This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: pub

Problems with looking too old

17 March 2011 21:49

Categories: Fife, Personal

What qualifications do you need to become a bouncer? I think it helps to be big, although I once witnessed a great spectacle in Kirkcaldy when a tiny woman strong-armed someone out the door when a fight was about to break out.

Beyond that, I am not sure. I only ask because so often they seem not to be very bright to say the least.

When I tried to enter a pub a few weeks ago, I was stopped and asked for my ID. There is nothing terribly unusual about that. But in this instance, the bouncer was strangely reluctant to let me in.

He peered at my driving license. He inspected my face.

“The guy on your ID isn’t wearing glasses — but you are.”

Err, correct.

“You’ve got a beard. The guy on your ID doesn’t have one.”

Err, yeah. That’s because I’ve grown a beard.

“The guy on your ID looks quite a bit younger than you.”

By now, I was exasperated. I said quite pointedly, “Well yes, that’s because it was taken when I was 17.”

And let’s not even start on the curious idea that I should not be allowed into a pub because I look older than the photograph on my perfectly valid ID.

3 comments

The art of good guesswork

5 July 2010 23:30

Categories: *, Entertainment, Film, Personal

Over the past year or so, I have become a big participant in pub quizzes. Quite quickly, I gained a reputation among my friends for being reluctant to guess.

This is an issue for our pub quiz team, because we have a few major weak areas. Part of this is down to our youth. All of us are around 23 or 24, making us among the very youngest of the regulars. As such, we are disadvantaged when it comes to questions about decades before the 1990s. This quiz contains many ‘guess the year’ questions. We also have big gaps in our knowledge in films, television and sport.

As such, it is important for us to be able to guess. So I understand why my fellow team members might be frustrated when I begin to pick apart the guesses we do make.

But the notion that I don’t like guessing is not quite true. What I cannot abide is bad guesswork. This is because I have realised there is a real art to guessing.

Taking a complete stab in the dark won’t do. Questions themselves are full of clues, even if they have been neutrally written. You just need to sniff the clues out.

I often ask myself questions about the question. What makes this an interesting question? What makes it something worthy of a pub quiz? Is it something topical? Is the answer perhaps amusing or ironic?

Many are tempted just to put down any old answer, as it’s better than nothing. And that’s fair enough if you don’t have a better idea. But bland answers don’t make pub quiz questions.

A few weeks ago we were given the following question: “Who starred in a 1950s public information film saying, ‘take it easy driving; the life you save might be mine’?”

I have to admit I didn’t have the foggiest idea. But I started to ask questions about the question. Why is this question interesting? It won’t just be any old person, because bland answers generally don’t exist in pub quizzes. It might be an interesting answer if the person who appeared in a public information film about speeding went on to die in a car crash.

So then I moved on to thinking of famous people of the 1950s who have died in a car crash. One person immediately sprung to mind, and it seemed like the perfect answer: James Dean.

Later, when the answers were announced, our quizmaster — and the owner of the establishment — started chuckling as he read over the answer to this particular question. “If anyone gets this right, I’ll give them £100.” It was looking good for us — my suspicion that it had to be an ‘interesting’ answer seemed to be correct.

The answer was indeed James Dean, and we were the only team in the whole pub to get it right. Sadly, the landlord didn’t stay true to his promise, even when we suggested a donation to charity!

Here is the “public service announcement” in question (which, according to Wikipedia at least, isn’t actually a public service announcement at all):

For me, this was one of the highlights of my pub quiz career so far, for a variety of reasons. Due to the format of this particular round of the quiz, for our team this question was the most important of the 25. So it was ultra-satisfying to get it right.

The amazing thing is that I didn’t have a clue. I had never heard of this footage. I just read the question and sniffed the answer out.

It underlines the importance of good guesswork. Every other team in the pub took a stab in the dark. Perhaps if they had asked questions about the question, more of them would have got it.

Sadly, even excellent guesswork skills aren’t quite enough to fill in all the gaps in our knowledge. While a few times we have won the “bingo” round (which involves a heavy element of luck), we have yet to win a proper pub quiz round. We are getting closer though, and I am learning more about how to guess all the time.

2 comments

Growing up with the internet

7 August 2009 20:45

Categories: *, Current affairs, General, Internet, Media, Personal, Technology, Work

It is notoriously hard to get to grips with the youth. Advertisers hate it. The age group of 15–24 — of which, incidentally, I am still part — is notoriously fickle. They define themselves almost in terms of what they are not rather than what they are.

