Category: from your comments

The answers to that Excellent Quiz Question

Posted on

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THE ANSWER – CLICK HERE NOW!

 

 

 

Last week I posted an Excellent Quiz Question which evidently got a lot of people thinking. This is a good thing.

Now, I’m going to post the answers, but on this separate post so that the question remains “live” for those who want to have a go at it. If you want to have a go – click the link above rather than scrolling down for the answers below. If you want the answers, then scroll down rather than clicking the link above. If you can’t understand this simple choice, give up and go home.

Please now enjoy a photograph of Coldplay to fill up some space.

And now your winner and those who came close:

With 4/4: @jeremysetzer

With 3/4: Graeme Broster & Daniel McEwan

There were numerous entrants with 2/4.

Thanks to all that had a go. Without further ado – the answers:

There are four countries in the world which end in a letter which no other country does. Can you name them?

  1. Iraq
  2. Denmark
  3. Luxembourg
  4. Bangladesh

Cue a multitude of lightbulb moments, I would imagine…

10 years II – The Big South African Pool Cleaner Export Ban Explanation (sort of)

Posted on

Remember this post – where I suggested that the penalties for the seemingly innocuous crime of exporting a pool cleaner (or bits thereof) from the Republic of South Africa seemed rather harsh? (Not as harsh as those proposed for the proposed Severe Weather Warning Law,  at least in financial terms, but still pretty nasty.)

In terms of the section 2 of the Import and Export Control Act of 1989 (Act 45 of 1983), it is illegal to export Automatic Pool Cleaners and parts thereof. Section 4 of the Act provides that anyone convicted of exporting Automatic Pool Cleaners and parts thereof may be sentenced to a 10 (ten) year term of imprisonment and a fine of R40 000 (forty thousand rand).

Well, a lawyer read that post and she kindly did some background reading for us in a lawyer library place. I can’t make this bit sound particularly exciting I’m afraid, because it actually isn’t, but it is interesting and it is provided as a public service for Lisl who commented on the original about taking a small shark to Scotland.

Herewith a legal take on that warning on the box (which begins with the word “so”, but hey, you can’t have everything):

So, first off, the Act is wrongly cited – it is Act 45 of 1963, not 1983, which somehow makes a little more sense.

Secondly, the (ancient) Act does provide for the R40K or ten years’ imprisonment or both, but it’s a general section. In other words, it’s a section covering import and export generally – it doesn’t mention the specific goods which it covers. The Act itself does not mention the specific goods it covers, they will have been decided by the Minister:

“(1) The Minister may, whenever he deems it necessary or expedient in the public interest, by notice in the Gazette prescribe that no goods of a specified class or kind or no goods other than goods of a specified class or kind-

(a) shall be imported into the Republic; or

(b) shall be imported into the Republic, except under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions stated in a permit issued by him or by a person authorized by him; or

(c) shall be exported from the Republic; or

(d) shall be exported from the Republic, except under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions stated in a permit issued by him or by a person authorized by him.”

So the penalties would have been intended for export and import contraventions of a far more serious nature. Quite how the Automatic Pool cleaners got onto the list, I have no idea, but at least we know that the penalties were not instituted with pool cleaners in mind.

Act 45 of 1963 has been repealed in its entirety. I have absolutely no idea what Act is being referred to by ‘Import and Export Control Act of 1989’ – I can find no such act (not to mention, it’s nonsensical to refer to a 1989 Act and then cite, wrongly, a 1983 Act in brackets straight after it). The 1963 Act was repealed by a 2002 Act which is long and complicated, and sadly I don’t have the time to see whether pool cleaners make an appearance in terms of that Act. I doubt it.

In short, the packaging needs some work. At the very least, it cites the legislation incorrectly. At worst (and I will try to confirm this on another day!) it refers to legislation neither in force nor incorporated into current legislation. Does that help?

This all sounded very interesting to me (like The Bold And The Beautiful), but I understood very little of it (like The Bold And The Beautiful). Time for me to put it into layman’s terms then:

OK. Basically as I understand it, Automatic pool cleaners and parts thereof [APCs (apt)] were banned from import and export in 1963 (although they weren’t), 11 years before they were invented. Forethought.
So it doesn’t exist and if it did exist, it doesn’t anymore and even if it did exist and doesn’t anymore, it doesn’t/didn’t refer to APCs (apt).

