they do in Europe. Clearly this woman had no idea that in France, for example, the average school week is, or used to be, 4 and a half days, 10% less schooling a week than British kids. But that didn't matter; her kids were daft, therefore all kids are daft, and it's not her fault, it's the government. You get the gist.

This preamble is very long, I know, but I am going somewhere. These people are often the first to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. Passionately, without forethought or remorse. If they were in charge, they'd just lock up anyone who challenged their world view, I'm sure. So it's incredibly annoying when, long, long after the thing they disagreed with has been proven correct and become a fact of everyday life, they suddenly accept it as if they always did. That's quite galling, but then it's especially irritating when said person then feels the need to tell you all about the impressive things they've done or learned about the new 'thing' they've taken on board. Good example, the Internet. I know many people who dismissed the Internet as an irrelevance, a sad outlet for people who didn't know how the real world works. This opinion, it turned out, was wrong. These are the same people who, quite recently,felt the need to regale me with tails of their first computer and how they now send 'e-mails' to people they know. Brilliant.

People on the comedy scene get this often, if they're new acts. You often get people bemoaning the lack of 'proper' comedy like Jim Bowen and Bernard Manning, hating younger comics with their swearing and views about things like racial equality and non-violence. This is usually on the back of never seeing a modern comic ever, as soon as they do they can change their minds. Peter Kay doesn't count though, he pays up to this 'proper comedy' angle. Fat wanker.

But an example of this sort of behaviour spanning centuries is in the news. The pope has given praise to Galileo. Remember him? Shattered many of the church's convictions about the place of the Earth in the heavens via the scandalous method of looking at things? Rather than just guessing and accepting because a man in a white dress told him it was the way of things? Contrary to popular belief, the catholic church didn't torture or just jail him on the spot, there was a long drawn out series of accusations and conspiracy to entrap him, but many of the higher ups were on his side so he got away from the worst of it. But that being said, he was jailed at home until he died eventually.

I'm not saying it was right to do that, but it was indicative of the times; church was in charge, don't piss off the church. Even if you're right. Especially if you're right in fact, then they really needed to shut you up as thoroughly as possible. But all this was long ago.

The pope now praises Galileo, and I'm not sure why. Granted, the catholic church could use a major revamp in order to improve it's image and fit in with the modern world (which is 4.3 billion or 6000 years old if you're a true believer, but neither rule out the fact that it's developing and changing). The pope now saying he did good work seems to emphasise the church's lack of understanding of the modern world, not help reduce it. It's been over 400 years! If some guy came up to you and said 'hey, this electricity stuff, it's good isn't it! I reckon there could be some use to be had from it', your first thought wouldn't be 'My, what a cool and insightful person, he clearly is in touch with modern society and I think I might see what else he has to say and live my life according to his teachings and beliefs'. Unlikely.

I thought this about when Tony Blair apologised for the role of Great Britain in the slave trade. Say what you will about Blair, I sincerely doubt he was responsible for slavery. Some people said it was an insufficient apology. This may be a controversial opinion this maybe, but I don't think he should have had to do that; not because nobody should apologise for slavery, far from it, but there's no-one alive to day who could make an apology that was genuinely meant. Everyone who did it is dead now, and whether or not they regretted it we'll generally never know. If there are people out there who have fortunes based on industries that were founded on slave labour and they then chose to donate all their wealth to looking after slave's descendants suffering hard times then yes, that would be a good apology. But they wouldn't be speaking for the whole, so it's still not sufficient.

Deep eh? Ah well, point is, the pope's an idiot. We all know Galileo was right. We've been to Mars(in robotic form at least, and I have no idea what the church thinks of robots), there's a Hubble telescope which has taken photos that people use as desktop screensavers, and we weren't all covertly sat around waiting for the pope's approval before we admitted such things were real. There was no real need to pledge the support for Galileo as it's way too late to change anything. No doubt the pope of 2183 will state that Isaac Newton was quite clever actually, and in 2542 the Pope will issue a statement saying 'you know what, that Hawking was on to something".

Fact v Fiction: Segregation of the positive kind

Someone think the Internet should get it's facts straight

Perhaps it's interesting that I should be drawn to this story, being someone who blogs about Science stories and attempts to put a positive 'spin' on things, can I really be trusted to be an accurate source of information? Not 100% obviously, but I've always stuck to the facts, proposing only crazy theories that follow on by some logical step, however unlikely, from the facts available. It's why I do this, to attempt to prove that the facts don't have to be dull, you don't need to put a slant on everything in order to make it interesting. I probably prove the opposite quite often, but then I don't get paid for this, so quality control is minimal.
But in this age where information is available at the touch of a button, there really should be systems in place to ensure the information we use really can be trusted. When I tutor and mark student essays (Oh yes, I do have that level of responsibility), we are instructed to discourage them from referencing websites, because unlike scientific journals or textbooks, websites are often completely unchecked or unedited, and when you're discussing a scientific issue, you can't make crazy claims unless you have the evidence to back them up. So if you want to make statements in an essay, "Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology" is a valid reference, whereas "www.pub-quiz.com/answers" is not. And yes, that has actually been used in one of the pieces of work I've marked.

