eebahgum!

Blood glucose meters. Are they so inaccurate that they're useless?

2018-06-26T17:08:00.000+09:30

or, I have a blood glucose meter and I am afraid to use it.

Like many Type 2 diabetics, I have had my trusty blood glucose meter for several years. I have gone through phases where I have tested religiously several times a day, other periods where a struggled to test daily, and times when (I'll be honest) I have not tested for months.

Through all those times, I have assumed that my meter, a tiny and sexy Accu-check Performa Nano, had my back—that it was a trustworthy friend that dutifully put its best effort into measuring my blood glucose when asked, then told me the truth about what it found. Sure, it was temperamental sometimes, but what true friends aren't? Sure it would sometimes spit the dummy at a test strip or three, or generate unexpected errors with accompanying unknown numbers, but in an Italian car we call that "character".

But if Nano had a flaw, it was that I had to transfer all my test data from it manually. For this purpose I used Glucose Buddy on the iPhone, a full-featured and very useful tracking application, but I always hankered after a better way of doing things, that would allow me to track and monitor my results without having to key things in unnecessarily. Accu-check have PC software for this purpose, but in Australia they charge the quite outrageous price of around $130 for it, and according to the local diabetes association, are increasingly reluctant to part with the software to anyone other than health professionals—an odd stance in this information-centric and self-help world.

So I began to look at other options for meters that connected to PCs or iPhones. In the latter category there are very few players so far, and those that do exist are flawed for now. Lifescan, the makers of the OneTouch meters, had an iPhone app in the works but seem to have abandoned it. Glooko, a third party vendor, have software that will work with a number of meters, but required an expensive cable and sometimes a separate IR interface. The reviews I have read of it suggest that it's not yet a complete product. So the only real player is the iBGStar meter. It's problem is that it only connects to the old iPhone connector, so those with an iPhone 5 or above need to have a 30-pin to 8-pin adaptor, so the whole argument of portability and integration becomes weaker. A product that has been on the market a couple of years and hasn't kept up with the technology worries me a little. I know FDA approvals are slow, but surely if they were really committed to the product they would invest in a little R&D. Also, the iBGStar iPhone app seems a little basic at this stage. I'd like to track blood pressure and other information which it doesn't support. I've not ruled out this meter, but I am keeping a watching brief. [This paragraph is now a little out of date, and I'll be updating shortly]

Instead, I acquired a new OneTouch VerioIQ from LifeScan because it appeared to be an modern, attractive meter with a good range of features, and free software upon registration. It also came with a cash back offer greater than the purchase price, which meant trying one out would leave me in profit—a no-brainer, then.

Of course, being obsessive compulsive and having a new meter, I had to test, test, test against my old meter. And that's when the problem started. I'll get to the detail below, but the gist is not only do these two meters disagree with each other ALL the time, the also disagree with themselves MOST of the time as well.

And we're not talking small disagreements here. We're talking full on bloody feud, only the blood, alas, is mine!

Show me the numbers, I hear you ask, so here they are in the following table. If, in fact, I misheard you, and you really said something derogatory, then please feel free to skip to the next bit.

*Test*	*VerioIQ*	*Nano*

Evening 1
First finger	10.9	9.0
2^nd finger	11.2	10.3

Morning post-fast
1^st finger	7.0	7.4
2^nd finger	7.9	7.7
	6.8	8.9

2 hours after breakfast
2^nd finger	10.2	11.3
	9.9	11.5
2^nd finger 2 minutes later	9.5	10.3

Before lunch
1^st finger	4.9	6.3
	6.8	6.0
	7.8	6.2
	6.9	not tested

Needless to say, I followed all the usual recommendations in my testing. Hands were clean, strips were kept in their vials until the last minute, they were brand new stock, and multiple readings were taken with the same blood within seconds of each other.

The first set of Verio readings and the last set of Nano readings were as I would expected. Tightly grouped and consistent. As for the others, they're a near random assortment. The last set of Verio results ranges from 4.9 to 6.9. The second set of Nano results from 7.4 to 8.9. When a machine can't agree with itself, it seems churlish to argue which might be the more accurate. However, that answer could only be decided with several lab tests as control, or with the use of a control solution. I will be acquiring some of that next week and will running more tests. I will probably also acquire another meter or two and go round again, all in the interests of science—watch this space.

Now the reason I am testing more frequently at the moment is that I have just gone on Metformin for the first time, and am gradually ramping up my dosage to find the correct level for me. And that requires me seeing a change in my readings in response to dosage (or waiting till my next 3-monthly A1C test—not the best way of assessing day-to-day progress). And if you are a T1 or T2 diabetic on an insulin pump connected to a meter, how useful is a meter this inaccurate? Worse still, the meters tend to be less accurate at their extremes, so there is danger of them failing to predict hypo and hyper events.

I'd be willing to bet that, as a long term diabetic, I could usually guess my blood sugar within +/- 20% based on time of day and what I'd eaten. In which case, how much is the meter really helping me?

