Like I expected, the Apple laptop "keynote" (read "press event") is now viewable on apple.com.
Update: comments on the event: Apparently the MacBook is the best selling Macintosh ever. Pretty cool. And this is a major update for it. (They are keeping the plastic model too, at a lower price.) I think the choice between the MacBook and the Pro is now pretty hard.
Update: this article makes it easier.
"The Energy Saver icon used to be an incandescent light bulb; Apple has replaced it with a compact fluorescent as a part of its quest to reduce the energy consumption of its icons."
Hehehe.
Also if I were one of the many people who use a portable for all their computing and taking it back and forth to work, I'd get the new display for it. Built-in charger, built-in USB 2 hub, built in camera, microphone, and speakers. Dang kewl.
I commented recently how amazing it is that streaming video has gone in a handful of years from an unreliable thumbnail-sized window, to TV-quality. And now I find that I can watch streaming video from Apple... in full HD! Holy mama.
The only weakness, I think, is that if you pause the stream for more than a minute, when you restart it, it takes several seconds to reconnect and start playing. Why doesn't QuickTime just buffer a minute or two so it can start playing immediately?
I used to be highly involved with Macintosh/Apple culture, writing about and checking the news every day, and evangelizing about it. Now not so much. I'm not sure why, it could be 1: personality change for me. 2: the fact that Apple is flying so high that my helps seems superflous. 3: After all these years, I finally have my perfect computer. My Mac Pro is fast enough that I never have to think about it, and also it is quiet, which was certainly not the case up to and including the PowerMac G5. For years, the noise bothered me so much that I used a laptop or iMac for surfing and email, and a PowerMac for image processing and design. Now I can use a single machine for everything.
Also I've lost a lot of the "us versus them" think I used to have, so I don't really give a hoot anymore if anybody uses Mac or Windows or Linux or whatever.
In other words I've not been following developments really, so I'm surprised to hear in this video that Apple, which last time I heard had 5% market share at a generous estimate, now is up to 17%, and a revenue share of 31%! That is an astonishing change. I remember Jobs saying, back when they started the "switcher" campaign a few years ago, "what's a couple of percentage points between friends". Well, it has become more than just a couple.
I remember back in 1995 when I bought my first Mac, a friend drove me out to collect it, and he said he did not think Apple would survive, because they had a too small market share, ignoring the fact that if a brand had to have a majority market share to survive, the world economy could not function.
The fact that I get a little pleasure from being right makes me realize that I still have a little bit of "us versus them" mentality left. Durnit. :-)
But more importantly I want Apple to succeed and survive because I believe they care more about quality and the customer's experience than, say, Microsoft, and so they have a positive influence on the whole market.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Morality and resources
Here's an interesting argument from the Dilbert TV show:
"As long as there are starving people in the world, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral." And: "... until you give it all away, you're not more moral, you just feel less guilty."
It's said by a character in a story, but it seems that the author believes it, and I've heard it said before (by Dave Sim). And I think many people believe it, and many of us partly believe it or suspect it.
But it's absurd. After you've given it all away, shouldn't you be working more hours, so you can save more poor people? And then wouldn't it be a sin to buy a pair of good shoes instead of the cheapest ones you can find? Or go barefoot actually? If you live in a home bigger than twice your bed, aren't you taking food out of poor people's mouths?
And of course it negates personal responsibility. If I stop working, soon I'll be poor, and then apparently it will be your duty to feed me.
Not to mention it's a completely mechanistic viewpoint of the world and resources. It is the idea that resources, represented by "money", is a finite quantity, and anything you use is taken from somebody else. It simply does not work like that, not even on a practical level and certainly not on a metaphysical level.
I'm not saying you shouldn't give. (Just an hour ago I gave $111 to Chicago Public Radio.) I'm just saying you can't judge others by what they give, it's a personal choice. And to claim that the only moral viewpoint is somebody who gives everything, is ridiculous. Just for one thing, it leaves not a single person I know.
I invite more arguments, on either side.
