At risk of sounding authoritarian, I believe that relationships are contracts. They are agreements between two or more willing parties to stay within the certain terms of those contracts, to the satisfaction of all concerned. If the terms of the contract are violated, the contract itself is in danger of being voided. Hence, it is useful to lay down the terms as precisely as possible, early on in the game.
This also means that the contracts may vary depending on the parties concerned. For some, the contracts are exclusive, and cannot include others within their terms. For others, the contracts cannot be exclusive, but must include others. The flavors in between are numerous, and may incorporate a number of clauses that either party finds essential.
Overall, the true danger (and wonder) is that the contract is not set in stone. Not everyone will be sure when they have violated a clause, and even when notified, which clause it was. Yet there is wiggle room in that some are more forgiving than others of violated clauses...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Price Vs Value
When consuming goods, it is all too easy to be blinded by their price, to the detriment of the evaluation of their utility value. When shopping, a glimpse into the bargain bin will remind people of how they made countless impulse purchases on "cheap" goods, only to find the same goods piling up in their storerooms. Strange, how low priced goods can represent such poor value.
I think the trick to spending wisely is not just to spend as little as possible, but to spend as little as possible on goods you actually need. That is, to learn to evaluate the "value" goods have when they're in your possession.
Ironically, getting better value may occasionally involve buying items that are more expensive than their alternatives. The thought seldom occurs to the budget-minded because it's just so counter-intuitive. Still, it must be remembered that the economy is not perfect, and some goods are simply "better" than others, with "better" being a subjective value known only to the consumers...
I think the trick to spending wisely is not just to spend as little as possible, but to spend as little as possible on goods you actually need. That is, to learn to evaluate the "value" goods have when they're in your possession.
Ironically, getting better value may occasionally involve buying items that are more expensive than their alternatives. The thought seldom occurs to the budget-minded because it's just so counter-intuitive. Still, it must be remembered that the economy is not perfect, and some goods are simply "better" than others, with "better" being a subjective value known only to the consumers...
Friday, September 26, 2008
On Composing
Composing pictures seems like such an easy thing. Take your camera, raise it to your eye, frame a shot and then snap a picture. Yet it is possible for two photographers to take similar vantage points of a single scene, and still generate two completely different compositions. In fact, it is often that one photographer captures an exposure that's popularly deemed as significantly better than the other's!
Composing a shot is something that comes with the experience of knowing what works and what doesn't. For some, that means shooting with a long lens and pulling nice shots out every single time. For others, it is with a wide. Perhaps the higher goal is to be able to pick up any lens, and make every hit count.
Composing a shot is something that comes with the experience of knowing what works and what doesn't. For some, that means shooting with a long lens and pulling nice shots out every single time. For others, it is with a wide. Perhaps the higher goal is to be able to pick up any lens, and make every hit count.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Rolling A Bear Market
It is curious how people can see fit to sell their profits and hold their losses. In a game theory based logic, it is one of the worst possible ways to make money. It puzzled me for the longest time, because assuming that a stock was bought at a dollar, and it started falling constantly, the logical thing to do would be to sell it at a loss (relative to the original price paid), then buy it up after it falls.
The net effect is such: You started off with say...$1000. You bought a unit of stock at $1. The stock fell to $500 and is still falling. Common sense would dictate that the stock be held, since selling would realize a loss of $500. That's 50% off your initial capital. A really big deal. Yet many fail to realize that it matters little what the stock is worth. It is still a single stock unit. You effectively have no liquidity while holding that one unit. Assume that you sold at $500, and bought it back again when it fell to $400. Now you have one unit of stock, and $100 liquid.
Psychologically, it may have felt like you're now holding $400 stocks instead of $1000 stocks, but realistically you're still holding the same thing. What if the stock never appreciates back to near the level you bought it for? You'd be stuck holding an illiquid asset. Wouldn't it be better to maintain some liquidity to dive into the bear market when it starts to hit the bottom?