Honestly, I am bemused, confused and more than a little angry. Fellow diabetes sufferers, we are being sold a lie by large pharmaceutical companies who care more about their own profits than our health. They rave about the accuracy of their meters, when standards only require +/-20%, i.e. a 40% range as compared to a venous lab test. So accuracy means no more than meeting this very loose standard, and even then many meters have been shown in lab tests not to even meet the standards.

I suspect that the meters from established manufacturers are all reasonably good in themselves—that given a decent consistent sample, they will return consistent, accurate results. The problem is, I am guessing, in the strips and the gathering and transmittal of the samples. The strips are fragile, unreliable and too affected by environmental conditions and handling. Manufacturer's proudly advertise "small sample size" and "fast response" as if these things were virtues, whereas it's more than likely that a slightly larger sample and a more careful assessment of it would yield more accurate results. At the expense of patient comfort, admittedly, but which one of us wouldn't sacrifice a bit of comfort if the results were much more accurate?

Let's raise our voices to both the manufacturers and the federal authorities that decide on the standards, and demand more accurate and more consistent BG meters. And let's encourage more independent testing of meter accuracy by centralised authorities with such data to be widely published.

Please share your views and experiences in the comments below. You may also like to read an article about meter accuracy and people's comments here.

Letter of rejection

2010-05-14T13:19:00.003+09:30

An inspired piece of writing by John Kador. I only wish I'd thought of it first:

Dear ......,

Thank you for your letter rejecting my application for employment with your firm.

I have received rejections from an unusually large number of well qualified organizations. With such a varied and promising spectrum of rejections from which to select, it is impossible for me to consider them all. After careful deliberation, then, and because a number of firms have found me more unsuitable, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your rejection.

Despite your company’s outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet with my requirements at this time. As a result, I will be starting employment with your firm on the first of the month.

Circumstances change and one can never know when new demands for rejection arise. Accordingly, I will keep your letter on file in case my requirements for rejection change.

Please do not regard this letter as a criticism of your qualifications in attempting to refuse me employment. I wish you the best of luck in rejecting future candidates.

Sincerely,

John Kador

It's not lying, it's marketing!

2009-09-26T13:09:00.001+09:30

The Onion comments on Sony--hilarious but with language alert

2009-03-16T10:58:00.007+10:30

The Onion comments on Sony and technology in general. Be warned, there is language in this clip of the sort not usually seen or heard on eebahgum!

See more Technology Videos at Today's Big Thing.

Sony's misleading advertising 2

2009-03-16T10:42:00.004+10:30

Yup, there's more from our friends at Sony. It's the impossibly thin LCD TV which isn't as thin as they say it is. "Be the first to be seen," says Sony, "with the new ZX1". It's as thin as a CD case at 9.9 mm! But wait, there's an asterisk and it goes ... let's see, down to the bottom of the ad ... oh, here it is: "At its slimmest part". So it's not 9.9 mm thin then. My house is 1 brick thick* (at its thinnest part, the bricks that protrude from my window sills). My car is 10 cm high* (*at the front bumper). I don't have a pot belly* (*when lying down).

The picture below clearly show that more than 2/3 of this new TV is not 9.9 mm thick. Sure the LCD panel itself is that thin, due to the clever side rather than back illumination, but you can't just watch an LCD panel. It's got to have those, you know, TV bits and stuff to make a TV--power supply, tuner, etc. Sony have actually made all those things impressively thin, so the whole TV (minus stand or speakers) is actually only abut three times as deep as the screen. Wouldn't it be just as impressive to tell the truth and advertise the set as "an amazing 3 cm thick, and no asterisks required!" But once again, Sony's marketing department chooses to mask the very real cleverness of their R&D people with a downright, dare I say it, LIE! And the media are picking this up as if it were gospel, though most of the reports, even on tech-savvy sites such as gizmodo, uncritically omit the asterisk and accompanying phrase. Shame, shame, shame, as Australian media character Derryn Hinch used to say.

Sony's misleading advertising 1

2009-03-12T12:07:00.003+10:30

The new Sony Bravia LCD TVs boast 200Hz Motionflow technology and claim to have "the smoothest picture ever". Unfortunately, some of the explanations given for the technology are simplistic, or just downright misleading. They show pictures of a footballer with added frames, and have a little video on their website showing a flickbook with lots of frames looking smoother than one with fewer frames. All very convicing, and well, wrong.

The bottom line is the broadcast signal you are watching was only recorded at up to 50 Hz to 60 Hz or fields per second. That's all the information there is. There's nothing between those frames and no amount of post processing by the TV after the event will change that. What the Sony sets (and others) are doing is looking at two of those frames and making up other frames in between them by averaging the two actual frames. They're not real frames, so these sets aren't really giving you 200 Hz, they're just interpolating between the actual frames to smooth the transition that the eye sees.

Now if you look closely at the deepest explanation that Sony gives, you'll see them describe that interpolation process accurately enough. They say "the sharpness of each image frame is boosted by Image Blur Reduction before its contents are analysed and three 'in between' frames are added between it and the next frame. This spreads two frames worth of motion across five frames". So far so good until they conclude "so effectively 50 frames per second becomes 200". No, sorry, that's wrong. These are made up frames. It is not at all the same as a genuine 200 Hz frame rate and neither does it look it.

