Two random thoughts

1. I read somewhere (probably Paul Graham's site, or possibly Cory Doctorow's) a while ago that technology always tends to evolve in the following pattern: there is an existing technology. Some new technology comes along that is inferior in every respect except one: convenience. Abandon vinyl for these nasty cassette things? Abandon hand-illuminated manuscripts for these barely-readable and probably heretical printed books? Abandon the horse for these noisy, dangerous, expensive cars? Abandon CDs, with their lovely sound and fascinating label art, for tinny-sounding MP3s? You must be joking. Yet the new technology takes off, relegating the old tech to a niche, and over time comes to match and usually exceed the quality of the old one.
   
   I've become obsessed for a while (probably since the Edinburgh fringe) with duct and gaffer tape (you may have noticed this). Why are these fallible technologies so often imbued with mystical significance? Why do people boast that they can solve any problem with them, make tuxedos out of them, compare them to the Force? I think it's to do with convenience. Gaffer tape's not actually that effective as an adhesive or a binding agent, but it's a hell of a lot more convenient than making mortice-and-tenon joints every time you want to put things together, and you don't have to learn to tie complicated knots like you do with ropes.
   
   Put these two thoughts together, and you get the following conclusion: in the future, everything will be made with gaffer tape. Sounds frightful, right? But it's not, because it will be really good gaffer tape. No doubt made with fabric spun from synthesized spider-silk or even carbon nanotubes, covered with adhesives that can hold massive weights yet can release their hold on command (cos the tape will have tiny tiny computers woven into it, and will be collected wirelessly to the Internet), covered with remotely-alterable display pixels so it can look like anything you want, etc.


2. When buying my camo trousers, it occurred to me that, while Army gear is seriously suboptimal for most people who do outdoors stuff (who want to be highly visible if they have an accident), it's probably pretty good for hunters/stalkers/whatever, who want to be invisible to their prey. But then I thought that camo gear is designed to be invisible to the human eye, not the deer eye. The characteristics of the eyes of various prey animals must be known - has anyone designed camouflage patterns that are tailored to deer, or to boar, or tigers(*)? Bonus points if they're not invisible to humans, to cut down on friendly fire.

Right, now for some actual work. Great.

* Obviously, I don't condone big game hunting for fun. But tigers do become man-eaters, and then killing them becomes something you've got to do.

Arcadia

The Arcadia read-through went pretty well yesterday. The girl playing Hannah (modern-day female historian, for those of you that know the play) was Slovak, and had a bit of trouble with her words (though she wasn't alone in that - it seemed every couple of minutes I was having to help someone pronounce some unusual word or other). But everyone liked it, and it looks like we'll be putting it on! Probably at the beginning of the Christmas Term, which is a while away, but safely away from all the things I'm currently committed to (juggling conventions, conferences...)

I like Stoppard. It's just so clever. Virtuoso playwrighting. Some wonderful lines, and the play's structure is so elegant. And the ideas he brings in and connects together are, themselves, fascinating.

Now, how much of the swearing should I cut? On the one hand, artistic integrity says I should keep it all in, but on the other, my Mum says she wants to see the show...