That is the explanation being given to the counter-intuitive finding by Ofcom that the proportion of 15–24-year-olds using Facebook has decreased in the past year. Facebook as a whole is still growing. But the problem is that it’s now full of parents and teachers, and it would be deeply uncool to be using a website like that.

In the same week, a Nielsen study has shown that teenagers don’t use Twitter. It has been long suspected that they never did use Twitter in large numbers, but now there are figures to prove it.

That came just weeks after a 15-year-old doing work experience made a splash with Morgan Stanley who were trying to get a grip on what the future might look like. Matthew Robson said, among other things, that Twitter is for old people only.

It probably comes a surprise to some. Even Mashable implies it wouldn’t have believed it if it hadn’t seen the figures. I am sure there are lots of people out there who imagine sites like Facebook and Twitter being full of youths donning virtual hoodies and organising virtual knifings. But young people are not so easy to pin down. The Ofcom report declines to tell us what young people actually are spending their time online doing, although we know for sure that they are online in their droves.

Mine is the first generation to have grown up with the internet. And like every shift in in youth culture, from rock and roll to video games, it gets people thinking about the possible downsides of growing up in a new environment. So they say that the internet gives you a short attention span. Or it dehumanises community life and leads to suicide.

I was recently emailed by a reader and occasional commenter here, Fran Walker. She was curious to know, what with me being a youth and all, if I have a life outside the computer?

As the worry of tinies not being able to interact with other humans, and the problems this may later lead to, is current news, it makes me wonder how you get on, as I regard you as one of the first of the “totally familiar with computers generation”? My son, who is 39 and lives in Taiwan, uses them for specific tasks, dislikes emails, prefers phone calls, and was in the first lot at school when computers were introduced, but he had a computer free childhood before that (say before 12 or 13), whereas, I suspect you had access to your parents’ computer since you can remember?

Like, I suspect, most people my age, I do indeed have a life outside of the computer, although it’s true I spend a lot of time on it. Partly this is because most of my work requires me to use the computer. Then, much of my spare time is consumed by the search for work, which is easiest to do on the internet.

There is also the plain fact that I love being connected to the internet for a whole host of reasons. Most of all, it brings me into contact with so many people I otherwise would not have. And it enables me to contact existing friends easily and comfortably. As Shane Richmond pointed out in his response to Vincent Nichols, the internet “enriches communication, it doesn’t destroy it.”

It is definitely the case that people in my generation are more familiar with computers. When I was young my parents had a BBC Micro, although it was quite old-fashioned even then. As far as I was concerned it was only really good for playing quite rudimentary games, when I could have been playing more sophisticated console games.

We only really got a contemporary computer in the late 1990s, and access to the internet came after that. By that time I was into my teens, so I can definitely remember a pre-internet era. I think for my generation, there were still a lot of people who didn’t have experience with the internet until they were fairly old.

I certainly remember when we started using the internet at school during my standard grades, aged about 15 or 16, there was at least one person in my class who had never used the internet before. Mind you, it’s true that I remember it so vividly because it was so unusual.

People often pose the hypothetical question, “could you survive for a day without the internet?” I recently went away for a short break, and I probably spent longer away from the internet than I have done for years.

Mind you, I expected to still be connected. But thanks to O2′s shaky 3G service it wasn’t to be. That was quite annoying because I wanted to contact people through Twitter. But it wasn’t the end of the world. I had a lot to do anyway, and was focusing on doing the things I wanted to do on my break.

As for voluntarily foregoing access, I think it would be difficult but not impossible. Certainly, one of the first things I do when I get up in the morning is check the internet, and it’s one of the last things I do at night. Would there be any point in not checking? I don’t think so.

A thought experiment like this is not terribly useful. You could try to “survive” a day without the internet, but what would it prove? Could you go for a week without reading your post? Or a month without reading newspapers? I certainly couldn’t survive a day without listening to the radio — I would go round the bend very quickly if I was deprived of it. Is that healthy or unhealthy?

For my generation, having a life outside the computer is no problem. Certainly, I spend a while on the computer. But many people might spend that time watching bad television or getting steaming drunk down the pub, which is much less healthy than spending your time reading Wikipedia.

But — and this is where I start to show that I am at the older end of the “youth” bracket — there is a but. My generation is not the first to grow up having not known a pre-internet world. In fact, I haven’t even had access to the internet for half of my life. So the real people to ask about the worry of an internet-obsessed world would be those who are currently 10 or under, and have never known a pre-internet home or school.

However, I would predict that, like Elvis’s dangerously swinging pelvis, we will come to view as quaint the fact that there was ever any concern.