So even Sony's most detailed explanation has been hijacked by the marketing boys and made into an untruth. But of course, the evils of marketing don't stop there. Most explanations aren't even that detailed, and as the ideas become more and more like sound-bytes, so any attempts at accuracy become the first casualties.

This kind of deception is pretty inexcusable, not only because it's playing fast and loose with the truth but also, and perhaps worse, because it insults the consumer. It attempts to reduce the issue to a 'numbers game' at point of sale and as such it's deliberately aimed at the consumer who doesn't know better. Rather than educate, it's an attempt to befuddle with meaningless numbers, rather like the battle for megapixels in digital cameras.

But the good news is, this technology does actually improve the picture. Sony's new 200Hz-interpolated sets do have the smoothest motion I've seen on an LCD. Is it the smoothest picture ever? No, because a good plasma set still looks better by a reasonable margin to my eye, but these Sonys are the first LCD sets I might be convinced to watch sport on.

Stupid idea of the month—Toshiba laptop keyboards

2009-03-03T17:50:00.003+10:30

I've ranted before about shiny screens on laptops and how unusable they are in many lighting situations. Now Toshiba has tried to go one better in the sheer stupidity stakes by equipping many of its new laptops with highly reflective keyboards.

Putting aside the fact that they look tacky, you can just about guarantee that at least one row of keys will be impossible to read at any give time because of reflections. This won't worry the experienced user who is a good touch typist, but the sort of people likely to buy a shiny bling-ridden laptop are also the users most likely to be hunt-and-peck typists who will be looking at their keyboards. Indeed, Toshiba's top-of-the-line business-oriented machines seem to have matte keys like the good old days.

And I thought laptop design stupidity had reached its limits--congratulations to Toshiba for raising the ante once againI

Should we root or 'rowt'?

2008-08-29T10:22:00.001+09:30

When Australians take journeys, they follow routes and they pronounce them 'roots'. It's widely understood that Australian men in particular are always looking for quick ones. Why then do so many Australians insist upon calling their networking devices 'rowters'? Are we really so infantile that we can't pronounce a perfectly decent word correctly without descending into toilet-humour titters? Surely the defence that 'it's just too embarrassing' is a pretty feeble one.

Then there's the oft-heard 'American pronunciation' defence. Interestingly, though, plenty of Americans do in fact use the British pronunciation, and no less authority than Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary gives both pronunciations, but the British one first.

And of course, there is already a device pronounced 'rowter'. It's a woodworking tool, and its etymology is very different. So unless we are planning to carve channels in our networks, can't we just call them 'rooters' and get over it?

Never bond with chickens

2008-08-01T06:57:00.000+09:30

Late last year, junior brought home two chicks that had been incubated as a class experiment, and they grew into chickens in the backyard. They were extremely free-range, wandering the garden by day and sleeping in a tree by night. I started building a coop, but didn't persevere as they seemed content in the treetops and I am naturally poor at finishing things around the home that I start.

One of the chickens, an Ancona, was a capable flyer and displayed mind-boggling intelligence on several occasions, then crowned off the display of intelligence by escaping a few weeks ago never to be seen again. The other, a New Hampshire Red, stayed and, whilst not as bright, was nevertheless a friendly, almost affectionate bird with whom we have been bonding over the last several weeks.

But all that came to an end this morning when I found her brutally decapitated and distributed over the back lawn. Despite my creating sheltered accomodation for her in her tree, she still insisted on sheltering and laying at ground level, and something had found her there overnight and attacked her. Might have been a fox, but more likely a cat. A rather gruesome and depressing sight in itself, but also one that reminded me of the perils of bonding with animals. We're always told of the positive mental health outcomes of pets and animals, but like many people I create very strong attachments to creatures feline or feathered, and find myself inordinately affected by their loss and often guilt-ridden as a result of the things I might have done to prevent that loss.

Over many years of caring for pets, for one doesn't really 'own' them, I have had responsibility for couple of cats, a guinuea pig, a turtle, a rat, several fish and birds aplenty, including budgies, galahs, parakeets, African Grey parrots and a cockatiel. I remember each one fondly, but in each case was deeply impacted upon by their demise/loss/escape. Am I one of that plethora of people who bond with animals to avoid bonding with humans, or was Gandhi right when he said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"?

Democracy at work?

2008-07-31T21:40:00.000+09:30

The South Australian Government has just changed its mind about its approach to the aspects of health care for rural issues in response to public sentiment over the issue. It's described in the local rag as "an embarassing backflip", but surely improving policy in response to public opinion is simply effective democracy at work, and governments admitting they may have erred shows a rare humility and self-effacement that should be lauded rather than condemned.

Firefox 3 beta 5 and Scribefire

2008-04-29T16:39:00.003+09:30

As an avowed Firefox fanboy, I've just upgraded to Firefox 3 beta 5 and was surprised to see it smoothly pick up all my add-ons. Of course, it crashed the first several times I started it up, but now a certain calm seems to have descended, and it's working fine.

