If the title phrase doesn't make you cringe, perhaps it's a good time to have your cringe reflex examined. Worse still, if you're guilty of having used it, it's time you did bester than that.
What happened to "as well as I can" or "I'll do my best"? Are those out of fashion too now? Not only is this noxious mutant of a phrase oblivious to the comparative form of "well", but it's also missing a second "as".
Next time you find yourself on the verge of regurgitating it, remember to take it outside and shoot it. Aim as bestly as you can.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Why is Phelps sorry?
Why has Michael Phelps felt compelled to apologise to his fans for his bong picture? Clearly he couldn't actually feel devastated, so it's unlikely to be genuine remorse. It must've been public pressure. But by whom? I haven't heard of any fans demanding one. It's not like he's been a vocal opponent of marijuana either. His sponsors have publicly stated that it is a non-issue and will continue to sponsor him. So where did the pressure to apologise come from?
There are some mumblings about role models. Where does Michael's contract state he has to be Mr. Perfect? The expectations we have from him are for athletic achievement. He didn't ask to be your dad.
I suppose it's the wrong message to send. If Michael Phelps smokes pot, then it must be OK. Which of course it is not, because we all know pot will make you irresponsible, inert and too lazy to pursue your ambitions. Like it did to Michael.
So remember kids, you can rise above it. Don't be like Michael Phelps. If you must smoke, have a cigarette.
There are some mumblings about role models. Where does Michael's contract state he has to be Mr. Perfect? The expectations we have from him are for athletic achievement. He didn't ask to be your dad.
I suppose it's the wrong message to send. If Michael Phelps smokes pot, then it must be OK. Which of course it is not, because we all know pot will make you irresponsible, inert and too lazy to pursue your ambitions. Like it did to Michael.
So remember kids, you can rise above it. Don't be like Michael Phelps. If you must smoke, have a cigarette.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Chinese Advantage
The global outsourcing of manufacturing to China is made possible by three things.
All three of these factors are already under pressure. As China's economy grows with strong inflationary pressures, wages will have to rise. While oil reserves dwindle, global demand for it is rising, which will inevitably raise its price. And China cannot continue to grow and compete with the world with an undervalued currency. It will eventually have to let it float.
It would appear that it won't be too long before importing from China is no longer cheaper than producing locally. What then? Are companies going to bring production home again?
- Cheap labour
- Oil prices
- The undervalued Yuan
All three of these factors are already under pressure. As China's economy grows with strong inflationary pressures, wages will have to rise. While oil reserves dwindle, global demand for it is rising, which will inevitably raise its price. And China cannot continue to grow and compete with the world with an undervalued currency. It will eventually have to let it float.
It would appear that it won't be too long before importing from China is no longer cheaper than producing locally. What then? Are companies going to bring production home again?
Where is the outrage?
Am I alone or is anyone else disturbed by the acquiescence of the American public to the draconian viciousness of their laws and their enforcement?
In 2004, Julie Amero, a pregnant substitute teacher with apparently no computer skills became yet another victim of popup spyware. We've all been there. The PC randomly and continuously launches popups to sites that are mostly online gambling or porn. Usually something a quick Adaware or Spybot scan will fix. It's happened to you and it's happened to me. The unfortunate circumstances in Julie's case, however, were the place it happened: in class, with 7th graders.
So a few kids noticed and poked fun at her while the poor embarrassed woman frantically tried to close the windows, which, as we know, is just a trigger that spawns more popups. Definitely not one of your best days at work. She went home, glad the day was over.
Stop here. What do you think happened next? What do you think should happen? Try to play the event in your head. Put yourself in her shoes. Put yourself in the kids' shoes. How do you feel about the whole thing? Think about it for a minute.
So what did happen? Julie was arrested and prosecuted for 4.5 years, facing 40 years (four decades) in prison, charged with "risk of injury to a minor". In the process, she lost her baby and suffered a heart attack. She was convicted. She was rescued by a group of computer security experts, who volunteered to demonstrate that spyware was the culprit, something that somehow slipped from the original trial.
