Monday, May 07, 2007
University, who should go?
Many intelligent and successful people did not go to university, or dropped out. And yet most parents want their kid to go, and surely for good reason.
Never having gone, I don't know much about it. So chime in, you: assuming sufficient money and intelligence is there, who should go to college and who shouldnt? (University... college... it's rather confusing.)
Final Identity brings up:
"Another point is, that education is not -- and should not be -- about employment, but about self-growth and enlightenment."
Yeah... Nobody is bigger on those things than I am. But is a very expensive and rigid education really the place to get them?
And will people really spend that kind of money and time for those things, for themselves and their kids?
Another thing is: is it really healthy to never try to work until you're 28?
F.I. also adds:
"So, the method we have over here has a load of weaknesses. And it's in flux -- most citizens of the USA think of "higher education" as a ticket to a higher-paying job (and that is a general truth) so they spend their undergraduate time taking things like Hotel Management rather than Greek Drama. And then calling themselves "college-educated." They aren't. They haven't read the classics, encountered cultures different from their own, learned some essential human criteria by which good and bad can be judged, mastered a foreign language or five, discovered their own limitations. They've just followed a materialist path, and college has enabled their addictions.
By the way, Eolake, I'm not surprised you're of a non-traditional type of education. Ben Franklin said, among many other maxims, that one should try to spend one's life with those of great means and little education, for they rightly think practically about the world. To him, an "education" meant a snobby, upper-class, useless type of sherry-drinking brandy-dandling thing accessible mostly to the effete idle children of the upper classes. What shocks me is that, so different as I am from that sort of person, my background and resume make me look more like them than unlike them, simply because I valued a real education."
TTL boldly goes forth with:
"I never went to University. Never even considered. What a waste of time that would have been. Instead, I spent those years studying many interesting subjects: music, philosophy, computer science, art, physics, psychology, etc. Something I would never exchange for doing hard time in a University.
The only thing I feel I may have missed not going to the Uni is the camaraderie among the students. But that hardly seems worth the sacrifice in tolerating all the bureaucracy and other nonsense.
Some people go in order to get a degree. But the degrees are only good if you want a job that is paid out of money confiscated from the citizens. I despise that kind of jobs.
In honest jobs where you offer real value to the marketplace, and where people pay you voluntarily, you are never asked for degrees. In fact, in the most high profile projects a degree is a liability. It reveals that you are not capable of thinking and studying on your own. Also, it reveals that you tolerated the University 'culture' which is a sign of lack of creativity and true talent.
Please view Sir Ken Robinson's talk Do schools kill creativity? It is one of the best talks I have ever heard. Certainly the very best on the subject of education."
Wonko interjected:
Here in the UK we have a Government that is committed to pushing more and more young people into Further Education, irrespective of whether we as a society and nation need them to, or they are suited to it. 25 years ago around 5% of 18 year olds went to University, today nearly 50% go on to Further Education"
This sounds totally astounding to me. For sure I can't imagine that fifty percent of the youngsters in this town will go to college, or would enjoy it. (I live in a working class town in Northern England.) Read more of Wonko's long comment in the Comments section.
Laurie/Signalroom contributed:
Final Identity, thank you for that incredible bit of writing. It was so refreshingly astute, and I even learned a new word, je-june:) I read that initial piece out loud to my companion Jeff, who gave it high kudos as well. Have you ever read John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education"? I recommend it highly, though it's long. Since reading it I have never looked at the public education system (U.S.) without shuddering.
TTL, I continue to look for your comments which are obviously well thought out. Thank you for posting.
I quit college my second year to move into a Zen Buddhist meditaion center where I thought I might learn something truly of value, the true nature of my self. I was not disappointed. I went back to undergrad. and got a degree in theology which was a complete waste of time. I went on to graduate school at 37 because my life was at a standstill. Three years later and thousands of dollars in debt, I left without a master's degree feeling totally hoodwinked by the system (and by my own mind in looking for something real from the system). My most satisfying and original bit of writing had been given the lowest grades because I refused to use significant and professional "sources." My own mind was apparently not source enough.
I am now working in the public school system with kids who have behavioral issues. I refuse to be a teacher in the system, I consider myself a companion to children (though it's different on paper), helping them remember their souls through the deadening conformity of their school day. I consider my job sacred (to myself), though on paper it looks mighty humble, and I am a puzzle to my administrators, who know that I have intelligence, but why am I working such a low paying job?
I am a product of the public education system, and I believe it accounted for much of the depression I experienced as an adult. I have re-educated myself out of depression and cynicism via deep inquiry into EVERYTHING, everyone, and most notably, myself. Deep inquiry, especially through meditation and long periods of silence (for me) have yielded wisdom, not an education.