Some months ago I installed the Scribefire add-on, and although it's been quietly updating away in the background, I've never actually used it in anger until today. So I guess this is a test of whether it works with the Firefox 3 beta. Now I'm going to press the Publish button, and if this appears on eebahgum! then it works. If it doesn't, I'd appreciate your feedback to tell me so. Here goes...

Shame on you APC magazine! (Plasma & LCD wars)

2008-04-17T15:06:00.003+09:30

Something odd is afoot in the world of large format televisions. There seems to be a global attempt move by the media and sales outlets to trumpet the cause of LCDs at the expense of plasma. Never mind the fact that a blind man in a snowstorm can tell that plasma is better at almost everything. Never mind the fact that large LCDs are still more expensive than comparably sized plasmas.

So walk into a major retail outlet and look at how the floor is set up to drive you towards the LCDs. Look at the way the screens are calibrated to minimise the differences between the two, and the store lighting is set to flatter LCDs. Notice the reluctance of shop staff to tell you flat out that plasmas are still generally better at motion, colour, blacks and that resolution is not ultimately important compared to what you see with your eyes.

Look at the media's constant prattling on about LCD 'closing the gap' and becoming the equal of plasma in so many areas. Then think how many years they've been giving us that message. The media is now speculating that Pioneer's recent decision to stop making plasma panels is a sign of their resignation to the victory of LCD in the long run. Nonsense. Although Pioneer has long since made the world's best plasma panels they just can't make them at a realistic cost, and they realise it. Their chief competitor, Panasonic, works to very different economies of scale and has significantly closed the quality gap such that Pioneer screens are simply not competing in the market. Only sensible then, that Pioneer source their screens from Panasonic in return for sharing their technology. It has nothing to do with Pioneer changing its mind about the superiority of plasma in large screens.

So where does Australia's erstwhile APC magazine come into it? Well, this publication, for whom I have always had the utmost respect, has a headline this month which loudly announces "LCDs CATCH PLASMAS" and "SHOCK RESULTS" implying that the LCD panels on test match the plasmas. The trouble is, that is simply not the conclusion of the tests inside the mag. The article in question evaluates 2 plasma and 3 LCD panels and the plasmas come first and second, closely followed by a Sony LCD with the other LCD a distant 4th and 5th. And anyone who has been shopping recently knows that Sony LCDs still cost significantly more than equivalent sized Panasonic plasmas, for example.

So, APC editors, a far more honest cover headline would have been "LCDs STILL TRAIL PLASMAS". Why did you chose to run the misleading one, and are you too part of the global conspiracy against plasma screens?

Laptop crashing? Try this cool trick

2008-01-24T11:30:00.001+10:30

Recently my laptop started crashing at random times, usually when I was in the middle of something critical. Like browsing YouTube videos, playing StickCricket and, oh yes, working. I've always had a theory that laptops were pressure-sensitive, that's to say they are sensitive to the amount of pressure I am under, and more likely to fail when that is high, purely out of spite.

When I started thinking about it I realised that my laptop had once run rather quietly, but now seemed to be a noisy beast with the cooling fan running all the time, and it had become consistently too hot to have on my lap. I hunted down the excellent, if slightly confusing, free application called Notebook Hardware Control, which lets you monitor hard disk and CPU temperatures, and was shocked to find my CPU regularly running in the 90s (Celsius/Centigrade) and peaking as high as 112 degrees before crashing. Being famous for my insight and deductive reasoning, I surmised that this was perhaps less than ideal.

So I took a trip down to my local electronic hobby shop, Dick Smith, and bought myself a can of air, the compressed variety used for cleaning equipment, and sprayed it in every hole and gap I could find. My machine was instantly cured, and is now running in the high 50s and low 60s. It's also far quieter, because the fan is now only one a fraction of the time, rather than all the time as it was. Cost $15, Time 30 seconds, result, dramatic and instant cure.

I'd be willing to bet that most laptop crashes are caused by overheating, and recommend you try this before anything else. The reason it works is that over time, dust, skin and so on build up inside your laptops fan, vents, and in particular, the CPU heatsink. Just make sure you get the right sort of spray, avoiding freeze sprays, or anything that leaves a deposit. And good luck!

Australian Federal Election: John Howard's track record examined

2007-11-23T10:44:00.000+10:30

US readers please note: In Australian politics the 'Liberal' Party are actually centre-right, the equivalent of the UK Conservatives. Go figure!

The long-suffering Australian public, weary of election propaganda, are always granted a few days advertising silence before a Federal election. I’m sure that doesn’t bother the major parties much, as meaningful debate has long-hence descended into the battle of the soundbite, and reductio ad absurdum underlies the core messages on all fronts. I’ve never understood why our politicians, particularly on the Liberal benches, are so convinced that the Australian public are stupid, but their belief is certainly borne out by the Vox Pop at an Adelaide McDonalds this morning:

Bloke 1: Howard’s the best Prime Minister Australia’s ever had.
Bloke 2: Huh?
Bloke 1: I mean, the Labour parties just about unions and shit
Bloke 2: Huh?