(My favourite faux-pas to date was when a 1st year student did the standard attempt to sound clever in order to convince the reader they understood the subject but ending up proving the opposite, and ended an essay on visual processes with the phrase 'It is often believed, quite wrongly, that the eye that is open is the one we see with'. Instead of a mark, I wrote the number of the job centre. And Specsavers)

But the Internet is indeed a fantastic tool for the spread of information, and is very democratic and that regard. But like with all democracies, certain groups with a certain viewpoint or belief abuse the system to get their own way, like the zealots at conservapedia, who push rambling bullying dogmatic nonsense disguised as 'information', the owners of which were just given the most brilliant scientific bitch-slap I've seen to date. I'm all for the free spread of information, but if the information is flawed, it can cause panic, fear, distrust and a variety of other emotions which aren't too desirable in large groups of people. Here's some 'information' I've encountered on the Internet.

• The LHC will destroy the world as soon as it's switched on: No! No no no no no! See last blog, and listen to Stephen Hawking. In the local primary school back home, some malicious old lady told all the kids that the world was definitely going to end, and they were all too scared and upset to eat! What are the odds that Jamie Oliver will be trying that strategy next?
• The MMR jab causes Autism: One doctor once mentioned in passing that there was a chance that a link was possible. One sweep of hysteria later, and measles is on the increase, potentially killing thousands of children in the long run. Still, it's better they die young than get Autism, right?
  
• Fluoride is put in the water by the government as a means of keeping the populace under control and sedate: This is a facebook group I saw. Given that fluoride has been in the water supply for decades, during which times we saw such things as the poll tax riots and miners strikes, this seems unlikely. granted, there is much opposition to water fluoridation due to the various side effects too much fluoride can have, but by saying 'it's the government, playing with our minds', you detract from the valid arguments. And let's be honest, collective mind-control of the population would require more effort than dumping a few chemicals in the water supply and hoping for the best. And could several successive governments keep such a thing secret? The current lot constantly leave top secret records on trains, I think this sort of scheme is beyond them to be honest.
• Vernon Kay denies his death: I really wanted this to be an attempt at irony, but I don't think it is. And that scares me more than any universe swallowing black-hole.

What worries me the most is the way nonsense, if repeated often enough with a straight face, becomes accepted as fact. My most hated example is 'we only use 10% of our brain', which is always reeled off by people attempting to illustrate that there are many things Science doesn't know. That's true, but the 10% of the brain thing is utter bullshit. It's based on an experiment from long long ago when someone stuck electrodes into the brain of an unconscious person. 10% of the time, it caused a physical reaction from the patient. The actual fact is, '10% of the surface of the brain will cause physical movement if stimulated electronically'. Which isn't the same. The brain is the most demanding organ we have, over 25% of all our bodies sugar goes on brain function, and it won't consume anything else. It's a jet engine, not a furnace, it takes only the best fuel. And using only 10% of the brain would be like taking a Jet and filling it with rocks, just using so much fuel for no reason. We use all the brain. We're not sure what for, but it's all useful.
But people rely on scientific ignorance to flog stuff, as in 'The new moisturiser contains pentapeptides'. I'm a bit rusty on my biochemical terminology, but 'pentapeptide' either means a string of 5 amino acids, or a protein made up of 5 amino acid chains. Either way, that's massively unimpressive. They might as well say "our new gloop is made up of atoms, whoooooo! Atoms, yeah, that's all sciency isn't it, you're impressed right? We clearly know what we're on about, so buy our overpriced shite, otherwise you'll be ugly forever, you will, we know these things because we're cleverer than you, we must be, remember the atoms? Yeah, that's right, go out and buy it you stupid prole!"
This kind of thing clearly makes me angry, which isn't like me. I'd hate for people to read this and get the wrong information about me. That would be ironic, but not in a funny way.

Super Spiders!

Really Big Spider Terrifies Family!

The cliched comical hysterical reaction of women running around screaming when presented with a small creature like a mouse or moderate sized insect is hard to escape here. "Family forced out of home by spider", as the headline reads, clearly suggests a hysterical overreaction.
Then they show you the thing. It's not pretty. The BBC article also shows pictures of one of them attacking a scorpion, just to give you a sense of perspective. They seem fairly vicious too, then. A lot of people might connect this story with the word 'Arachnophobia', which a lot of people suffer from. This is not arachnophobia, because a phobia is an irrational fear of something. Running screaming naked from the bathroom because you glimpsed what you thought was an inch long spider but turned out to be some fluff from your black socks, that's arachnophobia. Leaving your house because some hideous, potentially deadly insect from foreign climes has invaded it, that's quite rational.
The experts do their best to placate the family.

"If it is the spider they believe it is, then normally they don't attack humans, but they could give a painful bite," the spokeswoman said.