I very much appreciate this thread.
Laurie
Never having gone, I don't know much about it. So chime in, you: assuming sufficient money and intelligence is there, who should go to college and who shouldnt? (University... college... it's rather confusing.)
Final Identity brings up:
"Another point is, that education is not -- and should not be -- about employment, but about self-growth and enlightenment."
Yeah... Nobody is bigger on those things than I am. But is a very expensive and rigid education really the place to get them?
And will people really spend that kind of money and time for those things, for themselves and their kids?
Another thing is: is it really healthy to never try to work until you're 28?
F.I. also adds:
"So, the method we have over here has a load of weaknesses. And it's in flux -- most citizens of the USA think of "higher education" as a ticket to a higher-paying job (and that is a general truth) so they spend their undergraduate time taking things like Hotel Management rather than Greek Drama. And then calling themselves "college-educated." They aren't. They haven't read the classics, encountered cultures different from their own, learned some essential human criteria by which good and bad can be judged, mastered a foreign language or five, discovered their own limitations. They've just followed a materialist path, and college has enabled their addictions.
By the way, Eolake, I'm not surprised you're of a non-traditional type of education. Ben Franklin said, among many other maxims, that one should try to spend one's life with those of great means and little education, for they rightly think practically about the world. To him, an "education" meant a snobby, upper-class, useless type of sherry-drinking brandy-dandling thing accessible mostly to the effete idle children of the upper classes. What shocks me is that, so different as I am from that sort of person, my background and resume make me look more like them than unlike them, simply because I valued a real education."
TTL boldly goes forth with:
"I never went to University. Never even considered. What a waste of time that would have been. Instead, I spent those years studying many interesting subjects: music, philosophy, computer science, art, physics, psychology, etc. Something I would never exchange for doing hard time in a University.
The only thing I feel I may have missed not going to the Uni is the camaraderie among the students. But that hardly seems worth the sacrifice in tolerating all the bureaucracy and other nonsense.
Some people go in order to get a degree. But the degrees are only good if you want a job that is paid out of money confiscated from the citizens. I despise that kind of jobs.
In honest jobs where you offer real value to the marketplace, and where people pay you voluntarily, you are never asked for degrees. In fact, in the most high profile projects a degree is a liability. It reveals that you are not capable of thinking and studying on your own. Also, it reveals that you tolerated the University 'culture' which is a sign of lack of creativity and true talent.
Please view Sir Ken Robinson's talk Do schools kill creativity? It is one of the best talks I have ever heard. Certainly the very best on the subject of education."
Wonko interjected:
Here in the UK we have a Government that is committed to pushing more and more young people into Further Education, irrespective of whether we as a society and nation need them to, or they are suited to it. 25 years ago around 5% of 18 year olds went to University, today nearly 50% go on to Further Education"
This sounds totally astounding to me. For sure I can't imagine that fifty percent of the youngsters in this town will go to college, or would enjoy it. (I live in a working class town in Northern England.) Read more of Wonko's long comment in the Comments section.
Laurie/Signalroom contributed:
Final Identity, thank you for that incredible bit of writing. It was so refreshingly astute, and I even learned a new word, je-june:) I read that initial piece out loud to my companion Jeff, who gave it high kudos as well. Have you ever read John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education"? I recommend it highly, though it's long. Since reading it I have never looked at the public education system (U.S.) without shuddering.
TTL, I continue to look for your comments which are obviously well thought out. Thank you for posting.
I quit college my second year to move into a Zen Buddhist meditaion center where I thought I might learn something truly of value, the true nature of my self. I was not disappointed. I went back to undergrad. and got a degree in theology which was a complete waste of time. I went on to graduate school at 37 because my life was at a standstill. Three years later and thousands of dollars in debt, I left without a master's degree feeling totally hoodwinked by the system (and by my own mind in looking for something real from the system). My most satisfying and original bit of writing had been given the lowest grades because I refused to use significant and professional "sources." My own mind was apparently not source enough.
I am now working in the public school system with kids who have behavioral issues. I refuse to be a teacher in the system, I consider myself a companion to children (though it's different on paper), helping them remember their souls through the deadening conformity of their school day. I consider my job sacred (to myself), though on paper it looks mighty humble, and I am a puzzle to my administrators, who know that I have intelligence, but why am I working such a low paying job?
I am a product of the public education system, and I believe it accounted for much of the depression I experienced as an adult. I have re-educated myself out of depression and cynicism via deep inquiry into EVERYTHING, everyone, and most notably, myself. Deep inquiry, especially through meditation and long periods of silence (for me) have yielded wisdom, not an education.
I very much appreciate this thread.
Laurie
The appearing person
Here's a tricky logic puzzle. Count the people before and after the picture changes.
