 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Dried nettles
Having been under tarp for a week, the nettles are dry -ish. I say 'ish' because it's been raining and thus somewhat muggy. |
So the nettles are now vaguely dry. I say vaguely, as they've been under a tarp, but it's been raining. However they are, at least, not particularly stingy any more. Their hairs a little irritating still, so gloves remain a good idea. This batch have had roots snipped, and leaves stripped (Picture to follow) by running the stalk through a closed fist. They've then been put in the "retting tank" which the observant amongst you will realise is commonly known as a 'tidy box'.  I'll have to drain/refill the 'tank' in a few hours, because then it'll be 'clean' water I'm retting in. Unfortunately due to the size of it, I've had to bend the stalks. Hopefully this hasn't broken the fibers inside, but it may have. We'll see I guess. This batch remains 'experimental' so if that has happened, a Wilkinsons £10 water butt will be used for the next attempt. Oh, and note to self. Bucket or hosepipe makes filling tidyboxes with water _much_ easier. Tags: nettlecloth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes there are theological discussions down the pub.
Provoked by that we sometimes come to the question:
Does lack of proof, imply proof of lack.
Sometimes the discussion will stray onto whether you can prove unicorns don't exist.
That always seemed somehow unsatisfactory, and I think I've managed to piece together why.
The problem is with the definition of God. Put simply, if you could prove, definitively that God did or did not exist, then it wouldn't be God.
It's like asking if you can see something invisible - the answer is clearly 'no' because if you could, it wouldn't be invisible.
So you end up with a circular argument of belief - both on the parts of the theists, and the atheists alike, as they make their assertion about something that is by it's very nature impossible to prove - if you could prove, one way or another, that God exists, then you'd be the God.
But that leads on to an interesting train of thought - if you cannot prove it one way or another, it's a matter of faith. But ... it's largely an irrelevant question - debate all you like, but the point is none the less moot.
But from there... well, what then? If you can't prove it, then you have to accept someone elses assertion. Someone who ... we have no way of knowing whether they're telling the truth or not - all the tales in holy books are from people reporting their account of what happened. Why is that intrinsically more credible than any other written source?
To accept the assertion that 'There is a God' is one thing. You choose to, or not. Problem is in what daisy-chains off that assertion - I mean if you accept the notion that there _is_ a God, then you also accept the definition - which is that God is powerful enough that he could completely deceive you, if he so chose. I mean, that's why it's impossible to prove (true or false) in the first place, right?
That's where I start to get to a point of picking at the question - given that, how do we connect the spiritual teachings of a religion, to it's source? I mean, there's been all sorts of well meaning spiritual people over time. Some of them have even had some really neat and/or radical ideas about how people could live together. I don't see how it follows that that's any more the will of God than the idea I had the other day, of 'going down the Pub' - because without the possibility of proof, we lack the ability to differentiate the ideas that someone had - I can make an assertion, and say 'because God Said So', but why would you believe me, any more than ... well, the Pope say? Barring the education that the Pope has had, perhaps? I'd assume he's better read in scriptures than I am. But I bet I've read more Sci-Fi than he has.
Whatever. I'm not quite sure where this train of thought was going any more. Perhaps I'll complete it once I finish my musings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it still seems to be working - this working out thing. The scales ticks gradually lower each day (on average :/)
Getting gradually better on the nutrition balance, although my food intake does seem to end up a bit odd (quite a lot of fruit, some nuts, and a sandwich in the evening sort of way).
Don't end up feeling hungry though, so that's good.
Been going to the Gym mornings this week - getting up in the mornings gets easier I've found, and I'm now at a point where I managed (just) to row 9km in 40 minutes this morning. Which I'm quite pleased with. Even if that did mean my heart rate was a bit above the 70-80% max heart rate range that I've been trying to sustain. (11m at 90%+ MHR, which is ... erm. I'm not sure that's good or bad actually. It's quite a lot though)
And been going for a walk at lunchtime, and so have managed to be well above my 'daily steps' targets for the last few days.
Well, anyway. I'm generally noticing energy levels being better (getting to the gym basically every work day for the last month is something of a minor miracle) and I'm sleeping better. I think I'm also snoring less. (which would presumably be why).