The net effect is such: You started off with say...$1000. You bought a unit of stock at $1. The stock fell to $500 and is still falling. Common sense would dictate that the stock be held, since selling would realize a loss of $500. That's 50% off your initial capital. A really big deal. Yet many fail to realize that it matters little what the stock is worth. It is still a single stock unit. You effectively have no liquidity while holding that one unit. Assume that you sold at $500, and bought it back again when it fell to $400. Now you have one unit of stock, and $100 liquid.
Psychologically, it may have felt like you're now holding $400 stocks instead of $1000 stocks, but realistically you're still holding the same thing. What if the stock never appreciates back to near the level you bought it for? You'd be stuck holding an illiquid asset. Wouldn't it be better to maintain some liquidity to dive into the bear market when it starts to hit the bottom?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Gambling Stocks
For many people, dealing in stocks is very much like gambling: They are in it more for the experience than actually making money. I realized the motivation behind holding stocks for extended periods of time: It is very much like playing a jackpot.
A jackpot machine typically has two modes: One where you constantly haemorrage cash, and another where you hit the jackpot(s). These would correspond somewhat to the bull and bear cycles within a market.
During a bear cycle, stock prices are going down. You lose 10 cents, gain 6, lose 12, gain 8, lose 4, gain 3. The overall trend is downwards. Yet it is the small upward movements that keep people in the game. It is like when the jackpot machine gives out all these little winnings to keep people playing. The small winnings never exceed what you threw in, but they are powerful motivators.
During a bull run, prices are going up. That is like when the jackpot machine gives a smallish jackpot (but not the big one). Many players are satisfied enough to cash out at this point, effectively selling their profits. Everyone else would pat themselves on the back, and then try their hand at the machine again.
The cycle repeats itself until people go bankrupt, or they hit the jackpot. It is much akin to the jackpot, considering how few people actually turn a profit at this game. Yet a game it is, with (albeit constantly changing) rules. One who masters the rules has some hope of winning the game. How many, though, are willing to learn those rules?
A jackpot machine typically has two modes: One where you constantly haemorrage cash, and another where you hit the jackpot(s). These would correspond somewhat to the bull and bear cycles within a market.
During a bear cycle, stock prices are going down. You lose 10 cents, gain 6, lose 12, gain 8, lose 4, gain 3. The overall trend is downwards. Yet it is the small upward movements that keep people in the game. It is like when the jackpot machine gives out all these little winnings to keep people playing. The small winnings never exceed what you threw in, but they are powerful motivators.
During a bull run, prices are going up. That is like when the jackpot machine gives a smallish jackpot (but not the big one). Many players are satisfied enough to cash out at this point, effectively selling their profits. Everyone else would pat themselves on the back, and then try their hand at the machine again.
The cycle repeats itself until people go bankrupt, or they hit the jackpot. It is much akin to the jackpot, considering how few people actually turn a profit at this game. Yet a game it is, with (albeit constantly changing) rules. One who masters the rules has some hope of winning the game. How many, though, are willing to learn those rules?
Monday, September 22, 2008
On Acceptance
Acceptance is a curious thing. Even the greatly self-centered (like myself) are wont to feel some measure of satisfaction when others accept them for who they are. Perhaps it is an affirming thing. A confirmation of who one is. I believe that one should always be sure of who one is, though others approving of the same will always be more pleasant.
It is a strange feeling, being irrationally pleased when one's friend finally accepts some quirks in one's being. It has little bearing on the friendship itself, and certainly has little practical use. Yet many are strongly affected by such sentiments, and even grow to crave it.
I am not one such. At least not craving positive affirmations from others. I guess the satisfaction still stems from some primitive biological imperative that ensures that people are quite likely to stay together and thus improve their chances of survival. I'd question, however, how useful that is in modern societies where it is actually possible to live life as a lone wolf.
It is a strange feeling, being irrationally pleased when one's friend finally accepts some quirks in one's being. It has little bearing on the friendship itself, and certainly has little practical use. Yet many are strongly affected by such sentiments, and even grow to crave it.