So this is complete BS? In which case, why are they printing it on the side of their boxes?

I don’t get it and I don’t like things I don’t get.

This is why we need legal people. To find out what the other legal people have done/are doing wrong.

Oh, and why are Katie and Bill bickering about who Hope should be with?

To which I got this reply (again beginning with “so”):

Sort of. The legislation will have come into effect in 1963, or shortly thereafter. The Minister will have announced (presumably because it was ‘necessary or expedient in the public interest’) by notice in a Government Gazette that APC’s were of a kind or class etc to be covered by this section. For present purposes I will assume that, astounding as the South African government’s powers of fortune-telling were in 1963, this GG notice was made post the invention of APC’s.

I suspect that given the Kreepy Krauly is a South African invention, one of which (I’m told) we are very proud, the motivation to provide protection under this section was a result of the fact that intellectual property protection was in its infancy. Nowadays a patent would suffice but I’m pretty sure enforcement of international patents at that stage was a far trickier business. Adding it to the list of goods closely controlled for export and import purposes would have given the SA govt some control over the invention. That’s my guess anyway.

As to why they are still printing it on the side of boxes, yeah, you’ve got me there. Habit?

It is possible that APCs are still covered by current legislation and the legislative reference has just not been updated. But as I said, I doubt it.

So there you have it. A legal eagle suggests that you will possibly get away with exporting APCs (apt) from South Africa. I have her name and contact details should you need bailing out of the cells at Edinburgh Airport. That said, as she is a lawyer, this will cost you an arm and a leg, so maybe you’d be better just showing them this post and they’ll let you go. Note that this might not happen as my word has surprisingly little influence in Scotland, where they have only just mastered the basic vowel sounds.

Thanks @MingBean

Pete is very trying

Posted on

As I mentioned earlier this week, things all get a bit confusified at this time of year when it comes to blogging. And despite the fact that I’m away from my beloved internet, that doesn’t stop the potential post suggestions rolling into my inbox. Here’s another one I thought might be worth sharing.

It’s evident that a great number of people remember my post earlier this year documenting the evening that Whale Cottage owner and all-round good egg, Chris von Ulmenstein fell foul of the parking attendants at the CTICC for parking her WhaleMobile where she shouldn’t have done. And then I won a Sour Service Award on her blog for documenting it. Proud days.

Joining me as a shining light on that most particular of lists last week was Asara Estate, and its GM Pete Gottgens. And, in the words of our dear Chris, here’s why:

I attended the Pure Food Market last Friday, a nice idea on a perfect summer’s day, but with a shortage of parking, and a shortage of waiters to take orders for coffees (the waiter-dressed staff had been rented for the day to only clear tables). Gottgens looked more like a security man than the hotel GM, and came to my car when I hooted at an elderly couple indulgently blocking all traffic into and out of the wine estate. He tried to poke the antenna of his walkie-talkie into my face, tried to break off my car side mirror, blocked my exit by instructing his security man to stand in front of my car, and finally tried to strangle me by pulling the safety belt which I had on.

Hang on, he did what? He rented (I prefer “employed” – after all, these are people, not objects – but it’s all good, Chris), he rented people dressed as waiters and got them to clear tables?  While they were dressed as waiters?

HOW DARE YOU, PETE? HOW DARE YOU?

Asara Estate GM Pete Gottgens, can you not understand that Chris needs coffee? And parking? (this is a weakness Chris has which we’ve covered this before) (see above). How dare you rent people dressed as waiters and get them to clear tables. Whatever next? Hire people dressed as clowns and get them to juggle balls and entertain small children? Where will this madness end?

And, Asara Estate GM Pete Gottgens, why on earth did you approach Chris’ car when all she was doing was hooting at an elderly couple who weren’t just blocking all the traffic into and out of the wine estate, but doing it in an indulgent manner?