Not that reassuring actually. And the use of the word 'normally' gets me. Normally, you don't get these things in Essex. The woman's husband is a soldier stationed in Afghanistan, so they suspect it stowed away in his backpack. A logical conclusion, although I thought soldiers were meant to be quite meticulous with their backpacks and all that, surely he should have noticed this monstrosity in there? Then again, Afghanistan is an opium producing country, maybe he partook of the local produce before packing. Who knows?
But that means that, although they don't 'normally' attack humans, these spiders are 'normally' found in middle-eastern deserts, so probably won't be too at home in a semi-detached two-storey house in the cooler climate of Southern England. Cut off from it's habitat, food source and stuck in an environment where every smell, colour, shape and even geometry is alien and disturbing, I sincerely doubt this thing will be behaving 'Normally'. 'Normally' it probably doesn't even encounter humans. Leaving the house in a screaming panic is probably the wisest course of action.
And in case you needed further convincing, consider the last quote of the article.

"They identified the spider using the Internet," she said.

This spider is clearly a lot smarter than the average spider, like some arachnid Yogi bear. What the hell was it doing? Is there Spider Porn available? Wouldn't surprise me. They've been unable to locate it since, maybe it was booking tickets home? Although, where did it get the money? Part of me hopes it got paid for a guest spot on the Christmas special of Gavin and Stacey, that should liven things up a bit.

How much speed do we need?

The fastest blowhard ever?

Before I discuss the above story, it put me in mind of a trailer for a film I saw at the cinema yesterday (I saw Hellboy II, which was great, I'll never look at Barry Manilow in the same way again).
The trailer was for a film called Death Race. From what I could gather, it's about a near future where the worlds major sporting event is a race to the death by prisoners in custom made heavily armed cars. It stars Jason Statham (who used to do those Kit Kat adverts) and Ian McShane (Lovejoy). There are other plot points, such as the each driver having a navigator (who is always , apparently, a laughably attractive and well figured female ex-con from a nearby women's prison with a penchant for tight revealing clothes). Cue lots of high octane thrills and explosions as armoured cars chase each other at breakneck speeds around battered highways, all guns blazing. Seriously, I could almost smell the testosterone emanating off it. i felt my IQ drop just watching the trailer.
But this film is just a logical progression of the current trend in films kicked off by 'The Fast and the Furious'. High speed, semi-naked women and only the flimsiest of justifications for any of this macho posturing.
But how far is this from real life. The above article discusses another land speed record attempt, this time in a wind powered vehicle (I'm not going to write any fart jokes, use your imagination if you need to). I applaud this attempt, especially to show the viability of renewable energy sources. Although I worry that the article doesn't state what the current wind-powered vehicle speed is. If it's something like 53mph, the macho speed freaks will be put off for life.
I hope it goes well for the guys making the attempt, it would be great if they managed it. But I've often wondered when reading things like this; Why do humans have this obsession with going fast? The Olympics at the moment are a good example, in that the majority of events boil down to 'who can do this the fastest?'. Swimming, running, cycling, sailing. There are other events which ask 'who can do this the best?' such as table tennis, boxing or gymnastics, but these generally seem to get less coverage (unless team GB might get a medal, of course, then it could be anything, even tiddlywinks).
It's obvious that people like going fast. Roller Coasters, F1, breaking the speed limit, Joyriding, all popular pastimes, but why? Surely, going fast enough to cause severe injury and/or death is a crap survival trait, so it shouldn't be seen as a plus. But then, when you think in evolutionary terms, it actually does make more sense. When being chased by a predator, those who can move the fastest survive, so they reproduce. Those who actively enjoy going fast do it more often, thus getting fitter and faster, thus being the ones who survive. People were hunters as well, same logic applies. The fastest hunters get the prey, so eat, and survive. Prey gets faster, hunters have to go faster too. Positive feedback, all of which conspires to give us a subconscious love of high velocity.
It's evolutionary logical, but is it as essential as people seem to think these days. We're always so impatient. Some people can't even be bothered to read Blogs longer than a paragraph, I bet half the people who see this have given up by now, and if you did, screw you all! If we travelled slower, it would help solve our fuel problems. Travelling 50mph rather than 70mph drastically reduces fuel consumption, but we'd get places slower. And? Everything has such a massive sense of urgency these days. Deadlines, low attention spans, instant gratification, all smacks of impatience. People seem physically offended if their Internet download time is anything less than 1mbps these days, but so what? It's probably porn anyway, how desperate can someone be to view smut?
Physics doesn't like speed. Lightspeed seems to be the universal speed limit. Granted, we're a long way from travelling that fast, but when we do reach it, maybe reality will put its metaphysical foot down and say 'enough'. But of course, then we'll discover warp drive or hyperspace, and have kids knicking starships and joyriding around that deserted nebula. Bloody kids.
But the love of speed drives so much of our society. We want it now, so whoever can give it to us faster gets our business. Maybe we need to shake this habit once and for all. Many pessimists say our society is 'hurtling towards oblivion'. Can't we stroll towards oblivion instead? Maybe well enjoy the walk so much we'll decide to not finish the journey at all.

(I was going for poignant there, not sure if it worked, but I'm in that sort of mood)