I am not one such. At least not craving positive affirmations from others. I guess the satisfaction still stems from some primitive biological imperative that ensures that people are quite likely to stay together and thus improve their chances of survival. I'd question, however, how useful that is in modern societies where it is actually possible to live life as a lone wolf.
Monday, September 15, 2008
What Is Reality?
Reality is such a personally constructed thing that sometimes it is uncertain which is reality, and which is fantasy. Take for example the case of someone who hallucinates. Their reality is questionable, and requires much corroboration before the facts can be ascertained. It is arduous and so much so that some opt to ignore them instead. Those who hallucinate are simply not credible.
Yet there are other times when truth is indeed stranger than reality. In a legal court, common sense prevails. What happens when common sense fails? What if the truth is stranger than fiction, such that innocents are incarcerated on the fact that their cases are simply implausible (but true)? Again we face the crisis of reality.
What is real? The question is asked so often that it is really quite trite by now. However, it seems that there is no definitive reality, only the one that people choose to believe in. Does this make their reality more real than that of the hallucinators?
Yet there are other times when truth is indeed stranger than reality. In a legal court, common sense prevails. What happens when common sense fails? What if the truth is stranger than fiction, such that innocents are incarcerated on the fact that their cases are simply implausible (but true)? Again we face the crisis of reality.
What is real? The question is asked so often that it is really quite trite by now. However, it seems that there is no definitive reality, only the one that people choose to believe in. Does this make their reality more real than that of the hallucinators?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Racing Everything
I note that people seem to have an unusual propensity towards attributing certain behaviors to groups. Perhaps it is part of their understanding of what a sense of belonging is like. For example, if a person is lazy, the person is not only evaluated as being lazy, but also a sort of representative of her group. There are many possible groups, like religion, social class, etc, but the most common of which is race.
In fact, everything is often raced. If someone gets scolded for no apparent reason, it's likely a matter of race rather than personal hatred. Why? Because of social hierarchies around race within a specific context. If a person is being lazy, it's "obvious" that she's so because of her race.
Being highly individualistic, I find it bizarre that people seem to like to think in terms of groups. It would be more sensible to individually categorize people in accordance to their observed behaviors, rather than to attribute such behaviors to their respective groups. It is not only not scientifically sound, but also quite detrimental to one's well-being when the assumptions prove false.
In fact, everything is often raced. If someone gets scolded for no apparent reason, it's likely a matter of race rather than personal hatred. Why? Because of social hierarchies around race within a specific context. If a person is being lazy, it's "obvious" that she's so because of her race.
Being highly individualistic, I find it bizarre that people seem to like to think in terms of groups. It would be more sensible to individually categorize people in accordance to their observed behaviors, rather than to attribute such behaviors to their respective groups. It is not only not scientifically sound, but also quite detrimental to one's well-being when the assumptions prove false.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Wall-E
Wall-E has nowhere near the depth of KungFu Panda. In fact, it seems to be a rather simple lover's show, with an intention to foster feelings of closeness and affection with its themes. Yet I admire the developers for it, because they chose to create a narrative that began with no typical dialogue. It takes quite some doing to make robots conduct a narrative entirely on emotive sounds and body language. Body language...on a robot? Wow!
The show has themes like sticking with your loved one through thick and thin, self-sacrifice and overall altruism. It also involves sticking to one's duties and the concept of rebirth. Unfortunately, such themes are really quite overdone. There is little to explicate on these, as just about everyone has been over these before.
What was impressive was the balletic symphonies of movement and sound throughout the show, creating the depth of visceral experience that is difficult to match in an animation. This is probably where it outshines KungFu Panda: The sheer elegance of the animation. Granted, these are two very differently themed shows and the differences show.
Overall, I found the narrative somewhat flat. Yet as a show it managed to hold together, and I especially liked the Nausicaa'esque end credits. I dare say the show deserves a 7/10, though I'm sure as a lover's show it deserves a clean 8.