Bloke 1 has certainly been paying attention to first core message of the Liberal Party—Unions are bad, and anything associated with them is bad. It’s a simple message which has garnered considerable sympathy for decades. Problem is, it’s such simple-minded nonsense. Unions and almost all those associated with them should be able to stand up proudly in public and defend a magnificent history of standing up for the rights of workers. Like all large organisations, unions occasionally suffer from bureaucracy and corruption, but to suggest that is the norm and the average Australian should be frightened is just a ridiculous and contemptible notion.

The Liberal Party’s other core message is that they have a strong track record on economic management, so why change? This argument would appear to have some merit, if one believed that governments really have that much influence over the economy. But they simply do not. The global economy and market factors have little or anything to do with a national government’s policies, which are nearly always responsive. And interest rates are controlled by the Reserve Bank of Australia, not the government of the day. So the economy is basically a moot issue—there’s almost no credit at all to the government, and the Labour Party’s attacks on interest rate hikes are equally ill-directed, except in their criticism of Prime Minister Howard’s promises. Clearly Howard should not have promised that there would be no such increases as it’s completely out of his control.

And while we’re talking about track records, let’s look at factors outside of the economy—the Tampa affair, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, treatment of refugees, climate change, the list goes on. Economy be damned—these are the important issues that shape our world and define Australia’s place in it. On these issues the Liberal government has been consistent—consistent in its shameful avoidance of truth and compassion and its grovelling to the pathetic neocon agenda of the current US administration. It’s an approach that has endangered Australian troops in an illegal and ill-thought war, has made Australian civilians targets of terrorism, has ill-equipped us to deal with the environmental issues that are critical to our very survival and has led to a general reduction in the respect Australia receives on the world stage, at least outside the US.

It’s a great track record, John. Thanks for reminding us of it, and making Saturday’s decision even easier. All the best in your retirement, and I hope you get a nice cushy diplomatic posting. I hear Afghanistan and Iraq may be available.

Melbourne Cup post mortem

2007-11-06T16:33:00.000+10:30

Well no winners this year. With Maybe Better a late scratching and the unfancied Efficient hit the front just before the post, eebahgum's remaining 5 rated horses wended up 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th. Not a bad result, but a miss is as good as 3200 m, and this was a veritable miss. There's always next year. I hope you did better than I.

Melbourne Cup tips 2007

2007-11-06T09:29:00.000+10:30

Late scratchings: Gallic & The Fuzz

It's Melbourne Cup day again, so here is the obligatory tips posting. Last year, my ratings included the first four horses over the line, a hard act to follow.

It's another tough race this year, not because there's a massive field full of class horses, but rather because we have been spoilt by some real class over the last few years in horses such as Makybe Diva, and there's no-one even approaching that standard this time round.

On top of that, rain in Melbourne over the weekend has softened the track considerably. But the track is now rated dead, and it's fine and breezy in Melbourne today, so it's almost certain the track rating will be good come post-time.

The usual small gaggle of highly fancied, but largely unknown imports completes the puzzle. I always reason that trainers and connections do not waste their time and money flying halfway across the globe if their horse is not a serious contender, but Vintage Crop aside, I have been wrong by virtue of this logic more often than not in the past.

But of one thing we can be reasonably certain, and that is Melbourne Cup winners almost always have good form in their last couple of starts. I don't want to overstate the importance of the Caulfield Cup, Mackinnon Stakes and Saab Quality races, but they do give a pretty fair indication of form, and lead us to the inevitable conclusion that MASTER O'REILLY is the horse to beat in this field. The heavily backed Irish stayer PURPLE MOON may only have finished sixth in the Caulfield, but was coming home impressively and will run the distance. He also has the brilliant Damien Oliver on his back, which is enough to convince me he is a real chance. That riding change comes from his connections not being happy with the 6th place ride in the Caulfield by Kieren McEvoy. They were obviously expecting more.

After those two, last years third placed MAYBE BETTER has claims, as do ZIPPING and SCULPTOR. I've also been impressed by the overseas form of bottom weight MAHLER. Though he hasn't shown much in Australia so far, the news from his trainer this morning is that he has settled over the last few days and is ready to peak, though I am a little concerned that he doesn't have a top jockey aboard, which may be an indication of his trainer's expectations. Expect him to try to lead at some point though.

So in summary:

Likely winner:
MASTER O'REILLY
or PURPLE MOON

In the mix:
MAYBE BETTER
ZIPPING
SCULPTOR
MAHLER

Best long shot:
SCULPTOR which has real form yet is showing $28 on the TAB as I write. Expect it to shorten considerably, but it's great value at the moment.

As always, take the usual disclaimers as read, don't bet anything you can't afford to lose and send me a cut if you win. Happy punting!

Australia's 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader' reviewed

2007-09-29T17:17:00.000+09:30

Australian television has recently hit a new low with the first airing of the Oz version of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader. That the show lacks any form of originality can be seen merely from the title—in Australia, the terms ‘Grade 5’ or ‘Year 5’ are used, rather than the American ‘5th Grader’. Channel 10 is obviously low on talent, so they have stuck Rove McManus into the hosts chair, a man hailed by more eloquent critics than I as “the least funny comedian in Australia’. Indeed, Rove is true to form—he talks a lot and only manages to raise a smile on his own face.

