Alan Campbell's Blog, page 2

Mercury UFO Photo Analysis Reveals Spacecraft

A series of photos from a Nasa telescope shows what some people believe to be an enormous, planet-sized spacecraft in the sky next to Mercury. The mysterious object becomes visible as a solar flare passes over it, leading some ufologists to believe that it is actually a cloaked spaceship.

Nasa scientists claim that the object is merely an artefact of their image processing system, caused when subsequent images are superimposed on previous ones to improve clarity.

However, independent image processing reveals something far more difficult to explain.

If we start with the clearest of the Nasa images:

[image error]
The object appears to show two parallel cylindrical structures.

[image error]
Now, things become interesting when one adjusts the contrast levels, sets the CMYK gauss overlay into the ultra-range to compensate for the inevitable Doppler IR bleed out and micro-pascal quasi-interference. When these adjustments are made, it is just possible to make out more details in the craft structure.

[image error]
A darker band is just visible towards the top of the structure. Further sharpening and image rectification using a Pascallian Callanetic Shunt algorithm reveals yet more detail.

[image error]
Now we are about at the limit of recoverable detail. We can, however, reduce the contrast, quadra-filter for UV, and lighten the bromine quanta waves, to give a much clearer version:

[image error]
The resulting image definitely appears to be a craft of some sort. One can clearly see what appears to be twin "nacelles" towards the stern (possibly a propulsion system?) and a disc like structure at the bow, possibly housing the bridge and/or tactical systems. Both appear to be connected to a central "body" or "lower hull" - perhaps housing an engine, sleeping quarters, or cargo space.

In light of this new evidence, it is apparent that Nasa's pathetic "image processing artefact" explanation is simply an ill thought out cover story for what many of us have suspected for years: that there is, in fact, a planet-sized invisible space ship sitting next to Mercury.

Paying too much for your eBook?

So it turns out that Apple, along with five of the worlds biggest publishers are being investigated for fixing the price of eBooks. Often - bizarrely - the eBooks cost more than the paper copies. Ian Rankin's THE IMPOSSIBLE DEAD is £7.79 for the hardcover, and a smidgeon under a tenner if you simply want the words but are prepared to forego the paper.

In my case, the digital version of SEA OF GHOSTS cost slightly less than the hardcover, but even that seems far too much to me. After all, with digital copies, there are no production costs whatsoever and virtually no distribution costs to take into account (simply maintaining servers and software). When I self published LYE STREET several months back, I priced it at 99 cents (about 80p), which was the lowest Amazon would permit me to sell it at. They still take 30%.

So why do some books cost more in this format? The government is partly to blame. VAT is charged at 20% on eBooks, but not real books. Why? Presumably because it is a handy source of revenue until enough people complain, and they are forced to stop it. While publisher price fixing appears to partly responsible, they can only charge these prices if enough people are prepared to pay them. That requires a large fan base. Authors like Ian Rankin and Stephen King already have large enough fan bases to make this sort of pricing feasible. Most other authors don't.

Almost every book in the Amazon Kindle Bestseller list is 99p. Those few titles that cost more are all by big name writers with millions of fans. For the rest of us writers, it seems to me that publishers have to bring down the price of our eBooks to compete in a very crowded marketplace.

CHRISTMAS MARKUP

I've been looking for Christmas presents. One which looked like a good deal was on Groupon here:

[image error]

I know a few women who might like this sort of thing. And it was reduced from £56.25 to £12.99, which is an apparent saving of 77%.

Knowing nothing about this sort of thing, I Googled the product, to see if it was any good.

And the supplier came up, here:

[image error]

It seems to be the same product. The ingredients match. But, surprisingly, the masks only cost 51p from the supplier, so £2.55 for five, before shipping. £2.55 to £56.25. Not a bad markup!

Jet2.com Free Flights Scam

Today I received a nice email from Jet2.com, reminding me that I have gathered enough loyalty points for a free flight anywhere in Zone 1 (Europe). These loyalty points work as follows:

[image error]

Hurrah. Great news. In fact, the loyalty scheme was the reason I previously booked all my flights with Jet2.com. Now I had enough for a free flight!

I went to the website to check it out. And sure enough, no mistake:

[image error]
But then there's always catches with these things. I checked the email again and found this in the small print.

[image error]
FREE applies to base fare only. Ok, what is the base fare?

I tried a few days in Prague, flying from Edinburgh.

[image error]
[image error]
The base fare is £26.99 each way. So if you had to buy this flight, instead of getting it free with your loyalty points, it would only cost £53.98. Not too shabby, really.

But of course that's just the base fare.

You must then add the other fees Jet2 insist upon charging you. They charge you to check in and charge you to take your luggage with you and charge you to select a seat (mandatory, as far as I can tell) and charge you to book the ticket and then charge you to pay for it. They will also give you a couple of microwaved ready meals for £12, if you can bear that. I couldn't. This was all getting out of hand.

They call this "drip pricing" and it puts the costs up a bit:

[image error]
£103.53. Your cheap airfare has suddenly doubled, which would be annoying if you didn't have the loyalty points to get the flight for free.

Doesn't bother me, because I have a free zone one flight:

[image error]
Except, hang on... didn't it say something about applying to the base fare only?

[image error]
And the base fare is only 2 x £26.99 = £53.98. Annoying. My free flight doesn't seem to be free any more.

[image error]

£103.53 - £53.98 = £49.55.