The show has themes like sticking with your loved one through thick and thin, self-sacrifice and overall altruism. It also involves sticking to one's duties and the concept of rebirth. Unfortunately, such themes are really quite overdone. There is little to explicate on these, as just about everyone has been over these before.
What was impressive was the balletic symphonies of movement and sound throughout the show, creating the depth of visceral experience that is difficult to match in an animation. This is probably where it outshines KungFu Panda: The sheer elegance of the animation. Granted, these are two very differently themed shows and the differences show.
Overall, I found the narrative somewhat flat. Yet as a show it managed to hold together, and I especially liked the Nausicaa'esque end credits. I dare say the show deserves a 7/10, though I'm sure as a lover's show it deserves a clean 8.
Friday, September 12, 2008
4Bia
4Bia (pronounced phobia) is a thai horror film that comprises a bunch of short stories. Naturally, it's to be expected that the films are uniformly freaky and really quite scary. If anything, the images of the ghouls will stay with the viewer for quite some time to come. I know they stay with me. Still trying to banish these. I'll succeed...eventually.
I noted with some amusement at their skillful manipulation of the storylines such that they needed a minimal cast to pull it off. Unfortunately, it's not quite a narrative masterpiece, or even particularly innovative. The short stories make extensive use of really ghoulish makeup for the spooks, traditional in-your-face-with-loud-sound scare tactics and Stephen King'esque twisting of the real and the hallucination. That, and the bad CGI in a particular story. In fact, the narratives seemed quite disjointed due to the short story presentation, though there were efforts to tie things in by subtle details like newspaper headlines and references to the other stories. The use of deus ex for some scenes was disturbing, too. I can get it that supernatural events lead to really unusual goings on, but in a cinema narrative it really just seems that they cooked up a supernatural reason for some things to happen, without introducing the props first. That just makes things look unplanned. Sometimes, it also helps not to explicate overly much of the gory details, since at times the imagination can cook up far greater and more realistic horrors than any low budget CGI work possibly could.
To be fair to the film, I guess the rating would have to be spread over two areas. As a film, I don't think it deserves to have more than 6/10. However, I would highly rate the horror value of it, including the very progressive and inexorable build up towards the horror climax. For that, and its gruesome ghosts...I'd give it a very nice 9/10
I noted with some amusement at their skillful manipulation of the storylines such that they needed a minimal cast to pull it off. Unfortunately, it's not quite a narrative masterpiece, or even particularly innovative. The short stories make extensive use of really ghoulish makeup for the spooks, traditional in-your-face-with-loud-sound scare tactics and Stephen King'esque twisting of the real and the hallucination. That, and the bad CGI in a particular story. In fact, the narratives seemed quite disjointed due to the short story presentation, though there were efforts to tie things in by subtle details like newspaper headlines and references to the other stories. The use of deus ex for some scenes was disturbing, too. I can get it that supernatural events lead to really unusual goings on, but in a cinema narrative it really just seems that they cooked up a supernatural reason for some things to happen, without introducing the props first. That just makes things look unplanned. Sometimes, it also helps not to explicate overly much of the gory details, since at times the imagination can cook up far greater and more realistic horrors than any low budget CGI work possibly could.
To be fair to the film, I guess the rating would have to be spread over two areas. As a film, I don't think it deserves to have more than 6/10. However, I would highly rate the horror value of it, including the very progressive and inexorable build up towards the horror climax. For that, and its gruesome ghosts...I'd give it a very nice 9/10
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Mini Movie Marathon
I had a most interesting impromptu mini movie marathon today. My friends asked me out to watch the thai horror flick 4Bia. Scary stuff. Then another of my friends asked me to watch a movie with him...immediately after 4Bia. So yeah, we went to watch Wall-E. Lovely contrast.
I guess it was somewhat interesting considering that I got the movie date right after the show...and at the same cineplex as the one before it. This probably also means that I'm going to be writing two reviews on the movies.