11 comments

For and against metric

9 May 2007 21:39

Categories: Current affairs, Economics, Politics, Technology

So the EU has dropped its plans to invent the metric system, which means that we will be forced to use imperial measurements by those mad Whitehall bureaucrats. Or maybe not, says Nosemonkey, because the plan was not to abolish the imperial “system” once and for all. Oh well.

Evan Davies had a really interesting post on his blog about the possibility of converting from imperial to metric measurements. He notes the benefits of the metric system that we are surely all aware of — mostly that multiples of 10 and 100 are damn convenient.

Imperial, on the other hand, is a right mess. I put the word “system” in scare quotes in the first paragraph because there is no system to it. I had always assumed that a mile had to be a certain number of yards. That would only be sensible, right? Apparently not. It’s just an arbitrary distance.

The benefits of the imperial system? Evan Davies says that it’s partly down to the British being stubborn because metric wasn’t invented here. There are also the obvious costs to converting. An obvious example is the fact that if we were to change from miles to kilometres, every single road sign in the country would have to be changed at tremendous cost. There are other costs like having to get used to the new measurements.

I am a fan of the metric system, just because of its simplicity. And it was also what I was taught at school. But here is the problem. While I spent my whole time at school learning all about centimetres, hectares, litres and the like, as soon as I walked out of the school grounds everyone was talking to me about inches, pints and miles.

The end result is that I have a bit of a mish-mash of knowledge on vital measurements. I’ve never really taken inches on board, and I find that this is a particular problem. Because it seems as though everybody uses inches rather than centimetres — even people who went to school at the same time as me.

Moreover, whenever I mention centimetres or metres at work, I feel as though I might be judged for that. Under their breath, people might be saying I’m a cheese eating surrender monkey or similar, or they might think to themselves, “bloody youth of today”. The whole situation is like having a conversation where one person is speaking English and the other is speaking French (I guess that would be me, which is amusing because my foreign language skills are non-existent).

And for all of the merits of the metric system, what of the humble old British pint? As if pubs weren’t bad enough for social awkwardness, no doubt having a half litre would be too girly, while ordering a litre of Stella would make you an über wife beater or binge drinker. (Mind you, how often do you go to the pub and have only one pint?)

Evan Davies suggests that there should be a major study investigating the costs and benefits of moving to metric. But I suspect we all know what the answer is. Stick with what you know, because that’s what everyone uses. Economics textbooks look at the QWERTY keyboard layout as an example of these network effects, but people are probably more aware of VHS versus Betamax.

At the end of the day, this is about social conventions. Conventions don’t change overnight, and certainly not at the whim of governments. They have taken the whole of history to evolve to where they are today, and it is probably easiest to stick with the way things are — even if we suspect that moving to metric would be better. If only something would happen to make everyone wake up tomorrow morning and start using metric, we would all be better off.

It’s probably quite well known that QWERTY (man that’s an awkward word to type) keyboards, despite being the standard, are bloody terrible. Designed back in the days of typewriters, the QWERTY layout is said to have been designed to slow down typing to avoid the little arms clashing with each other. But look in front of you. No little arms; just a bunch of buttons in a silly order.

Part of me is tempted to just bite the bullet and switch to the Dvorak layout, which some say is more efficient. But of course I couldn’t do that. I would have to re-learn the keyboard layout when I’ve been using QWERTY all my life. I would keep all of the habits that I have developed while learning QWERTY. And perhaps most worryingly of all, if I had to use a public (or anyone else’s) computer I would have to use QWERTY anyway — which means using two systems in tandem.

Everyone is in the same quandary, but we all stick with QWERTY because we wouldn’t be able to shake off all the issues that would arise from switching. Likewise, imagine if some time in the 1980s the government said, “right, enough of these inferior VHS machines — you’re all using Betamax from now on.”

The same goes with metric. Even though most suspect a metric world would make more sense, we would all still measure short distances in inches and order drinks in pints.

Update: The Hard Sell…: Penny for your martyrs.

I also feel like pointing out right now that I have no idea what an ounce is, nor can I imagine what any value of Fahrenheit feels like.

4 comments

The smoking ban: nice, but it’s gone too far

28 March 2006 23:09

Categories: Current affairs, Entertainment, Scotland

In that post I wrote about blogging a couple of weeks ago I said that I’d never gone out and investigated anything in my life. Well I’ve turned over a new leaf because that all changed today. To investigate the effects of the smoking ban I went to the pub. Of course, I could have gone to the pub on Sunday, but I couldn’t even be arsed to do that.