Through The Lens said:
According to an age-old adage, anything you give comes back to you multiplied. If true, then giving must be the most efficient method of wealth creation there is. Regardless of how you define wealth.
In 1985,Roedy Green donated his fully paid for 4-bedroom house and everything else he owned to help out with the Ethiopian famine. Today he seems to be doing well (he even survived AIDS), so maybe it works. But I'm sure there are counter examples, too.
The Dilbert moral code "As long as there are starving people in the world, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral." plays on the Christian idea of morals which I certainly don't subscribe to. (Roedy Green, by the way, is an atheist.)
On the other hand, giving (or more generally, action) is the way we affect (move things in) our environment, whether it be the giving of energy, mass or finances. The more we give (act), the richer our life experience becomes.
I wouldn't give away resources I need for myself. But then if I am perfectly honest with myself, I don't need much at all. The question then becomes, are the resources I hold but don't need right now a liability? Would it be beneficial for me to get rid of them as soon as possible, recognizing that they are contributing to immobility and thickness of energy at the moment, and also trusting that should I ever need them I can easily acquire them again at that moment?
Tim Ferriss coined the term "The New Rich", replacing the old definition of wealth (money) with time + mobility. Mobility contributes to more meaningful encounters with people. Mobility is also lightness. And lightness contributes to spirituality.
To summarise: rather than looking at giving as a moral obligation, I recommend looking at it as a way to enrich one's experience. And indeed, giving seems to be the direct way to get the most out of life.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
I think that Ferriss' definition is better than "money". For sure, having a Billion bucks don't do you much good if you have no time and can't move.
I also think "wealth" is different for each of us. For me, time and mobility are very important, and I'm blessed with much of both. I work just a couple hours a day, and can do that from anywhere in the world with Net access. But also increasingly a "connection with Source" is my top priority. However, that gets very metaphysical, so...
"As long as there are starving people in the world, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral." And: "... until you give it all away, you're not more moral, you just feel less guilty."
It's said by a character in a story, but it seems that the author believes it, and I've heard it said before (by Dave Sim). And I think many people believe it, and many of us partly believe it or suspect it.
But it's absurd. After you've given it all away, shouldn't you be working more hours, so you can save more poor people? And then wouldn't it be a sin to buy a pair of good shoes instead of the cheapest ones you can find? Or go barefoot actually? If you live in a home bigger than twice your bed, aren't you taking food out of poor people's mouths?
And of course it negates personal responsibility. If I stop working, soon I'll be poor, and then apparently it will be your duty to feed me.
Not to mention it's a completely mechanistic viewpoint of the world and resources. It is the idea that resources, represented by "money", is a finite quantity, and anything you use is taken from somebody else. It simply does not work like that, not even on a practical level and certainly not on a metaphysical level.
I'm not saying you shouldn't give. (Just an hour ago I gave $111 to Chicago Public Radio.) I'm just saying you can't judge others by what they give, it's a personal choice. And to claim that the only moral viewpoint is somebody who gives everything, is ridiculous. Just for one thing, it leaves not a single person I know.
I invite more arguments, on either side.
Through The Lens said:
According to an age-old adage, anything you give comes back to you multiplied. If true, then giving must be the most efficient method of wealth creation there is. Regardless of how you define wealth.
In 1985,
The Dilbert moral code "As long as there are starving people in the world, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral." plays on the Christian idea of morals which I certainly don't subscribe to. (Roedy Green, by the way, is an atheist.)
On the other hand, giving (or more generally, action) is the way we affect (move things in) our environment, whether it be the giving of energy, mass or finances. The more we give (act), the richer our life experience becomes.
I wouldn't give away resources I need for myself. But then if I am perfectly honest with myself, I don't need much at all. The question then becomes, are the resources I hold but don't need right now a liability? Would it be beneficial for me to get rid of them as soon as possible, recognizing that they are contributing to immobility and thickness of energy at the moment, and also trusting that should I ever need them I can easily acquire them again at that moment?
