Thought of the day: Heading home, good for business?

Ive begun planning my move back to Australia of late and during the joys of packing and cancelling bills, I came across this article claiming that Business travellers prefer Melbourne to Sydney.

What does this mean? That I wont enjoy Melbourne as much, unless Im on business? I know what I would'nt enjoy, and that's the commute from Melbourne airport to the CBD. Why Melbourne doesn't have a commuter-train is beyond me. Beyond this, why it doesnt have a train from te CBD of Melbourne to Sydney's city centre is also a good question.

I know that Victorians arent that well liked (though who really cares what the rest think?), but surely if the Brits and French can organise to put a train under a body of water between their two capitals, we can too?

That being said, borrowing from French train-engineering might not be the best move, given their history of striking and their lack of success with Connex in Melbourne. The Brits aint in great shakes either, it took me nearly 3 hours to get home from Heathrow the other night, which included an hour on the Heathrow 'Express'.

So perhaps they should borrow from the winning Melbourne model and just forget public transport and simply go for wide streets and good food instead, lord knows it would make a difference to London.

Thought of the Day: Yahoo are tanking

OK, not a great image, but I think you get the idea. The headline reads "Jane McGrath farewelled at emotional funeral". For the uninitiated, Jane McGrath suffered from breast cancer and did a substantial amount of good work to raise awareness and funding for the disease with her husband Glenn through the McGrath Foundation.

Now, while Glenn did play cricket for Australia for sometime, he certainly was not Nathan Bracken, who is pictured. Are the good people at Yahoo deliberately trying to lower their share price by posting stories that are potentially offensive or (at least) misleading/stupid? Stay tuned....

Lesson of the day

Here's one that was passed to me by another student of life:
"If you want to make friends with body-builders, a good way to not do it is:
1) Go to a supermarket;
2) Overload your left arm with pasta and pasta sauce (ensure you are carrying a bag of books with your right arm);
3) Turn quickly to your right, ensuring that the pasta sauce spills from the pile on your left arm and explodes upon hitting the floor - covering all body-builders (and there clean white shoes) in it.

An optional extra point at the end of this is:
4) Run.

Lesson of the day

If you are going to eat Spaghetti Bolognese:
1) Dont wear a white shirt;
2) Pay attention; and
3) Do take a couple of napkins.

Top 5 Cities - Review

The list of most livable cities has once again been published (link here), whose results have thrown me into a deep quandry. Who the hell is writing this list and what is the criterion they are using?

After all, Switzerland makes it into the top 3 twice! Switzerland! Its like Lego land but inhabited by paranoid racists. Doesnt anyone else remember Switzerlands recent immigration policy? Well, heres the poster:

What's more, the majority of these countries are in cold climates, who the hell likes living in a cold climate apart from Eskimos?

Better than Switzerland, Germany has 4 countries in the top 10. This kind-of makes sense, unless you are one of the 20% of unemployed people in the country or a history professor, in which case no-one talks about your subject of choice (particularly events from 1939 - 1944). The cities that they nominated are all nice places, but very staid. This list gave me the feeling that it was put togethor by an over-50s walking club.

Vienna I can see as being in the top 10. Its a pretty city with a vibrant culture, awesome public transport and great cuisine. I was also impressed by how 'outdoorsy' the locals were there, with a number of people braving the elements to go for a run / game of handball etc.

Vancouver is probably a worthy nominee too, though Ive never been, as it has a great reputation for being interesting, safe and clean. But then, it does get to minus 40 degrees and is full of Canadians, the most unoffensive people going around.

Finally, at the bottom of the list, comes Sydney. A beautiful city with great restaurants and cafes, though prohibitively expensive. Whats more, Sydneys best assets (its beaches) are only readily accessible to those in the eastern suburbs. Dont get me wrong, I like Sydney, but I wouldnt want to live there.

So then, what would I consider to be more appropriate and why? Well, I put an importance on the vibrancy, multiculturalism, cuisine, public transport, climate and affordability of a city. There are a couple of other factors too (such as population density etc) but lets just get to my Top 5 cities for quality of life:

5) Galway

4) Chania

3) New York

2) Paris

1) Melbourne

Thought of the day: Zeppelins Rock!

Summer seeems to have (finally) arrived in London, and with it the compulsion for everyone to leave. Though the locals go potty for the sun (disrobing in public and soforth), they seem to enjoy it more elsewhere and take off as soon (and as often) as they can.

The expansion of low-cost airlines has made this easier to do in recent years, though this has become more complicated of late due to the increase in oil prices and the general inconvenience in flying.

To explain the second reason in greater detail, I shall provide the example of Stanstead airport, which is 45 minutes from London on a train that costs £25 for a return ticket. This added cost and time consideration can easily outweigh the attraction of a £15 fare to Malaga, particularly if the fare suddenly doubles due to oil prices.

For the more discerning flyer, the more salubrious airlines are becoming less attractive as well, thanks to such inconveniences as T5 and the prospective inrease in airline taxes.

So what is the Barmy Army to do? In fact, what are any of us who are used to the illusion of eternal low-cost air-fares? Well, where the English have a problem, the Germans often have an answer...

This time its in the form of Zeppelins. Thats right, remember those air-ships that burst into flame to give awesome rock-bands inspiration for their names? Or perhaps you may remember that great scene from Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade in which Indy pretends to be a ticket collector on a passenger Zeppelin so as to throw a Nazi overboard?

That's right, Zeppelins appear to be back as a viable travel alternative and why the hell not? Apparently they can travel at 200 kilometres an hour, which is pretty decent indeed and also have the benefits of a lower environmental impact and being able to take-off and land anywhere.

There are, obviously, dangers involved though. These include burning up into massive balls of fire, stray eagles and large winds. Just the other week a French Balloonist (honestly, don't they have anything better to do with themselves?) missed out on some ballooning record when his 'aircraft' blew away. Probably not what you are after when you have a trip to the coast planned.

Still, this is definitely something worth looking into if it can be done to a much smaller scale. I have images of airborn bumper cars in my mind, with very little impact. After all, the Empire State Building was originally designed with Zeppelin landing platforms, which brings me to another benefit; it would be hard to bring down a skyscraper by smashing a balloon into it.

Are Zeppelins the way of the future then? Perhaps all they need is some Hollywood backing (something similar to what the Prius has received would be handy) and some brave or disgruntled passengers, what better place to start looking than T5?

Question of the day - Why is Lindsay Lohan famous?

Lindsay Lohan, or 'Li Lo', seems to be everywhere; but why? I know that she has been in a couple of average movies and she is good looking, but does it deserve the attention she gets?

Am I missing something or is this a sign of age?