I never upgraded from the first generation iPad to the second. I thought the second generation was more of a generation 1.5. But I was sorely tempted by the upcoming 3G iPad. Indeed, the improved cameras and retina display were what swung it for me, and yesterday I received my shiny new gadget. These are my first observations.First, that retina display. It's astounding. But not so much for photographs as for text. Where on my 1G iPad I had to do quite a bit of zooming to read fine print, the text is spectacularly sharp and clear. And when I return to my MacBook display, it seems pretty poor by comparison ( but not so my very old Sony Vaio Ubuntu laptop, which has tiny pixels).Second, the cameras. Friends tell me that the images captured are significantly better. Frankly, using the iPad as a camera is likely to be something of a minority activity (for me at least), but it makes it possible to use FaceTime.Third, the battery. The iFixit guys show that the interior of the device is mostly filled with battery, about twice the capacity of the second generation model. It does seem to take longer to charge, but the extra battery capacity seems to be needed by the screen, so battery life isn't improved.Fourth, the 3G model seems much snappier than the 1G model.So far, happy with the upgrade from 1G to 3G.

 As is now usual, Team Grumpy prepared intensively for the 48h prior to this event: a preparation which entails consumption of takeaway curry and Belgian beer.  We woke on the morning of the event feeling surprisingly chipper considering the quantity of preparation, and were somewhat disappointed to see thick fog blanketing southern Wales.  Fortunately the weather lifted, leaving clear sunny conditions with a light but rising wind.Team Grumpy performed pretty much as we expected: a good showing of 2-up technique with our overall speed hampered by inadequate training (illness and injury most recently).  That being said, we kept up a pretty good pace over the first half of the event, which is held on a section of dual carriageway, and really only found the second half, which is on an older road with a pretty damaged road surface and quite a bit of climbing a bit challenging - it was here that we found the defects in our preparation exposed.We crossed the line in 1:01:25, fairly respectable we thought - until we saw the winners did a long 53!  Our ride was enlivened by a puncture while warming up (Robert) and an unshipped chain at about 18 miles (Gerry), but was otherwise uneventful.

1	K DAVIES & R PAYNE	BYNEA CC PORTH & DISTRICT	00:53:42
2	J LEWIS & H PRICE	PORT TALBOT WHS	00:55:10
3	W BEVAN & J PILE	ROSS ON WYE CC VC SEVALE	00:56:39
4	J ASPEL & N CRAIG	FORZA CC	00:56:53
5	R HICKS & C WALLACE	PORT TALBOT WHS MERTHYR CC	00:58:09
6	B PHILLIPS & M PHILLIPS	BYNEA CC	00:58:55
7	C JONES & K JONES	M & D / KINETICA	00:59:05
8	R AICHELER & J PRITCHARD	CASTLE BIKES PORT TALBOT WHS	00:59:56
9	G GILES & I REES	PONTYPOOL RCC	01:00:09
10	S BENT & A MEAR	LUDLOW CC	01:00:18
11	C MATTHEWS & R WHITE	FORZA CC	01:00:27
12	J FRANKLIN & D GOUGH	SWANSEA WHS	01:00:49
13	M PORTLOCK & M WILLIAMS	VC L’ESCARGOT	01:01:11
14	G ORAM & R SAUNDERS	BYNEA CC NORTH BUCKS RC	01:01:25

Andrew Lansley continued his push for the NHS bill (which many view as the latest Tory effort to take down the NHS) with another secret hospital visit this week.  Here's a video of him being heckled through the corridors of the Royal Free Hospital.[youtube IBZMTWk1OgI]

Last year, when bemused physicists reported the apparent discovery of faster than light neutrinos, a shock wave ran through the news media, despite professional physicists the world over pointing out that it was almost certainly a technical cockup (ISTR the original experimenters suggested such). In the bizarre world of creationism, the potential upset to such a well-entrenched scientific theory as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was seen as evidence that the whole edifice of evolutionary biology was teetering on the brink. Here for example is a brief piece by David Klinghoffer at the oddly named Evolution News and Views (which is a mouthpiece for Intelligent Design creationism) - "Another One Bites the Dust?". Here, Klinghoffer makes a very brief point:

If you think Darwin's theory of evolution is as secure as Einstein's theory of special relativity, well...maybe you're right. [followed by a slightly longer quotation from The Guardian]

Since the judgement was sent down (finally) on Alberto Contador's clenbuterol case, quite a few stories have emerged detailing commentators' views on the matter.  The other day the Pez Cycling news website featured a comment article with which I pretty much agree (The Contador Case: What's Missing)

In the welter of knee jerk reactions to judge/condemn Contador and/or criticize the UCI, the real issues of this situation are being missed [...]