(I have it half figured out.)
You will need to have picture (GIF) animation enabled in your browser.
(I have it half figured out.)
You will need to have picture (GIF) animation enabled in your browser.
Quantum fits
In a comment to the Illusions post, Pascal gets Quantum on our asses:
“God does not play dice” - Einstein
To which Louis de Broglie replied: “And who are YOU to tell God what He can do?”
The quantum uncertainty principle is just as much a fundamental fact of Science as the light spectrum of atomic Elements.
Basically, it states that if God doesn't play dice, only He can ever know it.
Or, more matter-of-factly, that if you imagine quantum particles in the Universe as ants in a colony, there is nothing smaller than an ant that you can send in to gather information, but your added robot-ant will disturb the information by its presence. "Oi! Move on, buddy, I've got corn grains to carry here! Make yourself useful, go guard the Queen's Chamber with those big choppers of yours. And watch where you put your feet, will ya? Sheesh..."
Here's a simple example of the uncertainty principle:
A spectral line represents a given wavelength of light (or other energy emission). But a spectral line always has a certain width, amounting to a frequency range. Why is that? Because the laws of physics show this: if there was only one, mathematical photon wavelength, one exact frequency instead of a narrow range at best, its energy would be infinite. It would amount to dividing a given intensity by a width of zero. Even with one single photon, this still applies. There's no escaping it, just like death and taxes. ;-)
As soon as you get a little far above a beach, it appears as a continuous surface. But at a small scale it'll always be made of grains, and its physical properties will differ from those of a true fluid or a normal solid. Which will be noticeable even at a scale far bigger than grains.
Inversely, under a moderately powerful microscope, sand will appear as a heap of tiny rough rocks. It may appear in very different fashions, none of which is truly representative of what we can only understand with mathematical tools, namely "the big picture". Sand is a peculiar solid (a "grainy matter") that sometimes behaves like a liquid. When you stroll on a beach, you have the illusion that this can't happen... until a sandstorm rises, Allah forbid!
Mud is even more complicated in behaviour, because it's grains closely mixed with liquid, at a scale where tiny surface forces have a tremendous cumulated effect.
Did you know that tar is actually a liquid? Hit it with a hammer, and it shatters. Leave it in a pierced barrel, and it'll run. Veeeeerrrrry slooooowwwwwly. It is viscosity at a very unusual scale. Glass is similar, in reality. It is an incredibly viscous amorphous solid. A window could theoretically become a puddle on the floor at ordinary temperature. The thing is, it would take millions of years, provided erosion doesen't get it first! Its stability is purely an illusion created by our own time scale. Compared to minerals, we live very fast dog years...
Our senses are sophisticated measure instruments, which give us a reprepsentation of the world, in a certain fashion which is USUALLY the most efficient. For who and what we are. But they have their limits, all of them put together still have their limits. Only with our intelligence can we get past that illusion... one slow step at a time.
Given enough speed and kinetic energy, a water-filled balloon can go right through the armor of a battle tank like a red-hot knife through butter. Unless the air friction evaporates it first in a cloud of steam. A feather in the void of space could possibly kill an astronaut, because no air slows it down. We're just not used to such things happening. We live in the illusion of our habits.
An infant could move an aircraft carrier with one hand. In the wieghtlessness of space, or even in a very calm water harbour. All it takes is the patience to overcome the inertia of a great mass and wait till you see a visible result, so keep pushing!
The fragile silk sheet of a parachute can hold a man in the air. A spider's silk is way tronger than steel or Kevlar, and would make great (and lightweight) bullet-proof vests. It would seem that an unarmed frail cleric could halt the Scourge of God with mere words.
So, always beware of what you take for absolutely and universally certain. Keep an open mind. We only know as much as we have already learned or discovered, and yet not always.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." — Mark Twain
“God does not play dice” - Einstein
To which Louis de Broglie replied: “And who are YOU to tell God what He can do?”
The quantum uncertainty principle is just as much a fundamental fact of Science as the light spectrum of atomic Elements.
Basically, it states that if God doesn't play dice, only He can ever know it.
Or, more matter-of-factly, that if you imagine quantum particles in the Universe as ants in a colony, there is nothing smaller than an ant that you can send in to gather information, but your added robot-ant will disturb the information by its presence. "Oi! Move on, buddy, I've got corn grains to carry here! Make yourself useful, go guard the Queen's Chamber with those big choppers of yours. And watch where you put your feet, will ya? Sheesh..."