All to the good. But never the less, despite all the scales information, the one thing that keeps the enthusiasm going is people noticing. And they have been, which is good. I'm coming up on the point where my rate of weight loss is starting to plateau I think, which is going to be the next challenge.
But we'll see if the enthusiasm persists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I've kind of got a notion of something I'd like to try. I've no idea whether it would be feasible, but I figure a test run is none the less interesting. The reason I asked about nettles, is because I discovered that it's possible to make fabric out of nettles - and Urtica dioica (to use the latin name) is ubiquitous. (That's the common stinging nettle for the less pretentious). The nettles themselves can be used to produce fibers that can be spun. The roots of the nettles can be used to dye (yellowy) Leaves are edible (apparently). Leaves can instead be used to produce a green-ish dye. (think 'really strong nettle leaf tea') So anyway, the notion is that it would be interesting to go 'end to end' from 'gathering stuff' to 'making something out of it'. Including dying it. Just what that 'something' ends up being depends a lot on enthusiasm vs. effort involved - I'd _like_ to make a something I can wear, but am thinking that that might take a prodigious amount of effort. So it might end up being a piece of string or something :-). Anyway, as far as I can tell from research so far (yay internets) it goes something like this: 1/ Gather nettles Collect some juicy nettles - the taller the better I believe, as they'll have more/longer fibers in the stalk. 2/ Dry them So they're not stinging any more. I'm thinking that a 'twisted string' style washing line will do the trick for this - take some string, tie it in a loop, and twist it up until you can't any more - and then the 'twistyness' will grip anything you thread through it, and allow you to suspend it. 3/ Ret them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RettingRetting is ... erm. Basically plonking them in water until they rot, then scooping out what's left. I'm thinking that this can be accomplished via a tidy box. 6-8 hours to 'leech', replace the water and then leave them a few days more. Other methods include in running water, or laid out in a field to allow the dew to 'ret'. I don't have a convenient river or field handy, so I'll try it this way ;) I think I should be able to strip the leaves and put them to one side, to use later. 4/ Dry the 'straw' - the retted stalks. Well, first off their wet, and secondly doing this means you've got a bit better chance of getting the fiber out easily. 5/ Extract the fibers. As best I can tell you do this in the same method as you would with Flax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlaxFirst you 'break' the straw, then you strip away the 'barky bits' (scutching) Then you 'comb' (heckle) the fibrous stuff you've got - you get to separate out a bit the fibers, and the finer the combs you use, the finer the final result - but the more you'll leave behind as you go. Improvisation I think would be a rolling pin to break up the bark, and 'bit of wood with nails' to do the heckling. 6/ Spin the fibers you've got into a yarn. ... much like you would with cotton. That's a bit trivialised isn't it? Well, that's a bit better documented, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_(textiles) Basically though, you're just taking the fibers and twisting them together into a continuous thread. There's various techniques for doing this - from 'by hand' by taking a pinch and gradually twisting and rolling out the thread, drop spinning, where you use a weight, or just using a spinning wheel. And sometimes you'll take the yarn you've made and 'ply' it, to make it a stronger/thicker yarn. Easy in principle, quite complex in practice - the thinner the yarn, the weaker it is, so you've got to be fairly careful it doesn't break. And, y'know, keep it fairly consistent in thickness and twistyness, because if you're making cloth out of it you need to :-) 7/ Turn the yarn into 'something' This would be weaving it - again, basics are quite straight forward - lay out a load of your yarn on a frame (warp threads) and then thread some through it in an over/under/over pattern (weft).Of course to make 'usable cloth' is a bit harder, as tighter weaves also take proportionally longer to set up in the first place, and to thread back and forth with each weft. And of course you need a fair amount of width for an 'average' piece of clothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeavingBit sketchy on this bit, but I figure that'll wait until I have enough yarn to make it worth looking. It might be feasible to consider e.g. knitting as a method of making a fabric instead. 