Oh man, I absolutely hate Apple. Not because of some obscure reason or because I'm a true windows fan (I'm actually not), and not because they hire child labor in china to put together their parts (Albeit unknowingly).
No, I hate it because of what they are doing to the entertainment industry, and the only way I can explain this is if I jump around a lot and tie up my loose ends later:
Everyone out there complains about how Windows has (HAD) a monopoly on computers, and yet few people gripe about what Apple is doing. Apple has nearly established itself as a vertical monopoly: Audio and Video and distribution.
EVERYONE thinks that they need a mac in order to create videos or music. Most people rate Final Cut Pro as the best. And they refuse to work with others who don't use it.
Really... let's listen to someone who actually knows: me!
Final Cut is NOT the best option. It's not cost effective, it's not the most resource efficient and it's not the most simple to use. Nor is it the most powerful. What final cut has that the others don't are hidden codecs.
Codecs: you know, those things that digital video is encrypted in. Those things that Hollywood established in order to protect their DVDs from being copied and edited... Really they just prevent john smith from pirating and make piracy into a professional's game (as it should be).
So here's the deal: Apple has a borderline monopoly because it owns the software to make the music and videos that are then used on the apple I-series (pod, pad, phone, mac, etc.) You can't go from one phase to another.
Now, they are LEGALLY getting around this monopoly because they leave "options"...you know...codecs...you don't HAVE to export to a .mov file...but they're not going to include a good decompressor with their software that will go directly into .mp4, .avi, .mpeg, .mts, .m2t, .wmv, etc. and to make things worse, they set the default export format to a codec (one of the many that are disguised as .mov) which you cannot view on a PC.
Granted, there are all sorts of .mov files--that doesn't mean anything other than that the file was made on a mac (codecs are different from files types). But the codecs, THEY are original. You see, DVPRO is one such codec that Apple doesn't release to windows. And yet it is one of the "best" decompressors that final cut has to offer as far as quality goes--it's also the type of codec used when importing from a digital device. Let's say you plug your camera in and import a video into final cut--BOOM it's automatically a mac only format. And to add to it, it's a format that can't even be played on windows computers.
What this amounts to is that you can't upload the files to final cut, then have your buddy edit half of the video on adobe or avid or my favorite Sony Vegas...instead, they have to be exported as a different file/codec type--legally that's fine, but practically speaking that's not realistic: The only way around it is to render a separate file--Why would I want to make 2 copies of a video on my harddrive: one that is great for final cut and one that is great for the rest of the world? Videos can take up gigabytes of space and hours of time to render into the proper format--this solution is very unrealistic in a world where even a 1 tb harddrive is still expensive and even fast computers still take hours to render.
Such is why I don't support Apple at all. (Yes, windows does it too, but they don't do a good job at it and so the best codecs tend to be accessible everywhere, not just on windows wmv or avi)
Monday, June 18, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Online Dating
If you've ever been curious about what online dating is all about, whether it works or it doesn't work, read this article, you'll be impressed by what you learn.
Being an ex-life coach I feel more than qualified to write about online dating sites. --In some regards they were my competition, because people would rather hide out on online dating sites rather than fix whatever problems that they have that prevent them from having a relationship. In other regards, I've tried scooping up the online dating crowd in my marketing efforts and I had to do a lot of research in order to figure them out. In fact, I was interviewed at one time for a newspaper article related to this topic.
Here's what I've learned from it all:
1. Women are only online because they either a) lack the social skills to attract the attention of males in person or b) they are just investigating it because it is marketed as some mythical golden goose and they want to see if it really does produce golden eggs.
2. Men are only online because they either a) lack the social skills to attract the attention of females in person, or b) they are just looking for some easy action.
3. There ARE a lot of creeps online--in fact, you have a 1:5 (my estimate) chance of meeting a pedophile, rapist, druggie, thief, or other creeps online who if you meet in person will either rape you, molest your kids, steal your money or things and sell them to buy drugs and leave you without anything.
4. The women who lack the most social skills tend to be predominantly A) single mothers and secondary to them are B) women with weight issues.