Forty years? Risk of injury to a minor? Really? Injury? Forty years?? What planet is this?
And that's not even my point. On trial here is ABC news. Watch the video report. Where is the outrage at the viciousness of the system? She lost her baby and almost died! Everybody strategically skirts around the question of the law's or the prosecution's heavy handedness, like a faithful murder victim's family who let the perpetrator off by attributing it to God's will.
The newspaper journalist, Rick Green, opines that it is "a fascinating glimpse into what can happen to you if you are wrongfully arrested". No, Rick, Windows 7 Beta is a fascinating glimpse. A disgusting disregard for human dignity and civil liberty is a better way to put it.
What scares me most is the overall lack of sense, emotion and critical mindedness in all parties. It resembles the kind of numb resignation and avoidance of real critique you would adopt when talking to a State Trooper that has unfairly pulled you over. You paradoxically muster the self-control to hide your seething anger, forget about it even, under a blanket of excessive politeness for fear of consequences. It's doublethink.
The interviewer is emotionally confounded, as she struggles to decide what sort of emotion she's supposed to pull out of her hat for this one. She settles on a form of disengaged compassion, after presumably ruling out anger, outrage or sincere compassion, lest she show sympathy for a criminal.
But even Julie's own account is the most frightening in its unemotional passivity and self blame. She says a big part of the problem is her poor computer skills. Of course the journalist responds, "well what about the legal system itself? Do you feel that it too is part of the problem?". I'm kidding of course, she said no such thing. When asked what she learned from her ordeal and what advice she has for others, it was to know how to use a computer!
In a brief flash of chilling truth that sums up our current state of submission, she proclaims that "everybody out there should be afraid". Did you get that? Are you ok with it?
So has the State apologised? Compensated her? Is she suing the State back for damages? Is the law being re-examined? Is anyone wondering what kind of "injury" she was charged for? If a 7th grader seeing lewd images is "injury" worthy of 40 year imprisonment, then what is Julie's baby's miscarriage worthy of, and are they being prosecuted for it? Nope. Answering yes to any of those questions would have put the unquestioned authority of the law into question. This is no country for questioning the law.
In 2004, Julie Amero, a pregnant substitute teacher with apparently no computer skills became yet another victim of popup spyware. We've all been there. The PC randomly and continuously launches popups to sites that are mostly online gambling or porn. Usually something a quick Adaware or Spybot scan will fix. It's happened to you and it's happened to me. The unfortunate circumstances in Julie's case, however, were the place it happened: in class, with 7th graders.
So a few kids noticed and poked fun at her while the poor embarrassed woman frantically tried to close the windows, which, as we know, is just a trigger that spawns more popups. Definitely not one of your best days at work. She went home, glad the day was over.
Stop here. What do you think happened next? What do you think should happen? Try to play the event in your head. Put yourself in her shoes. Put yourself in the kids' shoes. How do you feel about the whole thing? Think about it for a minute.
So what did happen? Julie was arrested and prosecuted for 4.5 years, facing 40 years (four decades) in prison, charged with "risk of injury to a minor". In the process, she lost her baby and suffered a heart attack. She was convicted. She was rescued by a group of computer security experts, who volunteered to demonstrate that spyware was the culprit, something that somehow slipped from the original trial.
Forty years? Risk of injury to a minor? Really? Injury? Forty years?? What planet is this?
And that's not even my point. On trial here is ABC news. Watch the video report. Where is the outrage at the viciousness of the system? She lost her baby and almost died! Everybody strategically skirts around the question of the law's or the prosecution's heavy handedness, like a faithful murder victim's family who let the perpetrator off by attributing it to God's will.
The newspaper journalist, Rick Green, opines that it is "a fascinating glimpse into what can happen to you if you are wrongfully arrested". No, Rick, Windows 7 Beta is a fascinating glimpse. A disgusting disregard for human dignity and civil liberty is a better way to put it.