8/ Cut your cloth, and sew it up. Well, you've got some cloth - hopefully it's big enough that you can use an existing pattern with it, and maybe use some of your existing yarn to sew it together. References: http://foxleymanor.blogspot.com/search/label/Clothhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinging_nettlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rettinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_(textiles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weavinghttp://www.handspinning.com/lollipops/spininst.htmTags: nettlecloth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I was musing on over the last few was history. History is ... sort of a detective story. We piece together what happened. From the mundane 'what clothes did vikings wear' to 'when did William the Conquerer land?'. But it's always a question of interpretation of evidence. We gather together fragments of the past and try and see what picture they make. But here's the thing. Over the last ... well, hundred years or so, we've vastly expanded our ability to record what's happening. We've seen literacy become more and more common. We've seen actual pictures going from 'posed portraits in paint' to the state where ... well, a large fraction of the population have not just a photographic camera, but actually a video camera in their pocket right now. News programs are getting footage from 'men on the street' who happened to think to whip out their camera when they saw e.g. planes crashing into skyscraperse. And we have mobile web access - I could post thoughts on what's happening right now from my phone. Indeed, we see this happening - the 'public record' of what's happening in Iran, is in no small part escaping through the cracks in the censorship via Twitter. Not so much the revolution being televised, as twitterd and facebooked. If you look back onto Usenet, you see fascinating insights from the people who carried on to shake the world. http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.htmlAnd so it goes. The volume of information in the 'collective' brain that is the Internet is vast. Capacity increases steadily, as does our ability record. So a hundred years from now, we'll not so much be wondering at the incompleteness of our evidence. More we'll be trying to sort the signal from the noise. I wonder what sort of picture they'll get?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so I dropped my ebook reader a month or so ago. Because, y'know, I was using it like a book.
OK, so my fault, Dropped it. Bad idea.
It went all sqoggly on the screen.
So I put it in for repair, at the Sony Centre in town.
The say '£50 assessment fee', which I pay up front, and off it goes.
It's now come back, with the remainder due of £175.
Total cost, £225 - about 5 pounds more than a brand new one would cost. (And a month of faffing). That's after the guy in the shop pointed out their initial estimate of £230 was just taking the piss.
So... at this point it's _slightly_ cheaper, having already fronted the £50. But I'm not a happy bunny about this, and shall be writing nastygrams.
Don't get me wrong - I accept repairing stuff takes time and effort.
I just find it offensive that I've ended up burned, when 'sorry, it's not cost effective, a new one would be cheaper' would have been done in less time at lower cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've been using a Fitbug for a couple of weeks now. One of the things that it's reinforced is just how sedentary my job is. I mean I knew - I drove to work, sat at a desk all day, drove home. But ... well, having a pedometer tells me my daily steps is somewhat under 2000 - which adds up to about 20 minutes walking (I walk at a fairly steady 6000/hour it seems, which is ... almost exactly 3 miles). My current daily target is somewhere nearer 10k steps/day, which ... well, has required a bit of effort to shoehorn into my day, I must say. But I am starting to notice the improvement - the number on the scales is diminishing, and my general energy levels are steadily improving. And my need for sleep is also decreasing (or perhaps more correctly, I'm sleeping better and thus am finding it easier to haul out of bed in the mornings) So I'm considering walking to work in the mornings. A quick check today suggests that the halfway point takes about 40 minutes at my typical amble, so it does mean quite an early start. (It's 4 miles total, so clocks in at about 1 hr 20). Maybe walk to work/bus home. The annoyance is taking 'stuff' to work and back, like... well, laptops whilst on call, and gym kit. And of course, getting to the gym in lunch, which is just about far enough away that it's marginal - it'll take just about long enough that my session would be severely curtailed to the point of pointlessness. But then, if I've walked 4 miles each way, then maybe i'll skip the gym that day :) All to the good, really. At least, assuming I can keep it up - 10k steps is nearing 2 hours of walking, which does dig in a useful chunk of the day. I can fill the gaps in a bit faster by going to the gym - although ironically, a lunchbreak down the gym, what with travelling, changing, showering etc. adds up to a similar amount of activity to what I'd be using just by spending my lunch hour walking in circles. But it's good for other reasons - it makes me use different muscles - so I'll try and keep on with that. Been spending less time computer gaming mind. Ah well. Anyone want a referral to fitbug?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