Here's a simple example of the uncertainty principle:
A spectral line represents a given wavelength of light (or other energy emission). But a spectral line always has a certain width, amounting to a frequency range. Why is that? Because the laws of physics show this: if there was only one, mathematical photon wavelength, one exact frequency instead of a narrow range at best, its energy would be infinite. It would amount to dividing a given intensity by a width of zero. Even with one single photon, this still applies. There's no escaping it, just like death and taxes. ;-)
As soon as you get a little far above a beach, it appears as a continuous surface. But at a small scale it'll always be made of grains, and its physical properties will differ from those of a true fluid or a normal solid. Which will be noticeable even at a scale far bigger than grains.
Inversely, under a moderately powerful microscope, sand will appear as a heap of tiny rough rocks. It may appear in very different fashions, none of which is truly representative of what we can only understand with mathematical tools, namely "the big picture". Sand is a peculiar solid (a "grainy matter") that sometimes behaves like a liquid. When you stroll on a beach, you have the illusion that this can't happen... until a sandstorm rises, Allah forbid!
Mud is even more complicated in behaviour, because it's grains closely mixed with liquid, at a scale where tiny surface forces have a tremendous cumulated effect.
Did you know that tar is actually a liquid? Hit it with a hammer, and it shatters. Leave it in a pierced barrel, and it'll run. Veeeeerrrrry slooooowwwwwly. It is viscosity at a very unusual scale. Glass is similar, in reality. It is an incredibly viscous amorphous solid. A window could theoretically become a puddle on the floor at ordinary temperature. The thing is, it would take millions of years, provided erosion doesen't get it first! Its stability is purely an illusion created by our own time scale. Compared to minerals, we live very fast dog years...
Our senses are sophisticated measure instruments, which give us a reprepsentation of the world, in a certain fashion which is USUALLY the most efficient. For who and what we are. But they have their limits, all of them put together still have their limits. Only with our intelligence can we get past that illusion... one slow step at a time.
Given enough speed and kinetic energy, a water-filled balloon can go right through the armor of a battle tank like a red-hot knife through butter. Unless the air friction evaporates it first in a cloud of steam. A feather in the void of space could possibly kill an astronaut, because no air slows it down. We're just not used to such things happening. We live in the illusion of our habits.
An infant could move an aircraft carrier with one hand. In the wieghtlessness of space, or even in a very calm water harbour. All it takes is the patience to overcome the inertia of a great mass and wait till you see a visible result, so keep pushing!
The fragile silk sheet of a parachute can hold a man in the air. A spider's silk is way tronger than steel or Kevlar, and would make great (and lightweight) bullet-proof vests. It would seem that an unarmed frail cleric could halt the Scourge of God with mere words.
So, always beware of what you take for absolutely and universally certain. Keep an open mind. We only know as much as we have already learned or discovered, and yet not always.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." — Mark Twain
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Illuuuuusions!
More and more "hard scientists" are saying what Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other spiritual traditions have told us for millennia: the universe is illusory.
Ed Viswanathan added:
Thanks for a thought provoking blog.
In the Hindu Bhagavad Gita 9:7,8, Lord Krishna tells his friend Arjuna
“ Through my MAYA [ illusion], in the beginning of time, I create everything and at the end of time KALPA, the whole creation merge in me. By my will the whole universe is created & annihilated again and again “
God alone exists and everything else is Maya or illusion.
Stressing the cyclical nature of creation and Destruction, Lord Krishna said in the Bhagavad Gita:
“I AM LIFE, CAUSE OF ALL LIFE AND I AM DEATH, DEVOURER OF ALL."
This whole process is known as LEELA or CHILD PLAY OF GOD in Hinduism.
Just like the ON and OFF switches on a digital computer makes thousands of forms of "illusion" for all of us, through Maya, God is creating all the illusion again and again.
That is the reason why Hindu salvation is known as SELF REALIZATION. That means REALIZING one is the immortal soul or Atman within and not the perishable material body which is MAYA.
www.amiahindu.com
Ed Viswanathan added:
Thanks for a thought provoking blog.
In the Hindu Bhagavad Gita 9:7,8, Lord Krishna tells his friend Arjuna
“ Through my MAYA [ illusion], in the beginning of time, I create everything and at the end of time KALPA, the whole creation merge in me. By my will the whole universe is created & annihilated again and again “
God alone exists and everything else is Maya or illusion.
Stressing the cyclical nature of creation and Destruction, Lord Krishna said in the Bhagavad Gita:
“I AM LIFE, CAUSE OF ALL LIFE AND I AM DEATH, DEVOURER OF ALL."
This whole process is known as LEELA or CHILD PLAY OF GOD in Hinduism.
Just like the ON and OFF switches on a digital computer makes thousands of forms of "illusion" for all of us, through Maya, God is creating all the illusion again and again.