Tim Ferriss coined the term "The New Rich", replacing the old definition of wealth (money) with time + mobility. Mobility contributes to more meaningful encounters with people. Mobility is also lightness. And lightness contributes to spirituality.
To summarise: rather than looking at giving as a moral obligation, I recommend looking at it as a way to enrich one's experience. And indeed, giving seems to be the direct way to get the most out of life.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
I think that Ferriss' definition is better than "money". For sure, having a Billion bucks don't do you much good if you have no time and can't move.
I also think "wealth" is different for each of us. For me, time and mobility are very important, and I'm blessed with much of both. I work just a couple hours a day, and can do that from anywhere in the world with Net access. But also increasingly a "connection with Source" is my top priority. However, that gets very metaphysical, so...
This American Life radio show on money
This American Life on Chicago Public Radio has two episodes online about trying to understand the credit crisis.
This one and this one. (Click "full episode" on the left.)
One of the official loan products is (surely that's "was") a "NINA" loan. It means "no income no assets". And this title did not set off any alarm bells?
I've only heard some of the first one yet, but it came warmly recommended, and so far it does seem highly interesting. Big concepts and clear concepts.
Update: brilliant stuff, do listen in. They interview a guy who worked in this mortgage debt chain, and he made around $70,000. Per month!
House prices will drop 40% by 2010, says report.
"The average price of a house in the UK will not climb back to its 2007 peak until 2023, a leading academic said today."
... OK, I'm sorry, but I have to say this in public at least once: Told Ya So!
I've been saying since around 2003 that a housing crash was coming. It was delayed due to the new high-risk lending, and it has become much worse because of that. But even without any knowledge of technical matters, it was just obvious to me that house prices can't continue to climb ten percent year over year indefinitely.
And if you look at the long-trend graph, the last crash had prices falling for six years before they started to recover. So I'm not planning any house purchases until 2012 at the earliest.
"Clare said his survey was "very bad news" for anyone who bought a house in the UK last summer and predicted that negative equity would become a big feature of "our economic landscape for years to come".
However, Clare thinks this correction will make UK properties affordable again."
By the way, the same article says that UK inflation is expected to fall now, maybe even become deflation. Which is good news to me, but unexpected. Does anybody know why this would be so?
For all those who forgot that house prices had fallen before, be reminded by this Spitting Image spoof song (from the early nineties?).
This one and this one. (Click "full episode" on the left.)
One of the official loan products is (surely that's "was") a "NINA" loan. It means "no income no assets". And this title did not set off any alarm bells?
I've only heard some of the first one yet, but it came warmly recommended, and so far it does seem highly interesting. Big concepts and clear concepts.
Update: brilliant stuff, do listen in. They interview a guy who worked in this mortgage debt chain, and he made around $70,000. Per month!
---------------
House prices will drop 40% by 2010, says report.
"The average price of a house in the UK will not climb back to its 2007 peak until 2023, a leading academic said today."
... OK, I'm sorry, but I have to say this in public at least once: Told Ya So!
I've been saying since around 2003 that a housing crash was coming. It was delayed due to the new high-risk lending, and it has become much worse because of that. But even without any knowledge of technical matters, it was just obvious to me that house prices can't continue to climb ten percent year over year indefinitely.
And if you look at the long-trend graph, the last crash had prices falling for six years before they started to recover. So I'm not planning any house purchases until 2012 at the earliest.
"Clare said his survey was "very bad news" for anyone who bought a house in the UK last summer and predicted that negative equity would become a big feature of "our economic landscape for years to come".
However, Clare thinks this correction will make UK properties affordable again."
By the way, the same article says that UK inflation is expected to fall now, maybe even become deflation. Which is good news to me, but unexpected. Does anybody know why this would be so?
For all those who forgot that house prices had fallen before, be reminded by this Spitting Image spoof song (from the early nineties?).
New MacBooks
Apple has released new MacBooks (there's a new MacBook Pro also) and a new external display made for use with a laptop. (So far I'm not sure what the raison d'etre is.)