As for the show itself, it’s inane, clichéd nonsense of the highest order. The premise of the title is stupid, as obviously the comparison alluded to is not one of intelligence but knowledge. Even then, the premise turns out to be false, because there is no competition between the Year 5 students and the adult competitors. Rather, the kids are there to assist the adults in winning money—they’re all on the same team.

The questions are ridiculously drawn out, in the style of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and Rove insists upon borrowing from that show’s host, Eddie McGuire, by constantly describing the simple act of answering a simple question as “locking in your answer”. A piece of advice, Rove—if you are the least funny host on Oz TV, Eddie is no funnier, and a whole lot less likable, so perhaps he’s not the best person to be emulating.

The first episode only managed to maintain a semblance of entertainment by virtue of its supporting cast. The kids were generally bright, chirpy, enthusiastic and likable, and the first contestant, Elka was a good looking blonde with a range of quirky facial expressions that were passingly entertaining. And although she was forced to look at the camera at the end of her stint and admit “I’m not smarter than a fifth grader”, she didn’t look very depressed by this admission because she’d just won $100,000 for a few minutes easy work. Assuming that the kids didn’t walk away with the same kitty, then who was the smarter?

Australian Quiz shows are generally pretty pathetic affairs, in which half-literate hosts grin their way through stupid questions fired at largely dumb contestants for huge amounts of money. Even long-running classics like Temptation have got dumber over the years. The ABC’s Spicks an Specks is a lone oasis in the wilderness, but where are the truly cerebral programs like the BBC’s exceptional QI, or the old ABC classic Mastermind, which actually celebrated the intelligence and knowledge of intelligent, knowledgeable people?

Today’s quiz shows on Australian commercial TV are clearly aimed at making couch potatoes at home feel smarter. This one will do that, and may even boost the ego of the family dog, cat or goldfish.

Why isn't 'dipslay' in the dictionary?

2007-09-13T10:23:00.000+09:30

Come now, Messrs Oxford, Webster, Collins et al. Why isn't the word 'dipslay' in your dictionaries? Anyone who has worked as a tech writer would be extremely familiar with this commonly used word. And although it's not to be found in dictionaries, almost everyone would know what it means. I have often used the word in conversation with other tech writer friends, appreciating its clumsy yet beguiling naivety. I'm clearly not the only one, as a quick Google search shows 18,000 occurrences of the word on the web, despite the fact that spell-checkers tend to insidiously target it.

So how can you have a word added to a dictionary? Unfortunately you can't just send it in to Merriam-Webster and have them list it. To quote from their website FAQ:

...the selection of which words to include in the dictionary is not based on personal preferences or popularity-contest-style votes; it is based on usage. Simply put, to gain entry to the dictionary, a word must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time. Any word that has sufficiently widespread use in such publications is eligible for dictionary entry.

On that basis, dipslay is surely a shoe-in. It occurs in a gazillion professionally written and edited manuals, several of them, no doubt, written and edited by me.

So, esteemed fellow travellers in the blogosphere, let's help raise dipslay to its rightful place in the dictionaries by using it as often as possible. Perhaps it can become the first typo officially recognised as a word in its own right, a title it surely deserves more than the much more commonplace but rather vulgar 'teh'.

2007-09-01T22:37:00.000+09:30

If you wanted to play critic, there’d be a lot you could criticise about The Bourne Ultimatum. There’s not really that much story that we weren’t privy to before; several situations are borrowed from the second film, which, coupled with the obligatory and always annoying flashbacks may be a good hook for first-time viewers but falls flat for fans; Bourne repeatedly walks into situations of peril that he could just as easily have walked away from; neither dialogue nor performances will grip you; and there’s still that lingering doubt about that ‘nice young man’ Matt Damon playing a tough guy assassin.

But action flicks are ultimately about suspending disbelief. The most successful of them encourage us into just the right amount of suspension. Too little and we’ll be picking the film to bits before the opening titles have faded. Too much and we’ll have forgotten the experience before the closing credits.

Judging by the looks on the faces of those who watched it with me, The Bourne Ultimatum gets it just right. As the last scene faded no-one was dissecting the plot. Instead they were recovering their breath, laughing in that particular way that indicates a mix of cheer and release, or just forming their lips into the shape “Wow!”

Because when all is said and done, The Bourne Ultimatum is a roller-coaster ride into absurdism, which manages to also keep some hold on reality, or at least that variant of reality that occupies the continuum between our fantasies and paranoias. It’s a frenzy of hand-held camerawork and tight, choppy editing which occasionally pauses long enough so that you can hear the pounding in your temples, before careering headlong into the next sequence. Along the way, we are treated to some scenes that will doubtless become cinematic classics—perhaps the most exciting car chase sequence ever (move over Ronin), and the absolutely gripping early scene in Waterloo Station.