What scares me most is the overall lack of sense, emotion and critical mindedness in all parties. It resembles the kind of numb resignation and avoidance of real critique you would adopt when talking to a State Trooper that has unfairly pulled you over. You paradoxically muster the self-control to hide your seething anger, forget about it even, under a blanket of excessive politeness for fear of consequences. It's doublethink.
The interviewer is emotionally confounded, as she struggles to decide what sort of emotion she's supposed to pull out of her hat for this one. She settles on a form of disengaged compassion, after presumably ruling out anger, outrage or sincere compassion, lest she show sympathy for a criminal.
But even Julie's own account is the most frightening in its unemotional passivity and self blame. She says a big part of the problem is her poor computer skills. Of course the journalist responds, "well what about the legal system itself? Do you feel that it too is part of the problem?". I'm kidding of course, she said no such thing. When asked what she learned from her ordeal and what advice she has for others, it was to know how to use a computer!
In a brief flash of chilling truth that sums up our current state of submission, she proclaims that "everybody out there should be afraid". Did you get that? Are you ok with it?
So has the State apologised? Compensated her? Is she suing the State back for damages? Is the law being re-examined? Is anyone wondering what kind of "injury" she was charged for? If a 7th grader seeing lewd images is "injury" worthy of 40 year imprisonment, then what is Julie's baby's miscarriage worthy of, and are they being prosecuted for it? Nope. Answering yes to any of those questions would have put the unquestioned authority of the law into question. This is no country for questioning the law.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Password Inanity
If you can tell me right now how many passwords you have to remember, how many times you have to enter one a day, how many of them are unique, or how many are the same, then you probably live in North Korea.
It seems like every website and its dog wants to know your life story (and your dog's) before you can do anything meaningful. Another endless questionnaire to fill in, another unique username to pick, and yet another password to go with it. Passwords are clever and practical if you're in the military or belong to a secret society, because you're unlikely to belong to more than one of them. Imagine if every shop you walked into for the first time asked you to create a username and a password. Why are we putting up with this madness online?
Under the barrage of our daily password requests, our most common coping mechanism is surely to reuse them. If we were truly free to pick our own passwords then the drama would end here. But that would be too easy. We're also told how our passwords should look, by some invisible authority, who has decided that a password without a number is weak. No wait! Two numbers. Do I hear 3? The gentleman in the back with the Top Gun sunglasses. How about 4? Arabic letters? Hieroglyphics?
Can the gentleman with the Top Gun sunglasses please remove them so I can smack him with a shoe? I write this, of course, because for yet another in a myriad times, I encounter a site for which my password isn't good enough. I present a montage of 3 password forms, each with their own arbitrary password restrictions. Can you come up with a usable password that will work for all three and still be memorable?
It seems like every website and its dog wants to know your life story (and your dog's) before you can do anything meaningful. Another endless questionnaire to fill in, another unique username to pick, and yet another password to go with it. Passwords are clever and practical if you're in the military or belong to a secret society, because you're unlikely to belong to more than one of them. Imagine if every shop you walked into for the first time asked you to create a username and a password. Why are we putting up with this madness online?
Under the barrage of our daily password requests, our most common coping mechanism is surely to reuse them. If we were truly free to pick our own passwords then the drama would end here. But that would be too easy. We're also told how our passwords should look, by some invisible authority, who has decided that a password without a number is weak. No wait! Two numbers. Do I hear 3? The gentleman in the back with the Top Gun sunglasses. How about 4? Arabic letters? Hieroglyphics?
Can the gentleman with the Top Gun sunglasses please remove them so I can smack him with a shoe? I write this, of course, because for yet another in a myriad times, I encounter a site for which my password isn't good enough. I present a montage of 3 password forms, each with their own arbitrary password restrictions. Can you come up with a usable password that will work for all three and still be memorable?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Packaged Beliefs
What is the point of political parties? I don't think I can envision how a democratic system would fail if all politicians ran on their independent philosophy, rather than a subscribed party platform. Party membership allows us to lump a group of diverse individuals into a rigid set of ideological principles, making them all look alike. It makes it easier for us to stamp complex individuals with black or white labels before they even speak.