My free flight now costs £49.55.

*Big grump*

Well, I suppose half price is better than no loyalty discount. So with wild abandon I clicked on the "Spend my Points" tab. I'm going to Prague in March for less than £50! That's still a good deal, even if my loyalty points aren't worth as much as I was told they would be. Of course I choose exactly the same flight I've already priced.

But then this happens:

[image error]
[image error]


Hang on, hang on...

Why is the base fare now 99p? It wasn't 99p a minute ago, when I checked the cost of the flight. Just to make sure, I went back and checked it again.

[image error]
Yep. £53.98.
Some sort of weird glitch? Anyway, back to the "Spend my Points" tab.

[image error]

Huh? There's definitely something funny going on here. If I want to pay in cash, the base fare is £26.99 each way. However, when I want to use my loyalty points to pay for the flight, the base fare drops to 99p each way.

*Bigger grump*

So how much is my free Jet2.com flight actually going to cost me now? Remember, it originally cost £103.53.

I went through the motions.

[image error]
So, £103.53 if you pay by cash. But if you use your hard earned loyalty points to get the flight for free, it costs £101.48. A deduction of £2.05.

£101.48 for a FREE flight.

It seems I have been mislead. Jet2.com tell you you can save up your loyalty points and use them for free flights. They do this so that you will think it is a good deal and book through them. But by changing the base fare when you attempt to book your free flight, they ensure that your flight is not actually free at all.

GROTOX

[image error]

Quantum Levitation

Tel-Aviv University demos quantum superconductors locked in a magnetic field (www.quantumlevitation.com). For an explanation of the physics behind this demonstration, visit www.quantumlevitation.com/levitation/....

It's Turner Prize Time Again.

[image error]

Movie Remakes

In a recent article, film critic Barry Norman lamented the decline of creativity in the American film industry, which, he (quite rightly) states "hasn't merely reached the bottom of the barrel, but has plunged right through it." The problem? Hollywood is set to produce 30 remakes of 1980s films. Having exhausted most of the classics, and then the mediocre films, they now appear to be picking through whatever else is left: "Police Academy", "Footloose", "Cliffhanger", "Drop Dead Fred" and "Porkys".

Police Academy? Seriously?

Increasingly it seems that the American film industry operates on cycles of around 20 or 30 years. If you want to know what's going to be in the cinema next year, look back to find out whatever was showing three decades ago. At this rate we can look forward to revisiting "Avatar" and "Inception" in the twenty forties, along with the next batch of Trons, Clash of the Titans, Gladiators and Spidermans. Can you contain your excitement? I can.

Another disconcerting trend involves what Hollywood has taken to calling "reboots". The "Hulk" reboot, the "Fantastic Four" reboot, the second "Planet of the Apes" reboot. A reboot appears to happen whenever a film doesn't generate the expected cash to justify making the numerous cash-generating sequels. Reboots are, essentially, remakes – except that they retain the concept or character (which they know is popular) and ditch the previous movie's story. That didn't translate to box office sales, so it never happened.

It's all about making safe money. There's an equation here. And there are people with calculators applying it to the back catalogue. "That one cost X million to make, and brought in Y million. We can remake it for this amount and it ought to bring in that amount. Those who haven't seen it will probably like it. And those who saw it 20 years ago might be tempted to see it again." Y - X = Profit.

But doing this alienates half the viewing public. People might watch a remake of a film they fondly remember – but two, three, four of them? You get bored. What happens when there's nothing new at all, when a visit to the cinema means enduring one of "The Hollywood Hundred", the set group of films that just cycle through remake after remake?

(With the exponential rise in computer power and the increasing complexity of computer graphics, we'll soon have digital Brad Pitts and Johnny Depps, indistinguishable from the real people, acting in the lead roles. Who do you want to see as the protagonist in "Alien: Reressurection"? Pick whoever you like, both versions of the film are showing in the same cinema, with digital Depp on screen three, digital Pitt on four.)

Like Mr Norman, I recently despaired. I don't go to the cinema nearly as often as I used to. Increasingly, there's nothing worth watching. The last time I looked, my choice was "The Smurfs", "The Smurfs 3D", some animation about penguins, some other kids' films, and "Fright Night." "Fright Night" had decent reviews, but is wasn't enough to tempt us. I've seen it before. I know the story. I might watch it on DVD, if there's nothing better available, but I'm sure as hell not driving into town and spending £20 to see it on the large screen.

It seems to me that the remake trend will continue for a while, but will ultimately dwindle. A lot of us are already fed up of remakes. As Hollywood films become increasingly repetitive – the same small clutch of ideas shown again and again – people will get bored, box office profits will slide, and the big studios will have to re-asses their business model. This is great news for Indie film makers, and for screenwriters. There's going to be a renaissance. The next big hits, the ones that make the most profit, aren't going to come from this slew of remakes, but will increasingly be low budget films that show viewers something they haven't seen before. At which point Hollywood will, hopefully, sit up and take notice.


[image error]

M

[image error]

YARD SALE

My partner's folks are having a yard sale on Saturday 27th August, 10am - 2pm. It's a huge clear out - acres of stuff from the house and several former businesses. Furniture, Kitchenware, Prints, Picture Frames, Boxes of Embroidery Supplies, Books, Toys, Games, Glassware, Bric-a-Brac, etc. It's on South Back Road in Biggar.

MAP HERE