“I say Cyril – why don’t you park our little Hyundai right across the two lanes of traffic leading both into and out of this wine estate, thus comprehensively blocking said routes, and I’ll pop open some bubbly and get the oysters out?”

Yep – if you’re ever going to block routes in and out of places (like fire escapes, for example) do it indulgently.

It doesn’t stop there though, does it, Asara Estate GM Pete Gottgens? No, you approached Ms von Ulmenstein’s vehicle while resembling a security man.
Is this some sort of fetish, Pete? Is it? Because if it is, it’s ill-considered, given Chris von Ulmenstein’s previous run-ins with people resembling security men. Like at the CTICC, remember?
So next time when you’re approaching her car, maybe ditch the hi-vis waistcoat and try resembling a hotel GM instead.

Oh. And while we’re on about trying, can you not actually “do” stuff, Asara Estate GM Pete Gottgens?

You “tried” to poke the antenna of your walkie-talkie into her face.
You “tried” to break off her car side mirror.
You “tried” to strangle her by pulling the safety belt which she had on.

Look, we’re given very little detail as to why you failed in any one of these three tasks, so I’m going to take a few wild guesses here and suggest that the antenna thing was because your arms are quite short, the mirror one was because you’re not very strong and that the seat-belt strangulation attempt didn’t work because your arms are quite short and you’re not very strong.
Or because you couldn’t find Chris’ neck.

We have a couple of options here, Asara Estate GM Pete Gottgens. Firstly, some sort of upper body exercise programme may assist with the strength issue, thereby allowing you to tear wing mirrors off vehicle with impunity throughout 2012.
The arm length thing is slightly more problematic, as it will require painful surgery and long-term physio and occupational therapy, which will also interfere with the upper body exercise programme suggested above.
Given these obvious limitations, might I respectfully suggest that you go with the upper body exercise programme and organise walkie-talkies with longer antennae for future face poking?

I must also point out that the loonies at Sea Shepherd will be on your case if they find out that you are endangering cetacean life. (Assuming they haven’t sunk yet, that is.)

I can only imagine that Chris will now be suing Asara Estate GM Pete Gottgens for malicious damage to property, and/or assault and/or attempted murder, given these now-redocumented heinous events in the Winelands. And maybe the SAPS might like to add on a charge of employing misleadingly dressed individuals at a country market as well. Oh – and impersonating a security man.

You’re going down, Pete. And not in a good way.
25 to life, I reckon, mate. Papa wag vir jou. And not in a good way.

Unless it wasn’t actually all that serious and these reports have been somewhat exaggerated?

Surely not, though?

Thanks You-Know-Who

Blogging by other people

Posted on

This is great. While I’ve been out of the rhythm of writing blog posts and everyone else has been out of the rhythm of reading them, suggestions for blog posts have been coming in by email, facetube and twitter. It’s almost like you guys actually want me to write some stuff.

Do ya miss me? Huh? Do ya?

One such suggestion came from the UK, from an anaesthesiologist (I think that’s what she does, anyway?) and involved a retrospective cohort study, conducted in Australia, asking – after Amy Winehouse’s untimely but not entirely unexpected death and the fuss over the “27 Club” – whether 27 was really a dangerous age for famous musicians.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Australian scientists have pondered important questions in the BMJ using cohort studies. Who could forget the seminal research of Lim et al at an Australia research institute back in 2005, investigating the disappearance of teaspoons from er… an Australian research institute?

This 2011 paper on the 27 Club (or, as it appears, the lack of it), comes from Adrian Barnett and others from Queensland University of Technology and uses complex statisical methods to analyse the mortality rate of musicians who had number 1 hits (albums) in the UK between 1956 and 2007 and compare them to the mortality rate amongst the general UK population. During this period 71 (7%) of the musicians died.

The sample included crooners, death metal stars, rock ‘n’ rollers and even Muppets (the actors, not the puppets). The total follow-up time was 21,750 musician years.

The authors used mathematical analysis to determine the significance of age 27. They found no peak in the risk of death at this age, however musicians in their 20s and 30s were two to three times more likely to die prematurely than the general UK population.