That is the reason why Hindu salvation is known as SELF REALIZATION. That means REALIZING one is the immortal soul or Atman within and not the perishable material body which is MAYA.
www.amiahindu.com
Predictability and TV shows
Either TV shows are predictable or I'm damn sharp. (Let's not eliminate the option "both". :)
I rented the first disk of the TV Show "House", with Hugh Laurie. I knew nothing about it, only that it was respected and that I tend to like Mr. Laurie's work.
So I start the first episode... there is a good-looking young woman hurrying from a bus to get to work on time. I see the way it's filmed, and I think to myself: "Ah, she is dead. I give her two and a half minutes."
Exactly two and a half minutes later: bam! she hits the floor.
I have to admit though, that since it turns out to be a "medical drama" and not a crime show, she was not dead. The drama of the week is the doctors rushing to find out what's wrong with her, not the police rushing to find her killer before he kils again.
Boooooring.
Gandalfe counters:
My wife the nurse and I luv this show. Not so much violence as more of a who done it. And there was a rather nice piece done on a jazz pianist losing his touch. To each his own I suppose.
OK, I admit I just tend not to like drama very much. Could be me.
------
Oooh, by the way, have you noticed that people never finish their drinks in films and TV shows? They get a lot of dialogue out of the way fixing the coffee or juice, and then they are done talking, and the guests leave without touching their drink. All the time. A very weird world they live in. :)
I rented the first disk of the TV Show "House", with Hugh Laurie. I knew nothing about it, only that it was respected and that I tend to like Mr. Laurie's work.
So I start the first episode... there is a good-looking young woman hurrying from a bus to get to work on time. I see the way it's filmed, and I think to myself: "Ah, she is dead. I give her two and a half minutes."
Exactly two and a half minutes later: bam! she hits the floor.
I have to admit though, that since it turns out to be a "medical drama" and not a crime show, she was not dead. The drama of the week is the doctors rushing to find out what's wrong with her, not the police rushing to find her killer before he kils again.
Boooooring.
Gandalfe counters:
My wife the nurse and I luv this show. Not so much violence as more of a who done it. And there was a rather nice piece done on a jazz pianist losing his touch. To each his own I suppose.
OK, I admit I just tend not to like drama very much. Could be me.
------
Oooh, by the way, have you noticed that people never finish their drinks in films and TV shows? They get a lot of dialogue out of the way fixing the coffee or juice, and then they are done talking, and the guests leave without touching their drink. All the time. A very weird world they live in. :)
Hive Mind
A parallel and similar development in human consciousness is: the development towards the Hive Mind.
A Hive Mind is traditionally a scary thing which has only been in use by fearsome aliens in SF novels. But it might be a good thing.
It used to be that good art of craft was almost always only found in products coming from individual artists or crafstmen (or inventors, or thinkers...). But the times are going towards collaboration.
Just one example is that it now rapidly becoming more reliable to read several reviews of something (a book, camera, computer...) online than it is to rely on the advice on a salesperson in a main street dealer.
A Hive Mind is traditionally a scary thing which has only been in use by fearsome aliens in SF novels. But it might be a good thing.
It used to be that good art of craft was almost always only found in products coming from individual artists or crafstmen (or inventors, or thinkers...). But the times are going towards collaboration.
Just one example is that it now rapidly becoming more reliable to read several reviews of something (a book, camera, computer...) online than it is to rely on the advice on a salesperson in a main street dealer.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Privacy
One of my fond beliefs has always been that privacy is one of our holiest posessions. But I'm beginning to reconsider, difficult though it is. After all, another of my fondest beliefs is that openness and communication are the most valuable things to pursue, and it does not really go with the other thing, does it?
Also, more and more I believe that threats are created by our fears, not vice versa. So work on stilling your fears, not eliminate the threats.
Here's an article with a fresh view. Quote:
"So it may be time to consider the possibility that young people who behave as if privacy doesn’t exist are actually the sane people, not the insane ones. For someone like me, who grew up sealing my diary with a literal lock, this may be tough to accept. But under current circumstances, a defiant belief in holding things close to your chest might not be high-minded. It might be an artifact—quaint and naïve, like a determined faith that virginity keeps ladies pure. Or at least that might be true for someone who has grown up “putting themselves out there” and found that the benefits of being transparent make the risks worth it."
Another one:
"At 17, Oppermann is conversant with the conventional wisdom about the online world—that it’s a sketchy bus station packed with pedophiles. (In fact, that’s pretty much the standard response I’ve gotten when I’ve spoken about this piece with anyone over 39: “But what about the perverts?” For teenagers, who have grown up laughing at porn pop-ups and the occasional instant message from a skeezy stranger, this is about as logical as the question “How can you move to New York? You’ll get mugged!”) She argues that when it comes to online relationships, “you’re getting what you’re being.”"