Possibly tomorrow there'll be a video of the press conference.
... Beware, if you watch the intro/promotional video in HD, it's full of close-up interviews with middle-aged men, don't sit too close to your monitor. (This trend in recent years of filming interviews in super close-up is not a good idea. Almost nobody looks that good.)
Possibly tomorrow there'll be a video of the press conference.
... Beware, if you watch the intro/promotional video in HD, it's full of close-up interviews with middle-aged men, don't sit too close to your monitor. (This trend in recent years of filming interviews in super close-up is not a good idea. Almost nobody looks that good.)
Bjørk and Freud
Both Bjørk and Charlie found much humor in Bjørk's use of the term "anal" for being overly meticulous. It's reasonably common slang.
The term, I'm sure some are not aware, is short for "anal-retentive". See below.
... Man, Freud was messed up!
Wikipedia: anal retentive
The term anal-retentive (or anally retentive, anal retentive) derives from Freudian Psychology, although in common usage the original meaning has been altered. This term is an extension of anal, and can be used interchangeably.
Common usage
Conversationally, the term is often used to describe a person deemed to be overly obsessed with minor details. Its roots are said to be from Sigmund Freud.
The term is often used in a derogatory sense to describe a person with such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the so-called anal-retentive person.
Origins
In the psychology of Freud, the anal stage is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development. This is a time when an infant's attention moves from oral stimulation to anal stimulation (including the bowels and bladder), usually synchronous with learning to control their excretory functions, a time of toilet training. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period of time may develop "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control.[1] Those whose anal characteristics continue into later life are said to be "anal retentive", or conversely, those who reject anal characteristics are said to have "anal expulsive" personality types. Some believe this to be a mild expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.
Although Freud's theories on early childhood have been influential to the psychological community, research suggests that the overall pattern of parental attitudes has a much more concrete effect on how an infant will grow up. There is no conclusive research linking anal stage conflicts with anal personality types.
The term, I'm sure some are not aware, is short for "anal-retentive". See below.
... Man, Freud was messed up!
Wikipedia: anal retentive
The term anal-retentive (or anally retentive, anal retentive) derives from Freudian Psychology, although in common usage the original meaning has been altered. This term is an extension of anal, and can be used interchangeably.
Common usage
Conversationally, the term is often used to describe a person deemed to be overly obsessed with minor details. Its roots are said to be from Sigmund Freud.
The term is often used in a derogatory sense to describe a person with such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the so-called anal-retentive person.
Origins
In the psychology of Freud, the anal stage is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development. This is a time when an infant's attention moves from oral stimulation to anal stimulation (including the bowels and bladder), usually synchronous with learning to control their excretory functions, a time of toilet training. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period of time may develop "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control.[1] Those whose anal characteristics continue into later life are said to be "anal retentive", or conversely, those who reject anal characteristics are said to have "anal expulsive" personality types. Some believe this to be a mild expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.
Although Freud's theories on early childhood have been influential to the psychological community, research suggests that the overall pattern of parental attitudes has a much more concrete effect on how an infant will grow up. There is no conclusive research linking anal stage conflicts with anal personality types.
Drawing Dilbert
Scott Adams has made a post and a video about how he draws Dilbert on a tablet screen.
I liked how he uses Photoshop. Many years ago I found out how it's much easier to make smooth lines using Illustrator, so I've stuck to that. But there are advantages to Photoshop too, so I think I'll fool around with that.
I had tip for him, I hope he can use it. I wrote to him:
You wrote: "Before I add the color, I convert from grayscale to bitmap then back to grayscale and up to CMYK. The detour to bitmap makes the color fills cleaner, going all the way to the black lines without leaving a little border."
You can skip the detour if you set the Tolerance of the paint bucket tool to a higher number. 99 seems to work for me.
I liked how he uses Photoshop. Many years ago I found out how it's much easier to make smooth lines using Illustrator, so I've stuck to that. But there are advantages to Photoshop too, so I think I'll fool around with that.
