No controls

Another post on the same kind of theme as the last one. After finding that the lights are not subject to human control in the Bodleian Library, I went to St Anne's College (Oxford) to hold a conference in their smart new building by the front gate. All very swish and the rooms were beautifully equipped for the kind of meeting we were having. But the windows were all sealed, and there appeared to be no air conditioning. When we asked if we could adjust the heat and get some fresh air, we were told that there was no way to adjust the heat or fresh air in the room, apart from opening the two doors marked fire exit (which open onto the garden). Well, fortunately it turned out these were not alarmed, and they could indeed be opened, which we did. But the choice was masses of fresh air from an open door, or two open doors, or none at all. And is it really best to heat the room and then cool it by opening the door? And ought it not to have a supply of fresh air anyway when there are a whole lot of breathing bodies in it? Why was it made with no controls and no air vents at the windows?
It was also impossible to raise the slatted blinds (though you could adjust the angle of the slats). My impression is that they don't want anyone to have any control over anything lest they do it wrong. No one should be permitted to make themselves comfortable. There is one compulsory condition of artificial light, no daylight and no fresh air. If that's not how you like it, don't live in the "state of the art" buildings we build today in this country.

Excessive lighting

The main reading rooms of the old Bodleian Library in Oxford were designed in 1610, and completed around 1624. They have wonderful large windows to let in the daylight so that one can read in comfort. The library had no artificial lighting until 1929, so it used to close at 3 pm in the winter.
I assume therefore that they put in the artificial lighting in order to enable readers to continue their work after dusk. That is, after all, the only time when it is too dark to read by natural light, aside from a few very wet and stormy winter days when the sun scarcely rises and you wouldn't notice if it had.
When I was in Oxford earlier in my career the lights were not normally on. They were also quite gentle. Now they are painfully and glaringly bright, and on all the time. I asked today if they could be turned off, since it is a lovely bright day and there is no shortage of light from the windows. "No" is the answer. They are on a time switch and cannot be turned on or off manually. So we have to suffer aching eyes and glare on the computer screen, and we have to burn electricity unnecessarily all day, for the advantage of whom, exactly?
"They will dim automatically as the brightness increases" she said. Well, you could have fooled me. It doesn't get much brighter than this, and the lights are as bright as any I've ever seen.
What a crazy modern world we live in. Who is in control? Not those whose needs are apparently supposed to be being met.
(By the way it is also too hot. Looking at the room, I would say that they have put in a false ceiling to make the room less high, so that we all breathe each other's stale breath instead of passing it into a good refreshing space above. Another folly of modern design, perhaps for another post).

The last world war

So today begins the war for fuel which will (I predict) end up killing us all. Last one left, switch out the light...

Nuclear power?

No again.
No no no no no no no no.

Did someone say yes? Must be stark raving mad.

(I thought I'd just say this again in case anyone had been inclined not to heed my message in 2008. Perhaps in 2011 you might listen more carefully)

Who is to blame for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

I'm puzzled and rather irritated by the constant stream of outrage from America, from its president to its ordinary citizens, as though they were not themselves to blame for that fact that some companies are drilling for oil in the seas off the coast of America. I mean, if you want to drive gas-guzzling cars, and fly everywhere from state to state, and use fossil fuels to power your air conditioning and heat your water for your daily shower, this is how your needs are supplied. And if you are demanding that oil be drilled off shore, then you are taking the risk (as with all such enterprises) that there will be accidents that cause this kind of spillage.
So what then? Are you prepared to pay more so that the companies that do the drilling can be already prepared, at great expense, for immediately dealing with any kind of accident no matter how rare and unlikely? How much more are you prepared to pay for your gas and air fuel to have that?
Or are you prepared to convert to wind farms and go by train instead of cars and planes? Who ever heard of wind spillages? (And don't tell me Nuclear is the way, because I can tell you that nuclear spillages are MUCH worse).
It's a matter of lifestyle choices isn't it? If you make the right lifestyle choices those sea birds won't be soaked in oil because no one will be demanding oil from the bottom of the sea. If you don't make the lifestyle choices, then don't blame the company that is working to give you what you are asked for at prices you were prepared to pay. They don't do it for fun. They do it because you pay them to do it.

Don't we live in a mad world?

Our leaders throw away billions (our billions) to "protect us" from non-existent risks ("volcanic ash" "swine flu") that appear to be of their own imagining, and whose effects, even if they were as serious as they wrongly suppose, would be far less damaging than the precautions taken to prevent them, while all the time they are ignoring the elephant in the room.
Why not let people, airlines etc, assess for themselves the level of risk they are prepared to take, when there is a potential danger from what they plan to do? Who are you to tell us whether we can or can't carry on our lives in the normal way and risk our lives (as we do whenever we leave the house)?

Using the stairs instead of the escalator

I was pleased yesterday to discover the stairs at the new John Lewis in Cambridge (had them all to myself and was not blocked by those bizarre shoppers who have so much time to waste that they can afford to use it by drifting up and down escalators instead of walking). However, the shop completely fails to put the floor numbers or any store guides on the stairs, so you've no idea where you are or what you'll find there.
Why don't we all go up and down the stairs? I'm certainly going to make a policy of it from now on.
I thought, while we're on this theme, you would find this amusing.