The research team found some evidence of a cluster of deaths in those aged 20 to 40 in the 1970s and early 1980s. Interestingly, there were no deaths in this age group in the late 1980s and the authors speculate that this could be due to better treatments for heroin overdose, or the change in the music scene from the hard rock 1970s to the pop dominated 1980s.

The authors conclude that the “27 club” is based on myth, but warn that musicians have a generally increased risk of dying throughout their 20s and 30s. They say: “This finding should be of international concern, as musicians contribute greatly to populations’ quality of life, so there is immense value in keeping them alive (and working) as long as possible.”

Their frame of reference begins with Frank Sinatra’s Songs for Swingin’ Lovers! on 28 July 1956 (dead), and continues through to Leona Lewis’ Spirit on 18 November 2007 (sadly still with us). However, as with any research, it has its limitations:

Our sampling scheme only captured three of the seven most famous 27 club members), as one fell outside our time period (Robert Johnson, who died in 1938), and three did not have a number one UK album (Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison).

Although we only captured three of the seven famous 27 club members, we did capture seven Muppets.

I can hardly wait to see what Australian statistical research provides us with in December 2017.

Thanks Lynn.

Winning?

Posted on

SA Blog Awards Badge This is a sticky post.
There are other posts below this, but they are less sticky and have already become unstuck. Scroll down to see the pile of other posts which have slipped further down this page.

Yes, it’s that time of year again when I ask for your assistance in promoting my blog in the annual South African Blog Awards, this time being the 2011 version of these wondrous, infamous and occasionally contentious accolades.

There will be other blogs out there vying for your vote, so why should you vote for me?

Here are some reasons you might feel are good enough for you to put cursor to that VOTE button and left-click:

The Sob Story

Always the bridesmaid, never the bride, 6000 miles… has been a finalist for each of the last 26 years in various categories of the SABAs. It’s become such a big thing is our household that the first words that my little boy ever said were: “Dad, have you won a Blog Award yet?”. The first word that my daughter came out with was “Feck“, but soon afterwards she also asked about the Blog Award thing as well.
Admitting consistent failure to one’s children is the hardest thing a father can ever do and I have to do it (and here, I pay homage to my daughter’s vocabulary) every single fecking year.
Your vote can change this.

Variety Is The Spice Of Life

For many years, the Roman Empire was built on the belief that Oregano was The Spice Of Life. Only upon Julius Caesar’s ascension in 49BC did it become apparent that Oregano was actually a herb and was therefore patently ineligible for the title “The Spice Of Life”. Variety, popular among the middle classes at the time, made a bid for the vacant post and – despite not being a spice either – took the label and has never relinquished it since.
In celebration of this fake historical fact, 6000 miles… has been offering you variety like it was going out of fashion.  So far in 2011’s 339 posts (this is 340), we’ve done gardening advice, passed comment on the London riots, infamously got mildly annoyed with Lewis Pugh, mourned the demise of a Cape Town pastime, noted the contents of fruit salad and helped save ickle baby turtles (sort of).
And that’s just a tiny snapshot (2%) of the vast array of variety we’ve brought you this year in honour of  Emperor Julius.
(My sources tell me that you’d best get used to that term, by the way, ok?)

I Pointed Out That Chris Von Ulmenstein Had Parked Illegally In The CTICC Car Park

This, I have been told, is the clincher for many of the food and tourism bloggers out there. But that is not why I did it. I did it because heinous behaviour such as this should be publicised and roundly ridiculed. Irrespective of the danger I was putting myself and my family into, I plunged deep into the truth and was singled out by Ms von Ulmenstein for a Sour Service award. I felt duty bound to respond. Rumour has it that she was going to start parking outside my house until I removed the disabled bay.
There will be, I have been told, bad blood.
A South African Blog Award is all that will take the bitter, bitter taste away.

If you can come up with any other reasons as to why readers should vote for 6000 miles… as their favourite blog of 2011, please feel free to let me know. In the meantime: Vote, Comrade! Vote! And share this post far and wide: twitter, facetube, even by iMessage if you know anyone else on it.

Spread the word.
Share the wealth.
Be the difference.