The author does, I think make valid points about whether Contador's guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and adds to this the oddly variable sanctions following clenbuterol positives that have  been applied to athletes in a variety of sports (see for example this case of youth footballers in Mexico).I would add my often-stated position that any system where a positive result can be returned for any level level of a proscribed substance, even where the level is below the sensitivity required of a testing lab must necessarily be unfair as whether a sample comes up positive becomes a lottery depending on which lab the sample was sent to for analysis.  This is an issue that will return again and again.

Cyclingnews.com today reports that yet again Alberto Contador has had a delay in the announcement by CAS of a verdict in his astonishingly long-running doping affair (Contador Verdict Expected Today | Cyclingnews.com). I cannot believe the ineptitude of all concerned in handling this case, and I'm surprised Contador can maintain his equanimity.My own view is that the regulatory structures around clenbuterol testing are such that for individuals with vanishingly small amounts of clenbuterol in their system, guilt or innocence becomes something of a lottery, depending on which testing lab the sample were sent to - any clenbuterol is enough for guilt, even where the amount found is lower than the sensitivity required of a testing lab.In the mean time, all those blood-doping athletes who were customers of Dr Fuentes (and for one reason or another escaped immediate action) carry on regardless.Update: The announcement is on the CAS web page. Apparently the decision will be handed down on 6th February.  Maybe.  Or maybe not.  The CAS announcement concludes:

A confirmation as to the date and time of the publication of the decision will be given by the CAS at the end of this week.

In reponse to the latest crawling from a Student Union over the recent Jesus and Mo fracas, and indeed the recent example of intimidation at an event featuring a dicussion of sharia law and women's rights:

Velonews reports that CAS is to delay the announcement on their verdict on Jan Ullrich's involvement in the Operacion Puerto blood doping ring. (CAS to delay Ullrich verdict)

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) notified the 1997 Tour de France winner yesterday that it has extended the deadline for its final ruling until February 10, 2012.

Road.cc reports that Alberto Contador clenbuterol case decision delayed till the end of January.  This is insane.  How long will it take to resolve this situation?  And will a decision that has been delayed for so long really be justice?For some time now I've been concerned about how clenbuterol levels are set for testing labs, and how this could end up be a lottery depending on which testing lab samples are sent to.I have posted several times on the Contador case.

Way back in late November, Apple announced that some first generation iPod Nano models had defective batteries that represented a hazard, and that they had instituted a replacement programme. Visiting the website revealed that mine was one of those to be replaced. My Nano hadn't really been used much since I got an iPod Touch (now replaced with a Cowon X7), but I requested the return package, and in due course posted the iPod off to Apple.Much discussion ensued as to what the device would be replaced with.  Some web sources implied Apple were replacing the defective units with refurbished first generation devices, other that the replacement units would be more recent models.My replacement was delivered yesterday, and I can confirm that Apple have replaced my 1st gen 2Gb Nano (left) with a 6th gen 8Gb Nano (right).I've not really kept up with the evolution of iPods, and frankly I'm astonished by this little device.  And it is little.  At first sight it seems little bigger than the sync cable plug.  Despite its size, it still has a battery capable of [up to] 24h music playback (according to Apple) and an accelerometer so tracks can be changed by shaking it.  It has a number of apps installed including a clock, meaning it can be used as a watch if it's clipped to a strap.  It has a radio, which uses the headphone cable as an aerial.  There's no navigation dial, but the touch screen is pretty intuitive and easy to use (in fact after years of iPod Touch and iPad use, I don't find the iPod classic control dial particularly easy).All in all, I'm rather pleased.  Even though this is another device that uses iTunes.Update: I was curious as to how Apple managed to shoehorn all this stuff inside such a small case. iFixit has an interesting iPod Nano 6th Generation Teardown.