Anyway, I’ve never quite been able to make my mind up about this smoking ban. For purely selfish reasons, of course, I couldn’t wait for this smoking ban to go ahead. Too often it simply isn’t worth going out if you’re going to spend the rest of the day stinking of smoke. I will probably end up going down the pub more — I’ve already accepted one invitation that I probably wouldn’t have prior to Sunday. So instead of being on the fags I’ll be on the booze.

I’m pretty sure most people are in favour of the ban. I saw Jack McConnell on the television the other day going on about how young people in particular are heavily in favour of the ban. For once, I think he’s right. Maybe it’s just because I mainly associate with student lefties, but I can only think of one person who I’ve met in the flesh who was against the ban.

As a generation, we youngsters have had it hammered home to us pretty relentlessly. And not just by the government. Smoking family friends and relatives warn you never to start. Meanwhile, parents would disown you if you did. We know, we know: smoking will make you die horribly and slowly and those people who make you breathe in their second-hand smoke are absolute bastards.

There is just a feeling of inevitability about it all. The tide is very much against the smoking industry, and nobody is even attempting to turn the tide back in the other direction any more. Smoking in adverts is gone, smoking adverts themselves are gone, smoking in public places and workplaces is gone. And most people (particularly young people) seem pretty ambivalent about it. A friend told me he was half-expecting to see people smoking five at a time, but when I was out on Saturday I didn’t see any evidence of last-minute pre-ban defiance. It all felt very normal, in fact, as if the collective response was just, “Yeah, smoking ends tomorrow. Big deal.”

Given all this, though, I’m surprised the government even needs to step in. If there’s such a high demand for smoke-free environments, why aren’t employers and pub managers prohibiting smoking themselves? I heard that smoke-free pubs existed prior to the ban, but I certainly wouldn’t have been able to tell you where. I’d be amazed if there were any in Kirkcaldy, although I heard that there were three in Edinburgh (still not a lot though when you consider how many pubs there must be in Edinburgh).

I guess businessmen are just really risk-averse and are afraid to be the first to make that kind of decision. Just look at how all the broadsheets have turned to tabloid one-by-one. They’ve been banging on for as long as I can remember about how going tabloid will increase the number of readers because broadsheets are bloody ridiculous and give everybody a sore back. Yet none of the broadsheets made the switch, until a couple of years ago when The Independent had no other choice than to take a risk. Surprise surprise, more people began to read the Indy and then almost everybody else followed suit soon afterwards. See? It wasn’t so hard after all.

Anyway, back to the pub. There was the predicted huddle of smokers standing at the doorway, despite the fact that it was absolutely pissing it down today, but only at one of the four times I found myself passing through the door. It wasn’t the most pleasent tunnel I’ve ever been through, but it was a hell of a lot better than contending with a foggy pub for the entire duration of your visit.

Was the smoke cloaking other smells for all those years? The jury is out. It didn’t feel weird when I first walked in — everybody did turn round and stare at me and the pub did still smell like a pub. I reckoned the new carpet played a part in that smell, though some said it just smelled like stale beer. At our particular corner it smelled of old man and old man urine. Nice. I might have marginally preferred the smoke in that instance. But back home, and you wouldn’t have known I was in a pub because my clothes didn’t stink of smoke, so that is a major plus point.

All-in-all, I have personally enjoyed the new improved smoke-free Scotland. But I think the ban has gone too far. For instance, The Devil’s Kitchen has had a couple of posts detailing how our favourite television characters will no longer be able to light up. And according to The Sunday Times, “Even a request to permit herbal cigarettes has been rejected.” Isn’t that going a bit too far?

Will Howells also wrote about the regulations that businesses now face. There I wrote a comment about my experience at the train station.

…when I used the toilet at Waverley Station recently it was clear that somebody had just been smoking in it. It’s like high school or something. My clothes stank for the rest of the day.

I wonder if the smoking ban is merely going to lead people to smoke in public places secretly rather than stop smoking in public places altogether…

Maybe I’m missing something really obvious here, but I would have preferred a licensing system. If you have to have a license to sell alcohol, why not have a licensing system to give people the choice of both smoking and non-smoking pubs?

One last thing about my trip to the pub. I thought I was given a counterfeit fiver in my change. But then I realised that it was a Jack Nicklaus fiver! I’m surprised any of these are still in circulation.

Jack Nicklaus fiver

When David Farrer wrote about them when they were first issued they were going at £102+. They mostly still seem to be going for more than £5. Although if I were to use this note to pay for something it would only be worth a fiver. And it made up £5 of my change. If I think about this much more my head will probably detatch itself and walk off Beachy Head.

10 comments

Older posts »