I agree. It's profoundly healthy, this mind shift, hard as it is to get used to. This whole "don't talk to strangers" thing of the 20th is not prudent, it is negative and counter-productive.
-----
It's a new world with new kinds of communications that us "oldsters" don't understand. I don't get how a site like Noah K Everyday is useful to anybody, but it fits perfectly in the new world. Bless 'em.
Also, more and more I believe that threats are created by our fears, not vice versa. So work on stilling your fears, not eliminate the threats.
Here's an article with a fresh view. Quote:
"So it may be time to consider the possibility that young people who behave as if privacy doesn’t exist are actually the sane people, not the insane ones. For someone like me, who grew up sealing my diary with a literal lock, this may be tough to accept. But under current circumstances, a defiant belief in holding things close to your chest might not be high-minded. It might be an artifact—quaint and naïve, like a determined faith that virginity keeps ladies pure. Or at least that might be true for someone who has grown up “putting themselves out there” and found that the benefits of being transparent make the risks worth it."
Another one:
"At 17, Oppermann is conversant with the conventional wisdom about the online world—that it’s a sketchy bus station packed with pedophiles. (In fact, that’s pretty much the standard response I’ve gotten when I’ve spoken about this piece with anyone over 39: “But what about the perverts?” For teenagers, who have grown up laughing at porn pop-ups and the occasional instant message from a skeezy stranger, this is about as logical as the question “How can you move to New York? You’ll get mugged!”) She argues that when it comes to online relationships, “you’re getting what you’re being.”"
I agree. It's profoundly healthy, this mind shift, hard as it is to get used to. This whole "don't talk to strangers" thing of the 20th is not prudent, it is negative and counter-productive.
-----
It's a new world with new kinds of communications that us "oldsters" don't understand. I don't get how a site like Noah K Everyday is useful to anybody, but it fits perfectly in the new world. Bless 'em.
[Thanks to TTL for pointing to the NYC article.]
TTL advices:
I find that people in general are not interested in solutions. It is the problems they are excited about. When you present people with a simple and true solution to any big problem, they go all quiet and quickly change the subject. On the other hand, if you only talk about the problem their eyes lit up and they start 'sympathising' with you. Some people get so excited about reiterating the problem and calling for a solution that foam comes out of their mouth.
I find that people in general are not interested in solutions. It is the problems they are excited about. When you present people with a simple and true solution to any big problem, they go all quiet and quickly change the subject. On the other hand, if you only talk about the problem their eyes lit up and they start 'sympathising' with you. Some people get so excited about reiterating the problem and calling for a solution that foam comes out of their mouth.
Whose Computer Is It?
Walt Mossber column: Whose Computer Is It?.
See, that is one of the most important reason I've stuck with Apple since the mid-nineties: apart from better usability, Apple works for customers, not sponsors or middlemen. Apple respects the customer.
See, that is one of the most important reason I've stuck with Apple since the mid-nineties: apart from better usability, Apple works for customers, not sponsors or middlemen. Apple respects the customer.
Do Ya Think I'm Sexy
Remember the Rod Stewart hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy"?
Ready for a decidedly non-family version? Enter The Revolting Cocks. (It means The Rebellious Roosters, obviously.)
OK, the video is silly (and not for the tender of sensibility), but the music rocks.
What I really wanted to post was their much newer song "Pole Grinder" which is amazing. But it does not seem to be on Utoobe.
Ready for a decidedly non-family version? Enter The Revolting Cocks. (It means The Rebellious Roosters, obviously.)
OK, the video is silly (and not for the tender of sensibility), but the music rocks.
What I really wanted to post was their much newer song "Pole Grinder" which is amazing. But it does not seem to be on Utoobe.
Nikon vs Canon
If you have any interest in high-end cameras, either practical or intellectual, here is a very observant article about how the Canon/Nikon battle is going. (Hint: Nikon is losing ground fast, it's sad.) (Note, this is only true in the high end, not consumer cameras. Under $1500, Nikon rules.)
Susie Bright on fantasies
"It’s normal, it’s common, to fantasize about the bizarre— the things that in real-life circumstances would trouble us, frighten us, or maybe just make us laugh. Erotic fantasies take the unbearable issues in life and turn them into orgasmic gunpowder."
- Susie Bright article
- Susie Bright article
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Canon rebate scam
Last year when I bought a Canon 5D it had a mail-in rebate of £200. It took ten months and multiple e-mails and snail-mail letters to finally get the check.
I had a suspicion I was not alone. This proves to be the case.
It looks like Canon and others like them are doing it on purpose, saving big money on the big percentage of customer who just give up or forget. This is dirty business, and these companies should not be doing it.
A similar thing from Sandisk.