How is that good?
Politicians who want party support often find themselves having to conform by disavowing principles that may deviate from the platform package. And thus we have these silly bundles of ideology that we can take or leave. So if you're against abortion, then you must also like guns. If you're for gay marriage, then you are pro taxes. If you're a fiscal conservative, then you must also be a social conservative. Besides the word "conservative", what is the connection between spending restraint and nostalgia for old fashioned traditions? How does this make sense? Parties dictate your beliefs as much as your beliefs dictate your party.
What would happen if all members of Congress were independents in mind and title? Wouldn't public discourse actually be a reasoned debate in the absence of a party line to stand behind?
How is that good?
Politicians who want party support often find themselves having to conform by disavowing principles that may deviate from the platform package. And thus we have these silly bundles of ideology that we can take or leave. So if you're against abortion, then you must also like guns. If you're for gay marriage, then you are pro taxes. If you're a fiscal conservative, then you must also be a social conservative. Besides the word "conservative", what is the connection between spending restraint and nostalgia for old fashioned traditions? How does this make sense? Parties dictate your beliefs as much as your beliefs dictate your party.
What would happen if all members of Congress were independents in mind and title? Wouldn't public discourse actually be a reasoned debate in the absence of a party line to stand behind?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Is sugar really that bad?
If you can’t taste the difference between Coke and Diet Coke, or don’t care, why would you drink regular Coke? Why buy sugar-full gum when you can get sugar-free gum?
If the word Aspartame is unfamiliar to you, it is the artificial sweetener behind almost every “Diet” or “Sugar-Free” product in the world. Originally marketed as NutraSweet and the ingredient behind Equal today, it is 180 times sweeter than sugar and was initially approved by the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the 1980’s. Since its accidental discovery in 1965 by the Searle pharmaceutical company, scientists have expressed concerns about its connection with brain tumors, brain lesions and lymphoma.
The official story is that no connection has been proven and that it is safe for consumption. The problem is that the official story is being told by the sweetener and food and beverage industries. Both the FDA and the EFSA approval processes are mired in politics and controversy, involving conflicts of interest and industry-backed studies. Jere Goyan, the head of the FDA, refused to approve it in 1980 citing its cancer connection in rats. When the new president Reagan replaced the FDA head with Arthur Hayes in 1981, aspartame was approved before the year was over. Hayes later joined Searle’s PR firm as a medical adviser.
The topic is so controversial that it has been investigated by almost every major health organization worldwide. It is one of the most tested food additives on the market. Yet for every study that finds a link, there is an opposite one to cancel it out. So where does that leave us? Let’s see.
Of 74 studies funded by Searle, NutraSweet or International Life Sciences (an organization representing hundreds of food and beverage corporations that was banned by the WHO from direct involvement) between 1976 and 1995, 74 found aspartame to be safe. Zero found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/industry.html
Of 92 studies conducted by universities and independent organizations worldwide (including MIT, Washington University, the National Institute of Health and many more) between 1970 and 1998, 7 found aspartame to be safe, 6 of which were funded by the FDA. A stunning 85 found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html
Surprised? Me neither. If the first page of a Google search on “aspartame” or a review of related YouTube videos aren’t enough to scare you, it should at least make you question the validity of the FDA and EFSA’s claims of safety. Throw Donald Rumsfeld in the mix (CEO of Searle in 1981 when the FDA approved it) and the scales of public safety vs. politics just tipped. Rumsfeld personally lobbied for aspartame directly to president Reagan, who had the uncooperative FDA chief replaced.
