Civilization is a band aid over the sore of humanity. Sometimes it's nice to live in a society, what with its rituals and "culture" and other odd little things that help people live with one another without fighting or otherwise deliberately doing things that are hazardous to the health and well-being of others.
Yet civilization seems like little more than a veneer that hides the brutal nature of humanity, and does little to nothing to change it. We've got the wars and crimes and drugs and other social ills that are hardly affected by civilization. In fact, there is little civilized about the "civilized" peoples, given that even the "barbarians" of old had their own cultural perks. Of course, civilized peoples are simply the ones who're most capable of rampaging over someone's front lawn and then looting the roses from their gardens. You've got to be a barbarian to let that happen. Or you're a barbarian because it happened, because your front lawn no longer has roses. Tsk.
Sometimes it really takes the truly inhumane to rear their ugly heads before people will take note of just how sick people can really get. Yes, these are, of course, perfectly "civilized". Civilization is a nice term that seems to immunize a people from the foul acts of burning, looting and massacres. After all, that's what we prefer to call...war. Anyone who does something similar on a small scale without official sanction? Why...they're criminals.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Don't Just Fail; Epic Fail!
Economies of scale rule our world. The bigger, the better. We've got conglomerates, zaibatsus, mega corps and what have you. Most of them seek to succeed. And do so spectacularly. That typically means oodles of profit.
It stands to reason that, like successes, failures are simply better off when done on a large scale. Yep. If you wana fail, fail big. Now, say a scam artist manages to rip off a bunch of people for tens of thousands. Not too bad for a small timer. The poor sod would probably spend quite some time paying off the debt if caught, however.
Now consider something on a larger scale. Like say a major fund going belly up, or some other sort of a epic fail like Enron. That's what really takes the cake: If you're big enough when you fail, someone else foots the bill! Obviously, there's no way you could pay it all back within a lifetime. Now that is truly epic. So, my friends, one should always avoid failure in life. Just that if you do ever have to fail, make sure it's an epic fail.
It stands to reason that, like successes, failures are simply better off when done on a large scale. Yep. If you wana fail, fail big. Now, say a scam artist manages to rip off a bunch of people for tens of thousands. Not too bad for a small timer. The poor sod would probably spend quite some time paying off the debt if caught, however.
Now consider something on a larger scale. Like say a major fund going belly up, or some other sort of a epic fail like Enron. That's what really takes the cake: If you're big enough when you fail, someone else foots the bill! Obviously, there's no way you could pay it all back within a lifetime. Now that is truly epic. So, my friends, one should always avoid failure in life. Just that if you do ever have to fail, make sure it's an epic fail.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Peking Duck Wastage
I hate seeing wastage. I was pretty much horrified when I was watching a certain peking duck stall in action. They served up peking duck at an amazing speed, and in incredible quantities. The oven would pop a smoking duck out, and the staff would slice it up with a cleaver without waiting for it to cool. I do expect that they'd have quite some endurance to put up with that heat...even when wearing gloves.
The problem, of course, was that they were serving the duck up using cleavers. Ok so they were smallish cleavers, but the problem was that they simply couldn't clean a duck out thoroughly without wasting a substantial amount of meat. By my gauge, most of the meat was wasted around the bones, the entire neck/head and the wings. Dreadful. I have a good mind to recommend to their boss that they should sell the excess parts.
I guess I am pretty affected by the way large cities in rich countries constantly hog the food supply, while the poorer parts of the world wind up with huge numbers of starving people. Granted, it's quite impossible to allocate resources internationally with 100% efficiency, I think much can be done to reduce waste in the large cities. I think people should be grateful for what they have, and consumption moderated. Maybe it won't solve world hunger, but I do think it's a start.
The problem, of course, was that they were serving the duck up using cleavers. Ok so they were smallish cleavers, but the problem was that they simply couldn't clean a duck out thoroughly without wasting a substantial amount of meat. By my gauge, most of the meat was wasted around the bones, the entire neck/head and the wings. Dreadful. I have a good mind to recommend to their boss that they should sell the excess parts.
I guess I am pretty affected by the way large cities in rich countries constantly hog the food supply, while the poorer parts of the world wind up with huge numbers of starving people. Granted, it's quite impossible to allocate resources internationally with 100% efficiency, I think much can be done to reduce waste in the large cities. I think people should be grateful for what they have, and consumption moderated. Maybe it won't solve world hunger, but I do think it's a start.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Tithing
I was considering about the regimented form of charity known as tithing. According to the Bible, people should give out a portion of their wealth and dedicate it to God(dess). For the common understanding, that usually means handing moolah over to the Church. Or some other equivalent religious institution.