After the movies, I caught up with another friend, who brought her gal friend along. Talk about chained outings. I've never felt more productive (seriously!) since I basically managed to socialize with 3 groups of people in a single outing. Now that's a great way to compress outings so that time is not wasted in transit.
I guess it was somewhat interesting considering that I got the movie date right after the show...and at the same cineplex as the one before it. This probably also means that I'm going to be writing two reviews on the movies.
After the movies, I caught up with another friend, who brought her gal friend along. Talk about chained outings. I've never felt more productive (seriously!) since I basically managed to socialize with 3 groups of people in a single outing. Now that's a great way to compress outings so that time is not wasted in transit.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Eco Tourism
Eco Tourism is very nice when taken at face value: It showcases the delicate and beautiful face of nature, encouraging others to cherish and hopefully work towards protecting these natural places. In fact, it'd be far better were the people inclined to actually protect other places that may have endangered species that are not exactly pleasing to the eye.
While the lofty goals are admirable, I would question the benefits of eco tourism in the real world. For one, the eco tourist sites are often operated with profit in mind, with lip service and limited real protecting done at the site apart from preserving the lucrative attraction. Moreover, the high human traffic invariably brings with it pollution in the form of litter and vehicle fumes. That apart from the noise pollution and disruptive camera flashes from overzealous tourists.
More harm than good? Quite likely. Besides that, there is always the chance that tourists fail to understand what nature is truly like, being exposed exclusively to the beautiful sight of things. Fireflies twinkle, but they are still bugs...presumably the sort that little girls still fear after seeing the fairylike creatures flashing in the dark. Jungles are still rather dangerous, as are the beautiful rolling dunes of the desert. Perhaps it is also necessary to promote conservation as much for its own sake, as it is for the majesty of nature's power.
While the lofty goals are admirable, I would question the benefits of eco tourism in the real world. For one, the eco tourist sites are often operated with profit in mind, with lip service and limited real protecting done at the site apart from preserving the lucrative attraction. Moreover, the high human traffic invariably brings with it pollution in the form of litter and vehicle fumes. That apart from the noise pollution and disruptive camera flashes from overzealous tourists.
More harm than good? Quite likely. Besides that, there is always the chance that tourists fail to understand what nature is truly like, being exposed exclusively to the beautiful sight of things. Fireflies twinkle, but they are still bugs...presumably the sort that little girls still fear after seeing the fairylike creatures flashing in the dark. Jungles are still rather dangerous, as are the beautiful rolling dunes of the desert. Perhaps it is also necessary to promote conservation as much for its own sake, as it is for the majesty of nature's power.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Geronimo And The Native Americans
I was reading a book on Geronimo, and could not help but be reminded of how the madness of people can easily spread to consume even the innocent. Fueled by the driving forces of expansionism and the gold rush, the Native Americans found themselves being pushed towards the brink. In effect, one had been usurped from one's rightful home, and assigned to a halfway house. All that, simply because someone powerful figured that hey...you just weren't "civilized".
I am saddened by what is by no means an isolated incident. Ever since humans invented the idea of warfare and conquest, peoples have been pushed from their own homes, only to have the invaders enjoy what was originally someone else's. Unfair? Yes. But such is the way of Darwinian civilizing. The stronger (militarily, usually) civilization often manages to drive the other out.
Perhaps there is no end to this madness, seeing as how the same greed and power madness pervades "civilization" to this day. Time and time again people have opted to claim for their own, things that never should have been theirs in a fair negotiation. At a state level, land theft is seldom resisted as firmly as that of the same at an individual level. There will always be noble spirits that will resist the tides of madness, but can they hold the tides back? Was Geronimo truly happy to have become something like a white man, if only for the good of his people?
I am saddened by what is by no means an isolated incident. Ever since humans invented the idea of warfare and conquest, peoples have been pushed from their own homes, only to have the invaders enjoy what was originally someone else's. Unfair? Yes. But such is the way of Darwinian civilizing. The stronger (militarily, usually) civilization often manages to drive the other out.