At which point, you have to ask yourself: is sugar really that bad?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Word Guardian
I think it crept in when I began to skip the space in "anymore". I have a tendency to spell "eachother" as one word too. It's wrong. But if I spelled it thus here or anywhere else, nobody would have told me so. And I would have continued to think it was acceptable. Except when I type it in Word. Like a diligent parent, it leaves other important tasks like auto saving my work and ironing my towels, to gently point out the error. It doesn't chastise me; it gets back to the ironing, keeping one eye out for me. I dutifully make the correction and move on. It does this to me every time, until I stop doing it. It's teaching me.
Word doesn't have to do this. If it failed to print my paper, I might complain. But this is beyond its responsibilities. It's altruistic.
Not everyone is a well mannered child though. Others see spelling, grammar and structure as an oppressive force. One contrary to American ideals of freedom and self-determination. Like those who "invited Debby and I to the party" because "me" is out of fashion. Descriptivists may balk at Word's presumptuous declarations of fault, but so does every misbehaving teenager in response to parental intervention. Few of us could deny that rules exist for a reason, and that if not obeyed, parents should at least be heeded carefully, for they wish to apply experience and wisdom you don't have to your benefit. As this fact settles in as budding adults, we open ourselves up to criticism as a path to self improvement.
I submit that when an unfortunate soul happens to mention that his "wardrobe is comprised of a dozen raver pants", he is not marching to the beat of a proletarian uprising, asserting his democratic right to participate in raves and deface the English language. He is simply unaware of his mistake. A good parent would point this out (and ask before ironing those pants).
Perhaps when every attempt to misuse "comprise" or "it's", or even use "in regards to" or "as per" or "exact same thing" elicits a protest from your loved ones, the abuse might no longer be seen as an implicit right, but as the celery in your teeth that only those closest to you would care enough to tell you about. This subtle message has the power to restore dignity to us and our language, and effect (or control) change at a massive scale. I therefore suggest that perhaps the only hope left to stem the daily assault on our language comprising redundancies, overused apostrophes, gratuitous commas and fatigued clichés is the benevolent guardian within our desktops and laptops: Microsoft Word.
Word somehow has a level of authority that peers don't. Perhaps because its suggestions are made in private, there is no ego play. In the interest of cultural decency, I therefore call for an expansion of the Microsoft Word grammar dictionary to cover abusive trends and expose mistakes for what they are. A friend did point me to this site, which seems well on its way along these lines. Try checking the culprits mentioned above. If only Microsoft would follow suit.
http://spellcheckplus.com/
Word doesn't have to do this. If it failed to print my paper, I might complain. But this is beyond its responsibilities. It's altruistic.
Not everyone is a well mannered child though. Others see spelling, grammar and structure as an oppressive force. One contrary to American ideals of freedom and self-determination. Like those who "invited Debby and I to the party" because "me" is out of fashion. Descriptivists may balk at Word's presumptuous declarations of fault, but so does every misbehaving teenager in response to parental intervention. Few of us could deny that rules exist for a reason, and that if not obeyed, parents should at least be heeded carefully, for they wish to apply experience and wisdom you don't have to your benefit. As this fact settles in as budding adults, we open ourselves up to criticism as a path to self improvement.
I submit that when an unfortunate soul happens to mention that his "wardrobe is comprised of a dozen raver pants", he is not marching to the beat of a proletarian uprising, asserting his democratic right to participate in raves and deface the English language. He is simply unaware of his mistake. A good parent would point this out (and ask before ironing those pants).
Perhaps when every attempt to misuse "comprise" or "it's", or even use "in regards to" or "as per" or "exact same thing" elicits a protest from your loved ones, the abuse might no longer be seen as an implicit right, but as the celery in your teeth that only those closest to you would care enough to tell you about. This subtle message has the power to restore dignity to us and our language, and effect (or control) change at a massive scale. I therefore suggest that perhaps the only hope left to stem the daily assault on our language comprising redundancies, overused apostrophes, gratuitous commas and fatigued clichés is the benevolent guardian within our desktops and laptops: Microsoft Word.