Yet sometimes, people just don't agree with what their religious institution happens to believe in. Sometimes that money is going to be used for nefarious purposes that do not correspond to what the people believe in. Generally, when one decides to get enslaved by some religion, they have some sort of belief system. A belief in what the religion stands for, and what it means. Admirable. Unfortunately, the religious leaders may have alternative interpretations of these matters, and may turn the funds towards other purposes.
Not very nice at all. What's next? Well, the logical alternative would be not to tithe at all. Non-religious people generally don't tithe. It sounds pretty fine. Except perhaps the religious do feel somewhat obligated to give a part of what they have, and perhaps they would believe it inappropriate not to do so. I would respect that as well.
The solution, I propose, is for them to simply opt to tithe directly to whichever causes they do believe in. Causes that adhere to the tenets of their religion and thus further what they believe God(dess)'s will to be. That, in my opinion, is more in keeping with what the spirit of tithing should be. Heck, dedicating money to a religious tenet could be as simple as helping to feed the poor, if kindness happens to be one of those tenets...
Yet sometimes, people just don't agree with what their religious institution happens to believe in. Sometimes that money is going to be used for nefarious purposes that do not correspond to what the people believe in. Generally, when one decides to get enslaved by some religion, they have some sort of belief system. A belief in what the religion stands for, and what it means. Admirable. Unfortunately, the religious leaders may have alternative interpretations of these matters, and may turn the funds towards other purposes.
Not very nice at all. What's next? Well, the logical alternative would be not to tithe at all. Non-religious people generally don't tithe. It sounds pretty fine. Except perhaps the religious do feel somewhat obligated to give a part of what they have, and perhaps they would believe it inappropriate not to do so. I would respect that as well.
The solution, I propose, is for them to simply opt to tithe directly to whichever causes they do believe in. Causes that adhere to the tenets of their religion and thus further what they believe God(dess)'s will to be. That, in my opinion, is more in keeping with what the spirit of tithing should be. Heck, dedicating money to a religious tenet could be as simple as helping to feed the poor, if kindness happens to be one of those tenets...
Monday, August 17, 2009
Creating Gods
I was considering the construction of gods, and really...the concept makes no sense to me. Let's assume for a moment that there is no supreme deity out there, and everything is just a result of a random mess of random events. So if one doesn't exist, I suppose the reasonable thing to do is to create one, right?
Err...that's the part that kinda gets me lost. I mean, hey...if I wanted to create something, even something make-believe, I'd really rather create servants or worshippers for myself. Yanou, give myself a sense of control and superiority, rather than having something else lord over me. The lording over bit sounds like a wee bit too much work for my taste, seeing as I wind up having to appease my own creation.
In fact, if I did create something, I'd rather not have to please it or anything. That's just like using work to create yet more work for myself...as if there wasn't enough to do already. But hey...whatever turns them on, eh?
Err...that's the part that kinda gets me lost. I mean, hey...if I wanted to create something, even something make-believe, I'd really rather create servants or worshippers for myself. Yanou, give myself a sense of control and superiority, rather than having something else lord over me. The lording over bit sounds like a wee bit too much work for my taste, seeing as I wind up having to appease my own creation.
In fact, if I did create something, I'd rather not have to please it or anything. That's just like using work to create yet more work for myself...as if there wasn't enough to do already. But hey...whatever turns them on, eh?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Everything Is Meaningless
I was thinking about the working person's life, and life in general, and yeah my conclusion is that life is meaningless. Really. Work all day, go home to do some admin, prepare food or eat out, maybe a spot of canned R&R, then back to work again. Even the breaks from work aren't particularly long. Most of the vacation stretches are precious short...if one even manages to get that long stretch in the first place.
Then comes the things to do when on vacation. Go someplace else, right? Like say maybe some far-off land. Just to see things, to reassure oneself that the lands actually exist and they kinda look like what they do on the postcards. Hell, maybe the world is flat and nothing exists outside the country's borders, eh?
And after all that work crap (insert mothering/parenting somewhere along the way, seasoned to taste), there comes retirement. At that point, most people are just too damned tuckered out to really chase anything. That's assuming their physical frames are still capable of much. And the brains. Brrraaaiiinnnsss. Ultimately? Nothing much remains.
After which everyone dies, as if they've never lived. No mark on history. No blaze of glory as they get the hell out of the mortal plane. Season with a bit of afterlife, if one swings that way. But it's a bit moot, considering that most mortal realm achievements don't map over to most afterlives.