Perhaps there is no end to this madness, seeing as how the same greed and power madness pervades "civilization" to this day. Time and time again people have opted to claim for their own, things that never should have been theirs in a fair negotiation. At a state level, land theft is seldom resisted as firmly as that of the same at an individual level. There will always be noble spirits that will resist the tides of madness, but can they hold the tides back? Was Geronimo truly happy to have become something like a white man, if only for the good of his people?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Morality For The Masses
The great unwashed masses are fickle. That much is known of them. It is almost the one constant that binds them together. Without the aid of a constant, the masses constantly shift their focus and their values. It is the introduction of a fixed morality system that keeps them in line, since they have decided to subject themselves only to the morality that is prescribed to them.
What makes them free, then? By seeking the moral, they choose to bind themselves in an artificial prescribed morality that may not conform to any universal (if universal even exists!) morality that is extant. But if morality is not fixed, what is it that drives the masses that they can believe in something that may not even be true? This could explain the readiness to believe in deceptions: In their unwillingness to think, they prefer to live their private lies.
What makes them free, then? By seeking the moral, they choose to bind themselves in an artificial prescribed morality that may not conform to any universal (if universal even exists!) morality that is extant. But if morality is not fixed, what is it that drives the masses that they can believe in something that may not even be true? This could explain the readiness to believe in deceptions: In their unwillingness to think, they prefer to live their private lies.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The Limits Of Power
Truly, with great power comes great responsibility. Apparently, that is even if one is unwilling to take that responsibility. The more powerful a person is, the greater her options in life. Things that were not options for less powerful folk now have to be considered. Will one be willing to flatten yonder mountain, or to preserve it? The very act of not flattening the mountain has effectively allowed its continued existence: Still a rather significant act!
In a way, a responsible person of power enjoys far less freedom than a comparable one with significantly less power. Every act has to be carefully considered for its repercussions in larger society, or at least the environment. It is the powerless who can choose to be less responsible: The powerful cannot help but be responsible for *something*.
It is therefore a strange thing when a powerless person yearns for a slice of great power, without being willing to accept responsibility for the exercising of the same. In trying to gain more freedom through ability, one simply loses freedom through responsibility. What a balance.
In a way, a responsible person of power enjoys far less freedom than a comparable one with significantly less power. Every act has to be carefully considered for its repercussions in larger society, or at least the environment. It is the powerless who can choose to be less responsible: The powerful cannot help but be responsible for *something*.
It is therefore a strange thing when a powerless person yearns for a slice of great power, without being willing to accept responsibility for the exercising of the same. In trying to gain more freedom through ability, one simply loses freedom through responsibility. What a balance.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Away From Home
It is a strange feeling, that one just does not belong where one is. Some people call their places of origin home, simply on account that they came from there. Perhaps they are right, and they truly belong where they were placed. I cannot shake the feeling that I am not home, and that it is someplace else.
Sometimes I encounter various stimuli...sights, sounds, smells...something at random. It will remind me of the wilderness. Somewhere that never had humans, and where the rhythms of live were different. Yet I realize that the wilderness as it is now will not welcome me. It is different from the one I know. Alien. It bears a passing resemblance, yet is not the same.
I guess I will sit by the trees and the animals, thinking about the place that is no more. It almost seems like they understand, but perhaps that is an illusion as well. What else does it feel like, to be away from home?
Sometimes I encounter various stimuli...sights, sounds, smells...something at random. It will remind me of the wilderness. Somewhere that never had humans, and where the rhythms of live were different. Yet I realize that the wilderness as it is now will not welcome me. It is different from the one I know. Alien. It bears a passing resemblance, yet is not the same.
I guess I will sit by the trees and the animals, thinking about the place that is no more. It almost seems like they understand, but perhaps that is an illusion as well. What else does it feel like, to be away from home?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)