I had tip for him, I hope he can use it. I wrote to him:
You wrote: "Before I add the color, I convert from grayscale to bitmap then back to grayscale and up to CMYK. The detour to bitmap makes the color fills cleaner, going all the way to the black lines without leaving a little border."
You can skip the detour if you set the Tolerance of the paint bucket tool to a higher number. 99 seems to work for me.
Unusual Real Political Parties
Unusual Real Political Parties
[I didn't write this one. I think they are real because I know the Danish one was real.]
Bored of the same old two-party system? Check out these actual political parties that exist or existed.
THE RHINOCEROS PARTY - This Canadian Party existed with a very unusual platform. It included: repealing the law of gravity, paving the province of Manitoba to create the world's largest parking lot, providing higher education by building taller schools, instituting English, French and illiteracy as Canada's three official languages, making bubble gum the national currency, putting the national debt on Visa, counting the Thousand Islands to make sure none were missing, and banning lousy Canadian winters.
BEER LOVERS PARTY - This post-Soviet assembly was founded in 1993 in the state of Belarus. Among its major goals was the push for the cleanness and quality of the national brew. Its logo was a cartoon of a drunken hedgehog. The party was liquidated in 1998.
THE ABSOLUTELY ABSURD PARTY is another Canadian joke party which advocates the following: Lowering the voting age to 14 (Because, after all, when was the last time a 14-year-old started a war?), changing the rules in federal elections so that the candidate in last place becomes the elected official, raffling off Senate seats as a fundraising mechanism, and replacing the Department of Defense with a crack elite squad of Rock/Paper/Scissors commandos.
THE UNION OF CONSCIENTIOUSLY WORK-SHY ELEMENTS was an unusually successful frivolous political party founded by comedian Jacob Haugaard in Denmark in 1979. Haugaard eventually won a seat in the Danish Parliament by making the following campaign promises: Tail winds on all bicycle paths, better weather, better Christmas presents, more pieces of Renaissance furniture in Ikea, Nutella in Army field rations, more bread for ducks in the park, and free beer and sausages, funded by his state party funding, served to his voters in the public park in Aarhus after each election. (The last three were actually fulfilled during his term in office.)
THE HUNGARIAN DOUBLE-TAILED DOG PARTY is a joke political party that was founded in 2004. All of the candidates are named Istvan Nagy, two very common first and last names in Hungary. While not an officially registered party, it nevertheless made the following promises in the 2006 elections: Eternal life, world peace, one-day work weeks, two sunsets a day, smaller gravitation, free beer and low taxes.
THE MCGILLICUDDY SERIOUS PARTY is a joke party in New Zealand that promotes the following: Replacing the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps with mounted knights, replacing money with chocolate fish as legal tender, using beer as a national defense strategy by leaving many bottles on all beaches so any invading army would abandon its attack and get drunk instead, restricting the vote to only those under 18 (with actual campaign ads run during children's programming), votes for trees (as New Zealanders have a reputation as environmentalists), air bags for the New Zealand Stock Exchange (in case of a crash), good weather (but only if the voters behave), job creation by carpeting the nations highways, and the sending-out of intelligence agents around the world to wipe New Zealand off published maps so no one could invade the country.
THE DONALD DUCK PARTY is a Swedish joke political party that received write-in votes before it even existed. Capitalizing on its popularity, one man, Bosse Person, registered it. He is its only member. In 1991, the party received 1,535 write in votes by promoting a platform which advocated free liquor and wider sidewalks.
THE HAPPENING HAPPY HIPPY PARTY was a spoof political party that was really more a Web site and "e-zine" that ran in the late '90's and early '00's. It promoted easing the burden on Britain's National Health Service by making accidents illegal and improving Britain's climate by towing the island 200 miles south.
THE MARIJUANA PARTY actually exists and is a current US political party that runs candidates who - you guessed it - work tirelessly toward the legalization of marijuana!