Life is just a sad sad sexually transmitted disease that is the leading cause of death. Sometimes I wonder why I bother going on living, and I don't always have a good answer to that question. I just do, I guess, sort of like doing time. And taking photos. Maybe that's meaning, in some way.
Then comes the things to do when on vacation. Go someplace else, right? Like say maybe some far-off land. Just to see things, to reassure oneself that the lands actually exist and they kinda look like what they do on the postcards. Hell, maybe the world is flat and nothing exists outside the country's borders, eh?
And after all that work crap (insert mothering/parenting somewhere along the way, seasoned to taste), there comes retirement. At that point, most people are just too damned tuckered out to really chase anything. That's assuming their physical frames are still capable of much. And the brains. Brrraaaiiinnnsss. Ultimately? Nothing much remains.
After which everyone dies, as if they've never lived. No mark on history. No blaze of glory as they get the hell out of the mortal plane. Season with a bit of afterlife, if one swings that way. But it's a bit moot, considering that most mortal realm achievements don't map over to most afterlives.
Life is just a sad sad sexually transmitted disease that is the leading cause of death. Sometimes I wonder why I bother going on living, and I don't always have a good answer to that question. I just do, I guess, sort of like doing time. And taking photos. Maybe that's meaning, in some way.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Make Or Break
I think sometimes it really just takes a hit to make or break an artist. I've been trying to hunt down the tracks by Magnet, and boy are they hard to locate. Scratch that. It seems that the earlier tracks just aren't "out there". Which is pretty sad, considering that some people are really rather eager to grab his best works.
I guess there's just something different about his style of music. I do like country, but unfortunately even country gets stale over time. The randomness of electronica and synth can add quite a bit, when mixed in with classical music or even opera. Then again, maybe my tastes are somewhat eclectic, so I can only really count on the indie scene for my fix.
For the indies, even free distros of certain tracks off their website can make a huge difference in increasing their following. Without the big names to sing their praises, it's really mostly up to the marketing skills of the artists and the adoration of their fanbase.
I guess there's just something different about his style of music. I do like country, but unfortunately even country gets stale over time. The randomness of electronica and synth can add quite a bit, when mixed in with classical music or even opera. Then again, maybe my tastes are somewhat eclectic, so I can only really count on the indie scene for my fix.
For the indies, even free distros of certain tracks off their website can make a huge difference in increasing their following. Without the big names to sing their praises, it's really mostly up to the marketing skills of the artists and the adoration of their fanbase.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
A Money-Saving Heuristic
I am a user of some big ticket items. And since big ticket items often have big ticket accessories, expenses can rapidly pile up, resulting in a drain on critical financial reserves. To avoid this, I took a good look at my personal desires for an item. The problem with decision making is that just about everything looks desirable, especially if it's sold at a lower than normal price. Hence, some rules need to be in place.
In order to select the highest priority purchase, I would ask whether the item is necessary. That is, it fulfills some kind of want/need. These are ranked in order of how I order my own hierarchy of needs/wants. I ask myself whether I will use the item immediately. It's pretty obvious if an item is non-essential, since it is a nice-to-have-sometime-in-the-future (a safety net item like a first aid kit, for example, is excluded from this consideration). A yes to this bumps the item up the list. Then I ask myself whether I will use the item often (beyond the new item syndrome window period). While difficult to honestly and accurately answer for sure, a yes to this would bump the item further up the list. Then comes the question of whether the item is at an affordable price bracket. Technically, just about everything that isn't obscenely expensive is actually "affordable", so the only real gauge would be to weigh the item (at price-value) against other items (even if dissimilar) according to the price-value.
If a list of items is tabulated according to that heuristic, a reasonably objective comparison can be made against one another. Thus, it becomes easier to decide between having 300 units of enjoyment item A vs 1 unit of high enjoyment item B. To be sure, just about every item is non-essential. One needs surprisingly little to survive, and very few items are true "essentials". However, to live a reasonably enjoyable life, some luxuries are called for. Most things that we spend on are luxuries anyway. However, going by the heuristic helps eliminate most of the nice-to-haves, and actually maximize utility by ensuring that items spent on will actually be enjoyed.
A further consideration would be cannibalization of utility, since having increasing luxuries actually reduces one's utility of other (usually older) luxuries. Should something fail muster in this analysis, it's a good indication to pawn them off. By that logic...that includes most of the items in my room. =p
In order to select the highest priority purchase, I would ask whether the item is necessary. That is, it fulfills some kind of want/need. These are ranked in order of how I order my own hierarchy of needs/wants. I ask myself whether I will use the item immediately. It's pretty obvious if an item is non-essential, since it is a nice-to-have-sometime-in-the-future (a safety net item like a first aid kit, for example, is excluded from this consideration). A yes to this bumps the item up the list. Then I ask myself whether I will use the item often (beyond the new item syndrome window period). While difficult to honestly and accurately answer for sure, a yes to this would bump the item further up the list. Then comes the question of whether the item is at an affordable price bracket. Technically, just about everything that isn't obscenely expensive is actually "affordable", so the only real gauge would be to weigh the item (at price-value) against other items (even if dissimilar) according to the price-value.