JB enlightens:
"Well they had a problem in the US which was blamed on the company they used to process the rebates. Canon USA promptly made public apologies (on forums and blogs) and created a way to register your rebate request on their website. This was supposed to speed up processing.
When I submitted my rebate request after they had done that my rebate was processed and in my hands within 3 weeks, maybe a bit less.
So perhaps the Canon Europe managers have been less active in fixing the problem. I haven't heard any complaints after the initial problem was fixed here in the US."
They made apologies on forums and blogs? Really? I've never heard of a big company doing that.
JB expands:
This is the message that was sent to several forums/blogs by Canon:
--------------
"Hi, Folks:
Let me assure anyone who is interested that Canon U.S.A. takes the issue of
customer satisfaction very seriously. It's not by mistake that the PC
Magazine Readers Survey has rated us #1 in digital camera after-sales
customer satisfaction for the past 3 years in a row.
We are sincerely dedicated to honoring legitimate claims for our mail-in
rebate programs. Towards that end, we recently set up a new system on our
website that allows customers who qualify for rebates to expedite their
requests through a pre-qualification process. Please visit the following web
page and click on "PRE-QUALIFY YOUR REBATE" for details.
[They had a link here but blogger doesn't like it]
In addition, we provide a toll-free dedicated support line for rebate
requests through our Customer Support Center at 1-800-828-4040, and there is
also a dedicated e-mail address for assistance on rebate claims:
rebates@...
Hope this helps!
Best Regards,
Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc."
I had a suspicion I was not alone. This proves to be the case.
It looks like Canon and others like them are doing it on purpose, saving big money on the big percentage of customer who just give up or forget. This is dirty business, and these companies should not be doing it.
A similar thing from Sandisk.
JB enlightens:
"Well they had a problem in the US which was blamed on the company they used to process the rebates. Canon USA promptly made public apologies (on forums and blogs) and created a way to register your rebate request on their website. This was supposed to speed up processing.
When I submitted my rebate request after they had done that my rebate was processed and in my hands within 3 weeks, maybe a bit less.
So perhaps the Canon Europe managers have been less active in fixing the problem. I haven't heard any complaints after the initial problem was fixed here in the US."
They made apologies on forums and blogs? Really? I've never heard of a big company doing that.
JB expands:
This is the message that was sent to several forums/blogs by Canon:
--------------
"Hi, Folks:
Let me assure anyone who is interested that Canon U.S.A. takes the issue of
customer satisfaction very seriously. It's not by mistake that the PC
Magazine Readers Survey has rated us #1 in digital camera after-sales
customer satisfaction for the past 3 years in a row.
We are sincerely dedicated to honoring legitimate claims for our mail-in
rebate programs. Towards that end, we recently set up a new system on our
website that allows customers who qualify for rebates to expedite their
requests through a pre-qualification process. Please visit the following web
page and click on "PRE-QUALIFY YOUR REBATE" for details.
[They had a link here but blogger doesn't like it]
In addition, we provide a toll-free dedicated support line for rebate
requests through our Customer Support Center at 1-800-828-4040, and there is
also a dedicated e-mail address for assistance on rebate claims:
rebates@...
Hope this helps!
Best Regards,
Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc."
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Brooks Jensen portfolio
Brooks Jensen portfolio.
I recommend downloading the PDF file. It's a beautiful collection, with nice and humorous captions.
I own his October Seas prints portfolio. Beautiful stuff.
More.
I asked Brooks about his use of the term "folio" for these photo collections:
Dear Brooks,
The interview on the Luminous-landscape video journal is excellent.
I am a little confused by your use of the word "folio" for the picture collections you sell. None of the definitions from my online dictionary really fit:
"The noun folio has 3 meanings:
Meaning #1: the system of numbering pages
Synonyms: pagination, page number, paging
Meaning #2: a sheet of any written or printed material (especially in a manuscript or book)
Synonym: leaf
Meaning #3: a book (or manuscript) consisting of large sheets of paper folded in the middle to make two leaves or four pages."
Is it incomplete, or am I being dull, or are you coining a new use?
Oh, by the way: will there be a PDF version of the new Wakarimasen folio on your site?
Yours, Eolake
And he wrote me back:
Eolake,
Well, I have to confess I'm redefining the term a bit by adapting a bit of both definition #2 and #3.
Years ago, I took a couple classes in handmade artist's books to try to find a way to use gelatin silver prints in a bound book, but I never did find a usable format that was practical. I even visited the Center for Photography in Tucson to see the artist's books with photographs in their special collection, but most of the ones they had were literally falling apart from the stress on the bindings. Finally, I just threw in the towel on the whole idea of binding and settled on the idea of loose sheets. I especially warmed to the idea when I realized that this method gave people the option of viewing the prints either as hand-held objects, or they could mat or frame them if they chose to.