Word somehow has a level of authority that peers don't. Perhaps because its suggestions are made in private, there is no ego play. In the interest of cultural decency, I therefore call for an expansion of the Microsoft Word grammar dictionary to cover abusive trends and expose mistakes for what they are. A friend did point me to this site, which seems well on its way along these lines. Try checking the culprits mentioned above. If only Microsoft would follow suit.
http://spellcheckplus.com/
Friday, September 26, 2008
Three
That's how many simultaneous layers of commentary NBC managed to stack on top of their live coverage of Yves Rossy's pioneering flight across the English channel with nothing but a strap-on jet-powered wing. It is also the longest pause in seconds I was able to detect from Matt Lauer and associates on the Today Show coverage.
Watching the video, I presume Layer 1 was the British film crew and engineering team. Layer 2 would be the National Geographic (NG) commentator, followed by our friends on the Today Show on Layer 3 (TS), who felt they could add more value to the conversation by drivelling, interrupting one another, and repeating what they (and the viewer) had just heard from Layer 2.
You can only enjoy watching this magnificent feat of flight if you focus your energy tuning everyone out. Here's a gem taken from 2:53 onwards.
TS: "...obviously they didn't put a camera on the, uh, device..."
NG: "...there's also a camera mounted on his wing..."
TS: "that's his helmet camera"
TS: "there's his helmet camera in the upper left hand corner"
NG: "...in the upper left of your screen. That is the view from the wing"
TS: "..oh it's from the wing"
TS: "the wing yea"
TS: "is it a view of his face or the horizon?"
TS: "i think it's the horizon"
If ever there was a moment to consider the wisdom of judicious silence...
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=8f17bf95-205b-45e5-b162-d39267a3a197&fg=rss&from=im_m_25-34
Watching the video, I presume Layer 1 was the British film crew and engineering team. Layer 2 would be the National Geographic (NG) commentator, followed by our friends on the Today Show on Layer 3 (TS), who felt they could add more value to the conversation by drivelling, interrupting one another, and repeating what they (and the viewer) had just heard from Layer 2.
You can only enjoy watching this magnificent feat of flight if you focus your energy tuning everyone out. Here's a gem taken from 2:53 onwards.
TS: "...obviously they didn't put a camera on the, uh, device..."
NG: "...there's also a camera mounted on his wing..."
TS: "that's his helmet camera"
TS: "there's his helmet camera in the upper left hand corner"
NG: "...in the upper left of your screen. That is the view from the wing"
TS: "..oh it's from the wing"
TS: "the wing yea"
TS: "is it a view of his face or the horizon?"
TS: "i think it's the horizon"
If ever there was a moment to consider the wisdom of judicious silence...
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=8f17bf95-205b-45e5-b162-d39267a3a197&fg=rss&from=im_m_25-34
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Why are you paying for ads?
There was a time when commercial television was free, entirely subsidised by advertising revenue. Generations of viewers were raised in the latter part of last century with a mutual understanding of the implicit TV contract: in exchange for free programming, you will accept interruptions for commercial advertising.
Then along came Cable, which introduced a fee for the privilege of clear reception and other premium services. Yet the ads did not relent. In fact, the ad-to-programming ratio steadily rose to record heights. Some measures estimate this today at an average of 74%. This means that for every 10 minutes of programming, you get 7.4 minutes of ads. Not to mention the 93% increase in cable rates since 1995.
So why is it that in return for a hefty charge, the TV viewer gets rewarded with more ads rather than fewer? The TV portion of my cable bill comes to $104.82 per month, or $1,257.84 per year. Is this not enough to cover programming costs?
Then along came Cable, which introduced a fee for the privilege of clear reception and other premium services. Yet the ads did not relent. In fact, the ad-to-programming ratio steadily rose to record heights. Some measures estimate this today at an average of 74%. This means that for every 10 minutes of programming, you get 7.4 minutes of ads. Not to mention the 93% increase in cable rates since 1995.
So why is it that in return for a hefty charge, the TV viewer gets rewarded with more ads rather than fewer? The TV portion of my cable bill comes to $104.82 per month, or $1,257.84 per year. Is this not enough to cover programming costs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