If a list of items is tabulated according to that heuristic, a reasonably objective comparison can be made against one another. Thus, it becomes easier to decide between having 300 units of enjoyment item A vs 1 unit of high enjoyment item B. To be sure, just about every item is non-essential. One needs surprisingly little to survive, and very few items are true "essentials". However, to live a reasonably enjoyable life, some luxuries are called for. Most things that we spend on are luxuries anyway. However, going by the heuristic helps eliminate most of the nice-to-haves, and actually maximize utility by ensuring that items spent on will actually be enjoyed.
A further consideration would be cannibalization of utility, since having increasing luxuries actually reduces one's utility of other (usually older) luxuries. Should something fail muster in this analysis, it's a good indication to pawn them off. By that logic...that includes most of the items in my room. =p
Saturday, August 08, 2009
2012
Humans can be incredibly egotistical. Apparently, a cataclysmic event resulting in the extermination of humans is to be regarded as the "end of the world", regardless whether other life forms survive and if the planet is still physically there. Technically, wouldn't that be the end of the human world, only? Anyway, it seems that 2012 is slated to be something of the sort.
Personally, if I really had to go with one of the "prophecies", I'd buy the change of an era on 2012 story. So things might change on 2012. Even a major change. Ok that makes sense. After all, that's what the prophecies seem to be saying anyway. If different cultures somehow managed to stop predicting humanity's future after 2012 (or somewhere thereabouts according to their calendars), it need not mean the elimination of all humans. Quit being egotistical! (though I'd look forward to that if true =p)
In fact, if it does not portend the end of an era, it can also mean that humanity is finally free of silly prophecies, in that the future has become too fluid to predict with any sort of accuracy. Considering the rather poor record of precisely worded prophecies, I would be inclined to believe that humans would likely stop bothering with prophecies after 2012. Hah! Well...like that's gona ever happen.
Personally, if I really had to go with one of the "prophecies", I'd buy the change of an era on 2012 story. So things might change on 2012. Even a major change. Ok that makes sense. After all, that's what the prophecies seem to be saying anyway. If different cultures somehow managed to stop predicting humanity's future after 2012 (or somewhere thereabouts according to their calendars), it need not mean the elimination of all humans. Quit being egotistical! (though I'd look forward to that if true =p)
In fact, if it does not portend the end of an era, it can also mean that humanity is finally free of silly prophecies, in that the future has become too fluid to predict with any sort of accuracy. Considering the rather poor record of precisely worded prophecies, I would be inclined to believe that humans would likely stop bothering with prophecies after 2012. Hah! Well...like that's gona ever happen.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Setting Up The E3
One really does learn new things the longer one holds a piece of equipment. When I had my E510, I was pretty happy living with having my AF on the shutter half press. Of course, I've since seen the error of my ways. The problem with that setup was that every time I tried to fire off a shot, the camera would cycle the autofocus and that could sometimes result in a missed shot if the autofocus decided to miss.
Then I discovered that switching autofocus over to the AEL button solved that issue. Since autofocus triggers only on AEL, the shutter half press no longer resulted in a pesky AF cycle. That also opened up the possibility of my using manual focus mode in conjunction with my autofocus. That is, using the single autofocus + manual focus setting. Lovely.
Now, it seems that I finally have a good use for the manual focus ring on my lenses. Previously, my carefully set manual focus would've been ruined by the camera's smartass adjustment of focus for me. Yet it was quite tedious to constantly cycle between manual and autofocus modes. Guess I have my ideal compromise for now, and man am I lovin it. =p
Then I discovered that switching autofocus over to the AEL button solved that issue. Since autofocus triggers only on AEL, the shutter half press no longer resulted in a pesky AF cycle. That also opened up the possibility of my using manual focus mode in conjunction with my autofocus. That is, using the single autofocus + manual focus setting. Lovely.
Now, it seems that I finally have a good use for the manual focus ring on my lenses. Previously, my carefully set manual focus would've been ruined by the camera's smartass adjustment of focus for me. Yet it was quite tedious to constantly cycle between manual and autofocus modes. Guess I have my ideal compromise for now, and man am I lovin it. =p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)