The Emperor's New Taj

My childhood friend I've known well for her whole life recently presented a BBC programme about Indian history.

Sorry, but the Taj Mahal. It's rubbish. This is not a cheap joke about the local curry house. Yes I do mean the "real" one, the supposedly wonderful marble building in Agra.Some people say that pictures of it do not do it justice. That you need to see it for yourself. I have.

It's dull. It basically just looks pretty much like a big mosque. Not really ugly. But not really "better" in any significant way than the big mosques or other examples of Islamic architecture in Delhi, in Cairo, in Istanbul, in countless other places.  And not half as impressive in my view as Renaissance art or even ancient Greek stonework.

I'm primarily referring to the architectural design and build here.  Of course there is a famous back story to its conception and construction. It's a true tale of obsession and megalomania. Yes that is fascinating. But that only means the mausoleum is a valuable historical "listed building" to be protected and maintained. Of course it should be.  But that doesn't make it "better" than any other ancient constructions, even within within a few miles I recall both Fatepur Sikri and Jantar Mantar being far more  "beautiful" and inspiring. If touristing is your thing then those two are far more worth seeing.

The Taj Mahal. Boring. Expensive.  Overrated.

Absolute Drivel

Virgin Radio changed its name yesterday. I used to listen to it in the morning when Pete and Geoff did the breakfast show, then a cock took over and today I am back with the BBC. Yes I know that Geoff is back on evening drivetime now, but they've lost my goodwill.

The new name is Absolute Radio. It was an absolutely obvious choice, especially considering that the company who bought the franchise and frequency way back in April was called "Absolute Radio". So I found the recent hype about "you the listener will be the first to know the new name, text xxxx to yyyy to get the news first" to be absolutely pathetic.

The other reason that the name is absolutely predictable is due to the rise in digital radio. Once upon a time we tuned to a particular frequency. Or in a new area, we searched by frequency. Increasingly today we search by name. Alphabetically.

I'm going to rename this site to "Aaah so that's the way to the top of the blogroll".

Stimulating the MPG-spot

The opening line of a recent high profile article, you'll probably have seen these results elsewhere too:

A study commissioned by a phallically named insurance company proves beyond all doubt that the unbridled roar of an Italian supercar turns women on but the soft purr of a fuel-efficient econobox doesn't stimulate anyone's MPG-spot.

It's from a respected source, Wired. It specifically says "proves beyond all doubt".

David Moxon subjected 40 men and women to the sounds of a Maserati, Lamborghini and Ferrari, then measured the amount of testosterone in their saliva. He found everyone had higher levels of the stuff -- a measure of their arousal -- after hearing the revving exotics, but the amount the women had was off the charts.

According to a woman who actually read the study: "Testosterone increases in a number of situations besides arousal. For example, when a person is feeling aggressive, their testosterone goes up. I don't know about anyone else, but loud engine noises annoy the crap out of me. So were the people with higher testosterone levels fantasizing about sex in the greedmobiles or were they fantasizing about taking a sledgehammer and beating them into little, tiny, noiseless pieces?"

The study was commissioned by the ultra-exclusive British insurer Hiscox (we swear we're not making this up), which was curious to know how people respond to high-end luxury cars.

The research was funded by a company that specialises in high performance vehicles. If the results encourage more people to buy small volkswagens then less revenue for the insurer. If it appears to encourage high performance sales, even slightly, then potential win for the study sponsor. It's about the most prejudiced sponsor you could imagine. It's like a study funded by a vitamin pill salesman suggesting that people who take vitamin pills are more healthy.

"We knew owners of luxury cars felt a connection with the sound of their vehicles," says Steve Langan, managing director of the insurance company. "We have now scientifically proven the physical attraction people feel when it comes to cars."

Scientifically proven? Bullshit.

Skeptic, Moi?

There is no explicit religious or political branding on this site, but for a taste of my views on those areas, the links to the left might give you a taste. But my self-imposed post word limit precludes detailed analysis here. So I don't usually suggest skepticism about the claims of astrologers or religious leaders or faith healers. Sorry. I usually suggest ridicule and derision.

However there does need to be a place for more considered reasoning of those claims, and one place is the skeptics' circle. I've mentioned it before here. Guidelines for posting are here. And if you want a place in the next edition, due August 28th, write to me here.

iconomics

Supply versus demand. Price correction versus rationing. Three current examples.

Firstly, crude oil. Those ostriches and optimists who think that the high price of oil is just a temporary blip caused by "speculation" in the futures market should face reality. Our lifestyles will change. For some of the economics, Paul Krugman.

Secondly, petrol. Not the long term year on year price increase caused by the point above, but the refusal to change prices in the face of temporary supply restriction. For an example of the madness, my post here.

Thirdly, the iPhone. In this case, scarcity is deliberate strategy. And I think a bad strategy. Apple could have managed this so much better. As usual, Seth Godin has some suggestions for how.

How to Berry the Miracle Sweetener

I heard something odd on the radio today. They were doing some sort of weekly news round up, and they mentioned a story about a "miracle berry".

Now the word "miracle" usually indicates the presence of both a power-hungry charlatan to initiate the news and a gullible fool to spread it, but I wondered if this was something different. So I looked up the story.

The search is always on for replacements for those things that, eaten in excess, make us obese - fatty and sugary foods. In the 1960s, Robert Harvey, a biomedical postgraduate student, encountered the miracle berry, a fruit from west Africa which turns sour tastes to sweet.

This completely natural product "can be used to manufacture sweet tasting foods without sugar or sweeteners". In reported tests: "miracle berry ice lollies, in four different flavours, were compared to similar, sugar-sweetened versions by schoolchildren in Boston. The berry won every time."

But on the eve of launch in 1974, the US Food and Drugs Administration "effectively banned it". Or to be more precise, as I read it, they reclassified it from natural product to food additive, a ruling which which would require many more years of testing.

The worrying thing would be if a combination of big sugar and artificial sweetener manufacturers deliberately conspired to prevent its release. The former vice president of the miracle berry company certainly thinks so: "I honestly believe that we were done in by some industrial interest that did not want to see us survive because we were a threat. Somebody influenced somebody in the FDA to cause the regulatory action that was taken against us."

Unlike the BBC article, I'm not yet convinced.

Bursting Bubbles and Silencing Quacks

As usual, I listened to BBC Radio 4 this morning. They got the balance all wrong. Because some things just don't.

First they reported on the credit crunch. And to unbalance the news from journalists who talk of more difficulty borrowing, potential house price falls, impending recessions, etc. what they had was an estate agent! Obviously he talked about the need to always keep talking up prices; to maintain confidence in the market, not for his own job of course. So let's ignore the evidence and the underlying economic factors, instead let's just keep talking up prices so then we can all have a pretty mansion with a big garden full of dutch tulips. Yes journalists can be too sensationalist, but it was just ridiculous to expect a sensible comment from an estate agent here.

Then, even worse, the programme reported on an independent study from the Cochrane Foundation that amalgamated the results of various antioxidant supplements and found that, unsurprisingly, they don't do much good compared to a normal balanced diet. But to unbalance these facts they also alllowed equal time to well-known quack Patrick Holford. Patrick Holford sells pills. Please BBC, the balance to objective research is better objective research, not the prejudiced rambling of a discredited supplement salesman.

Incidentally, a salesman I know left his job today.