THE YOUTH INTERNATIONAL PARTY was a highly theatrical and anti-authoritarian political party that existed in the US in the 60's. Its members were called "Yippies." Better known for street theatre and politically themed pranks that mocked the status quo (such as running a pig as its candidate in the 1968 Election and throwing money out to the crowd at the New York Stock Exchange), this socialist countercultural organization was amusingly dubbed the "Groucho Marxists."
[I didn't write this one. I think they are real because I know the Danish one was real.]
Bored of the same old two-party system? Check out these actual political parties that exist or existed.
THE RHINOCEROS PARTY - This Canadian Party existed with a very unusual platform. It included: repealing the law of gravity, paving the province of Manitoba to create the world's largest parking lot, providing higher education by building taller schools, instituting English, French and illiteracy as Canada's three official languages, making bubble gum the national currency, putting the national debt on Visa, counting the Thousand Islands to make sure none were missing, and banning lousy Canadian winters.
BEER LOVERS PARTY - This post-Soviet assembly was founded in 1993 in the state of Belarus. Among its major goals was the push for the cleanness and quality of the national brew. Its logo was a cartoon of a drunken hedgehog. The party was liquidated in 1998.
THE ABSOLUTELY ABSURD PARTY is another Canadian joke party which advocates the following: Lowering the voting age to 14 (Because, after all, when was the last time a 14-year-old started a war?), changing the rules in federal elections so that the candidate in last place becomes the elected official, raffling off Senate seats as a fundraising mechanism, and replacing the Department of Defense with a crack elite squad of Rock/Paper/Scissors commandos.
THE UNION OF CONSCIENTIOUSLY WORK-SHY ELEMENTS was an unusually successful frivolous political party founded by comedian Jacob Haugaard in Denmark in 1979. Haugaard eventually won a seat in the Danish Parliament by making the following campaign promises: Tail winds on all bicycle paths, better weather, better Christmas presents, more pieces of Renaissance furniture in Ikea, Nutella in Army field rations, more bread for ducks in the park, and free beer and sausages, funded by his state party funding, served to his voters in the public park in Aarhus after each election. (The last three were actually fulfilled during his term in office.)
THE HUNGARIAN DOUBLE-TAILED DOG PARTY is a joke political party that was founded in 2004. All of the candidates are named Istvan Nagy, two very common first and last names in Hungary. While not an officially registered party, it nevertheless made the following promises in the 2006 elections: Eternal life, world peace, one-day work weeks, two sunsets a day, smaller gravitation, free beer and low taxes.
THE MCGILLICUDDY SERIOUS PARTY is a joke party in New Zealand that promotes the following: Replacing the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps with mounted knights, replacing money with chocolate fish as legal tender, using beer as a national defense strategy by leaving many bottles on all beaches so any invading army would abandon its attack and get drunk instead, restricting the vote to only those under 18 (with actual campaign ads run during children's programming), votes for trees (as New Zealanders have a reputation as environmentalists), air bags for the New Zealand Stock Exchange (in case of a crash), good weather (but only if the voters behave), job creation by carpeting the nations highways, and the sending-out of intelligence agents around the world to wipe New Zealand off published maps so no one could invade the country.
THE DONALD DUCK PARTY is a Swedish joke political party that received write-in votes before it even existed. Capitalizing on its popularity, one man, Bosse Person, registered it. He is its only member. In 1991, the party received 1,535 write in votes by promoting a platform which advocated free liquor and wider sidewalks.
THE HAPPENING HAPPY HIPPY PARTY was a spoof political party that was really more a Web site and "e-zine" that ran in the late '90's and early '00's. It promoted easing the burden on Britain's National Health Service by making accidents illegal and improving Britain's climate by towing the island 200 miles south.
THE MARIJUANA PARTY actually exists and is a current US political party that runs candidates who - you guessed it - work tirelessly toward the legalization of marijuana!
THE YOUTH INTERNATIONAL PARTY was a highly theatrical and anti-authoritarian political party that existed in the US in the 60's. Its members were called "Yippies." Better known for street theatre and politically themed pranks that mocked the status quo (such as running a pig as its candidate in the 1968 Election and throwing money out to the crowd at the New York Stock Exchange), this socialist countercultural organization was amusingly dubbed the "Groucho Marxists."