This was undoubtedly the most exciting two hours I have ever spent in a movie theatre, which makes any form of quibbling rather pointless. Instead, I’ll just join my “Wow” along with the others and urge you to see The Bourne Ultimatum. Firstly because it’s fun, and secondly because every future film in the genre will in some way be measured against it.

Harry Potter hilarity!

2007-08-28T13:20:00.000+09:30

My son's friends have discovered this little gem on YouTube, and we've been watching it continually. Little things for little minds, as my dear old Dad used to say!

Paypal’s new logo. What do you think?

2007-08-28T13:10:00.000+09:30

Paypal are in the process of giving their website a new look and feel, and with it comes a new logo. There’s no question the previous one looked a bit old-fashioned, even when it was new. Rather than a complete redesign, Paypal have used the same type and style, just got rid of the outline. I think it’s a little more modern looking, preserving the integrity of the brand, whilst moving it forward a little. It’s hardly earth-shattering, though. And given that tens of thousands of sellers are probably hosting the current logo on their own servers, it will take months or years for the old logo to completely disappear.

I’m in two minds about this one. Is it really worth the effort for so little change? Is it a missed opportunity? Tell me what you think, by way of a comment or through the poll at the top of the right column.

Arsenal takes the Crossbar Challenge

2007-08-22T15:17:00.000+09:30

An entertaining little clip for all Arsenal fans. It gives just a little insight into the players' personalities and the positive spirit within the club.

How I lowered my cholesterol

2007-08-16T23:09:00.000+09:30

I’m not paranoid about cholesterol, but when my GP told me understatedly that my levels were “just beginning to be a cause for concern” I was, well, rather concerned. It is, after all, my goal in life to hang around as long as possible, for my kids, for all those people who haven’t yet had the pleasure of meeting me, and perhaps just to annoy those who dislike me.

I’m no medico, so I’m not about to give a primer on cholesterol (you can find a good one here). But the gist of it is that there are two sorts of cholesterol, Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) which is BAD because it ends up in your bloodstream and can clog your arteries, and High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) which is good for you because it counteracts the LDL cholesterol. Most health authorities agree that your LDL cholesterol should be no higher than 5.5 mmols/litre, and I’d reached 5.6. The GP told me not to panic, as I was reasonably fit, not overweight, not a smoker or heavy drinker, although on the negative side, my father had suffered from diabetes. He advised simply keeping an eye on things, and monitoring my diet more closely.

So I did that. I reduced my fat intake, especially fatty meats, cut out butter in favour of margarine, and cut down fried foods a little. I also increased my aerobic activity and dropped a few pounds. 6 months passed and my next test showed my LDL levels down to 5.3 mmols/litre. Progress, but hardly earth-shattering.

Then I made two more changes to my diet. I started using margarine which had added plant sterols on my morning toast, and I increased my avocado intake to 3 or 4 a week.

Less than three months later I saw an ad in the paper requesting volunteers for a cholesterol study. They specifically wanted fit and otherwise healthy people in their mid 30s with LDL levels of 5 and above, and there was a reasonable financial incentive on offer. I went in for the initial tests, and waited 2 weeks before they rang me with the bad news—I was ineligible for the study because my cholesterol was too low. In three months my LDL was down from 5.3 to 4.3.

Of course, I have no idea which was the more significant, the avocado or the sterol-based margarine. I still have avocado reasonably regularly, but I’ve stuck with the margarine enthusiastically, and of the various brands available I have come to particularly like the taste of the Flora variant with Olive Oil. Several years have passed, and my cholesterol is still well in check.

The usual disclaimers apply—I am not dispensing medical advice, just sharing my experience, and your mileage may vary, so do talk to your GP. And it must be noted that plant sterol margarine is fairly new on the market, so no-one knows what the effects are of consuming it daily for many years. But apart from that faint glow I have at night, so far so good.

The Maltese Falcon revisited

2007-08-14T12:56:00.000+09:30

Yesterday I had the pleasure of taking my son to see The Maltese Falcon on the big screen. I have seen the film at least 4 times before , but was still bristling with excitement beforehand, tinged with just a little trepidation as to how he would cope with ‘film noir’ at the tender age of 10. I’d prepared him by emphasising that it was a dialogue-driven, rather than CGI-driven film, and that it was not in colour. “What, none of it is in colour?” has asked at one point. Er, no, absolutely none. It is film noir et blanc, or at least, various shades of gris, in presentation if not in content.

Although it was late and he was weary, I am glad to report that he liked the film, giving it “less than 4 stars but more than 3 and a half”. On that basis, I think he preferred it to Shrek 3, which we are agreed was pretty awful, with untold money being spent on CGI where a decent writer may have been more useful, but less than Spiderman 3. I guess, in the balance, that should be considered a victory.

I, on the other hand, had expected to be underwhelmed by a film with which I was already so familiar. Instead, I was completely wrapped in every moment of it on the larger screen, drawn into Bogart’s every sneer and smirk, irked by Peter Lorre’s sinister simpering, beguiled by Sydney Greenstreet’s deep, yet threatening reasonableness, and almost seduced by Mary Astor’s beguiling dishonesty. Characters complex, yet without depth, each one almost psychopathic in his or her lack of emotion and sympathy. And with a sympathetic audience around me, the sheer brilliance of the writing seemed compounded. Even out of context the many of the lines seem magical:

BRIGID O’SHAUGHNESSY (MARY ASTOR): He has a wife and three children in England.
SAM SPADE (HUMPHREY BOGART): They usually do, though not always in England.