To me, a "folio" is a collection of loose, unbound prints defining a content that is more like a book than a random stack of unsequenced prints. In my folios, I use a title page to lead things off, then typically a statement about the project, the images pages come next, sometimes an afterword is appropriate, and the last page is a colophon. They are sequenced, like a book, but loose, like a portfolio. It's my answer to the problem of how to include original prints in a book without doing tip-ins. I can do this type of presentation with gelatin silver prints, photogravure, inkjet prints, etc. I can include a sewn text signature or French fold component. I can even include a CD if it's called for in the project. It's turned out to be quite a flexible design idea that allows all kinds of individual adaptations.
I'm currently using a folio cover that is die-cut with a hole that allows me to place a title page behind the cover, showing through. This allows me to produce a large quantity of covers (amortizing the costs involved), and make folios for any project from one copy to hundreds. Again, flexibility is the key to the design.
I've never actually seen anything quite like the folios I produce, so there really isn't a term for it. I've been forced to make my own definition. I even tried to find a latin root that I could adapt, but folio seemed the best. I've used this term since 1992 when I made the original Made of Steel folio.
Yes, we will have a PDF of the folio posted on the website tomorrow. We almost had it finished today, but we decided to add a video component to the website that shows the folio being opened and the individual prints.
Hope this answers your question! And, thanks for asking.
Brooks Jensen
Soon
"When are you going to tell them!?"
"Soon."
"When is 'soon'?"
"When the big hand hits the S and the little hand hits the 'oon'."
- Gilmore Girls
"Soon."
"When is 'soon'?"
"When the big hand hits the S and the little hand hits the 'oon'."
- Gilmore Girls
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
"Nephew", Danish band
It seems Denmark has a new pop sensation, the band Nephew. And it looks like the country and even individuals are in two minds of whether it's great or crap. At first glance I kinda like their song Igen og igen og. ("Again and again and".) I think they'll go places.
Humor
I've come to realize that almost all of films and TV shows I really appreciate have some element of humor. Though often subtle or different.
I think that humor is not a... thing you do. It's not a technique. It's not something added. It is a basic thing. I think humor is a perspective on life.
Being able to laugh is to be able to put yourself at a healthy distance to life.
To see the absurdity of it.
And to be able to process and get through pain.
And writing or creating funny things is the ability to help others do this. Which is a substantial gift, hugely valuable.
I think that humor is not a... thing you do. It's not a technique. It's not something added. It is a basic thing. I think humor is a perspective on life.
Being able to laugh is to be able to put yourself at a healthy distance to life.
To see the absurdity of it.
And to be able to process and get through pain.
And writing or creating funny things is the ability to help others do this. Which is a substantial gift, hugely valuable.
Meryl Streep singing "I'm Checking Out"
Meryl Streep singing "I'm Checking Out". One of my favorite movie songs of all time, from one of my all time favorite movies.
(First time I saw this was with my likkle sister in the movies. When the titles rolled over the last half of this, she was dragging my arm to get out of the theatre. I wanted to watch the song!) (Gee, thinking about it, I think it must have been the second time. I think I watched this movie even more times than I've watched Blues Brothers.)
I've posted on Meryl here and here. The last one includes an MP3 file of the song above, if you like it.
I guess most people don't consider her one of the prettiest stars in Hollywood. Perhaps beautiful, but not pretty. I'm wondering, what if she had been really pretty also? Would people then have not been able to see her talent? Gotten less respect? Or would she just have been totally untouchable, above competition?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Well, there must be an order of magnitude difference in the size of the R&D budgets of these two companies. The fact that Nikon is able to compete at all is pretty amazing.
It seems to me these Nikon-is-a-has-been statements and articles appear regularly at the point in the product life cycles when the flagship Nikon camera has been in the market for quite some time and Canon has just come out with their latest and greatest.
Still, as I wrote earlier, Canon is constantly one step ahead. But if Nikon starts falling two far behind one might expect them to join forces with some other player, and then the competition would start anew.
Canon on the other hand has made the marketing decision to compete from the mid level to the top in the DSLR world. Their entry model 400D is competitive with the Nikon D80 leaving three Nikon models in the region below this.
Canon has possibly decided that the profit margin is too low in this area when you had a pack of wanna-be competitors like Pentax and Olympus driving the prices down.
So I don't think Nikon is failing, they just have a different plan which is based on their suppliers. Time will tell which is the most successful.
Of course Nikon cannot afford to fall completely into the shadows in the upper end of the market since that would damage their sales at the bottom. So they will have to come up with something to compete with the Mk III and the eventual 40D which we can assume will have some Mk III features.