Laptops
Well, it seems Apple will release new laptops tomorrow. But what really struck me today was that I walked past the local Currys (low end electronics and home appliances store), and they are selling a Packard Bell laptop for three hundred pounds sterling! Three hundreed! (about $500 or €400) Including wifi and everything. Holy mama, I never thought I'd see a laptop at such a price, how does anybody make a profit.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Harry Browne
"According to Harry Browne, not one person in a thousand really understands what money is. A proper grasp of it will give you the key that unlocks the many puzzles of national economic events. Without that understanding, it's impossible to think for oneself; instead, you're forced to rely upon the superficial conclusions of people with conflicting opinions and credentials."
HarryBrowne.org
HarryBrowne.org
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Relationships and interests and Isabella Rossellini
It seems to me that many women (most?) expects that she, and the relationship, must be the most important thing in their man's life. This always seemed wrong to me.
So it's refreshing to hear Isabella Rossellini says in this interview (last half of the video) that if her man pays too much attention to her, she thinks, "what's wrong with you, don't you have something to do, something important to think about?"
And she lives it too, in fact she only talked about it because the interviewer brought up that it seemed to him that her husbands had always been men for whom she came second in their life.
So it's refreshing to hear Isabella Rossellini says in this interview (last half of the video) that if her man pays too much attention to her, she thinks, "what's wrong with you, don't you have something to do, something important to think about?"
And she lives it too, in fact she only talked about it because the interviewer brought up that it seemed to him that her husbands had always been men for whom she came second in their life.
Update: it just seems to me that considering a single person to be more important than the whole world put together is highly irrational.
Getting close enough
One of my correspondents send me a page of her photos. She has a Nikon D80 and no training. And the pictures are better than I expected. I like them. (She is a bit shy, but she'd like comments.)
And here's one reason: unlike 99% of amateur pictures, she gets close enough. Or to be more precise: she knows to crop out all the irrelevant sorroundings. Most snapshots in the world have the main motif floating in a sea of messy, uh, mess.
My theory is that most people, not used to thinking about pictures, don't see the frame of the viewfinder. They just see the subject and don't notice the distance to the edge. And much less think about how thing are arranged in the picture.
And here's one reason: unlike 99% of amateur pictures, she gets close enough. Or to be more precise: she knows to crop out all the irrelevant sorroundings. Most snapshots in the world have the main motif floating in a sea of messy, uh, mess.
My theory is that most people, not used to thinking about pictures, don't see the frame of the viewfinder. They just see the subject and don't notice the distance to the edge. And much less think about how thing are arranged in the picture.
Garden closeups
Just had a chat with the neighbors in the garden (it's a stunningly lovely day this Sunday) and took these.
Some of these, like the table and the leaves, are better in full size, for the texture and tones.
By the way, does anybody know: on most sites (like my stobblehouse.com) an image will scale to fit the window in modern browsers. But for some reason on this site they don't, neither in Windows of Mac... ?
I was asked: "Do you have a green room? ... red room?... darkroom?"
I said I used to, but these days the computer and printer has all the advantages.
... Funny, the last picture (many leaves) I added later as an afterthough, but I think it is actually one of the best. I have it sitting on my screen desktop now. I like the interplay between the various sizes of leaves, and different colors.
Some of these, like the table and the leaves, are better in full size, for the texture and tones.
By the way, does anybody know: on most sites (like my stobblehouse.com) an image will scale to fit the window in modern browsers. But for some reason on this site they don't, neither in Windows of Mac... ?
I was asked: "Do you have a green room? ... red room?... darkroom?"
I said I used to, but these days the computer and printer has all the advantages.
... Funny, the last picture (many leaves) I added later as an afterthough, but I think it is actually one of the best. I have it sitting on my screen desktop now. I like the interplay between the various sizes of leaves, and different colors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)