SAM SPADE: We didn’t exactly believe your story, Miss O’Shaughnessy. We believed your two hundred dollars.
BRIGID O’SHAUGHNESSY: You mean that—
SAM SPADE: I mean, you paid us more than if you’d been telling us the truth, and enough more to make it all right.

SAM SPADE: When you’re slapped, you’ll take it and like it!

KASPER GUTMAN (SYDNEY GREENSTREET): I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking’s something you can’t do judiciously, unless you keep in practice. Now, sir, we’ll talk if you like. I’ll tell you right out, I’m a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk.

KASPER GUTMAN: I distrust a man who says “when”. If he’s got to be careful not to drink too much, it’s because he’s not to be trusted when he does.

KASPER GUTMAN: Well, Wilmer, I’m sorry indeed to lose you, but I want you to know I couldn’t be fonder of you if you were my own son. Well, if you lose a son, it’s possible to get another. There’s only one Maltese Falcon.

SAM SPADE: Yes, angel, I’m going to send you over. But chances are, you’ll get off with life. That means, if you’re a good girl, you’ll be out in twenty years. I’ll be waiting for you. If they hang you, I’ll always remember you.

SAM SPADE: All we’ve got is that maybe you love me and maybe I love you.
BRIGID O’SHAUGHNESSY: You know whether you love me or not.
SAM SPADE: Maybe I do. I’ll have some rotten nights after I’ve sent you over, but that’ll pass.

I looked up Falcon in my Halliwell’s when back home, and found it had 3 Academy Award nominations in 1941, but no wins. Then I remembered that another one of my favourites was released in the same year, Citizen Kane, one of the handful of films which could legitimately lay claim to being the greatest film ever. What bad luck for Falcon, I thought, then discovered that the film that had cleaned up at the 1941 Oscars was, in fact, the now very dated-looking How Green was my Valley.

But The Maltese Falcon has not dated, only matured. And as Hollywood has moved from silent film, to talkies, and somehow back again to a new age of pseudo-silent film through CGI-driven blockbusters which no longer exalt acting or screenwriting, the black bird seems to have been given new wings.

Desperate Australian Government resorts to terrorism card in last-ditch attempt to hold power

2007-07-18T20:58:00.000+09:30

It’s a well-known truism of politics that if the people are unsettled or insecure they tend not to change governments. It has worked for Australia’s Howard Government in the past, when they deliberately played up ludicrous stories of babies being thrown overboard by refugees (whom they’d rather label as illegal immigrants or potential terrorists from the outset), and bought into the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ fiasco. Now, with the polls against them in an election year, they’ve decided to once again try and scare us with the terrorism threat.

For those of you not familiar with the saga let me give my 25-word (-ish) summary. Unexploded bombs discovered in London/associated terrorism suspect found with borrowed SIM card/SIM card traced back to Indian (Muslim) doctor Mohammed Haneef in Queensland hospital/doctor held for some time without details of actual offence being revealed to public, then finally charged with “recklessly providing resources to a terrorist organisation”/Federal Immigration Minister undermines court process by talking a great deal about the case, and whilst revealing no substantive facts regularly hints at secret info he has that makes it clear the man is of unfit character/Magistrate’s Court grants him bail pending hearing, clearly believing that he’s not much of a threat/Minister decides that he will be locked up in immigration detention anyway and his visa suspended until he can be expelled.

Now maybe this fella was up to no good, or at least knew people who were, but there was I labouring under the misapprehension that we had some sort of rule of law in this country. Instead I find the government can overrule that, as well as taking punitive action against someone on the basis of as yet unproven allegations. And whilst this evil-SIM-card-lending-threat-to-all-we-hold-sacred is to be detained and exported, the Australian Wheat Board’s A$300 million bribery scandal in Iraq seemed to pass gently by with no heads being patted, let alone rolled.

The Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, suggests that he is "acting in the national interest and about matters that go to national security". But far from making us feel safer, this should make all Australians feel very, very insecure indeed. This is the same government which completely failed to assist its own citizens detained overseas for years on beat-up charges in luxury accommodation in Guantanamo Bay and committed to military action in Iraq on beat-up allegations. ‘Be Alert not Alarmed’, they beseech us, whilst trying their utmost at every turn to terrify the populace by inventing new reds to place under our beds.

The Howard Government's history is already a shameful litany of lies and cover-ups, any one of which should have appalled the Australian people enough to kick them out years ago. And although these things have undoubtedly damaged our international reputation, they’ve generally buoyed the government’s political fortunes at home. But the credulity of the Australian people seems finally to be wearing thin, and I believe, and earnestly hope, that the government’s handling of the Haneef affair will be seen for the politically motivated, self-serving action that it is, and ultimately the final nail this government’s coffin.