5. There are three predominant (specific) reasons for a single mother to use online dating (remember that these women are either just investigating or they lack social skills) A) they feel that their efforts in a non-online-spurred relation have failed resulting in them being a single mother and that somehow it will be easier for them to have a committed long-term relationship with someone who they believe is a "nice" guy because he survives online. B) they're just looking for no strings attached sex and aren't really interested in a relationship. C) they are too lazy and gutless to develop a relationship in person, i.e. they are scared to take risks, believe they don't have enough time, or they are unmotivated to meet new people.
6. Most women who resort to online dating have a poor opinion of men, specifically, they believe in generalizations such as that men lack chivalry or men are players.
7. Those "normal" women who are only experimenting with online dating are likely to only stick to it for three weeks or less. Again, the rest--the ones who stay--have some social malady.
8. Not all dating sites imply the same things. Some dating sites attract a specific type of people. I attribute this to their marketing and branding efforts.
9. There are plenty of free and semi-free dating sites that are moderately respectable and therefore there is no reason to invest in a paid dating site because they all attract the same two kinds of people (read #1 and #2 again).
10. Few people use more than one dating site, most find one they like and stick to it.
Notes
This is heavily weighted towards what I learned about women in online dating because my target market for my research was women. I already know a lot about men because I am one. Also, bear in mind that I stuck to the age limits of over 18 and under 30.
Summary
If you're looking for someone to have the perfect relationship with don't use online dating. If you're a male and you insist on it, you had better be comfortable with inheriting kids because she probably has at least one. Also, there is no significant difference between the level of maturity of someone who is 18 online and someone who is 28 online. If you're a female, and you insist on online dating, you had better be comfortable with guys that want sex--some of them may hold out for a short while but they'll all eventually expect sex.
The physical quality of the people you see on online dating is a good reflection of the physical quality of those you would meet in person--I would suggest that there is even an accurate ratio of the number of "good looking" (I know that that is a subjective term) people compared to not so good looking.
I think really I would be scared to do online dating knowing what I know now.--I still have accounts online but I use them for experimentation and occasionally I like to look at pictures of people, it's an odd fascination of mine I know, but I feel like self-taken photos and the photos people choose to represent themselves say a lot about them and it's all very interesting.
Being an ex-life coach I feel more than qualified to write about online dating sites. --In some regards they were my competition, because people would rather hide out on online dating sites rather than fix whatever problems that they have that prevent them from having a relationship. In other regards, I've tried scooping up the online dating crowd in my marketing efforts and I had to do a lot of research in order to figure them out. In fact, I was interviewed at one time for a newspaper article related to this topic.
Here's what I've learned from it all:
1. Women are only online because they either a) lack the social skills to attract the attention of males in person or b) they are just investigating it because it is marketed as some mythical golden goose and they want to see if it really does produce golden eggs.
2. Men are only online because they either a) lack the social skills to attract the attention of females in person, or b) they are just looking for some easy action.
3. There ARE a lot of creeps online--in fact, you have a 1:5 (my estimate) chance of meeting a pedophile, rapist, druggie, thief, or other creeps online who if you meet in person will either rape you, molest your kids, steal your money or things and sell them to buy drugs and leave you without anything.
4. The women who lack the most social skills tend to be predominantly A) single mothers and secondary to them are B) women with weight issues.
5. There are three predominant (specific) reasons for a single mother to use online dating (remember that these women are either just investigating or they lack social skills) A) they feel that their efforts in a non-online-spurred relation have failed resulting in them being a single mother and that somehow it will be easier for them to have a committed long-term relationship with someone who they believe is a "nice" guy because he survives online. B) they're just looking for no strings attached sex and aren't really interested in a relationship. C) they are too lazy and gutless to develop a relationship in person, i.e. they are scared to take risks, believe they don't have enough time, or they are unmotivated to meet new people.
6. Most women who resort to online dating have a poor opinion of men, specifically, they believe in generalizations such as that men lack chivalry or men are players.
7. Those "normal" women who are only experimenting with online dating are likely to only stick to it for three weeks or less. Again, the rest--the ones who stay--have some social malady.
8. Not all dating sites imply the same things. Some dating sites attract a specific type of people. I attribute this to their marketing and branding efforts.
9. There are plenty of free and semi-free dating sites that are moderately respectable and therefore there is no reason to invest in a paid dating site because they all attract the same two kinds of people (read #1 and #2 again).
10. Few people use more than one dating site, most find one they like and stick to it.
Notes
This is heavily weighted towards what I learned about women in online dating because my target market for my research was women. I already know a lot about men because I am one. Also, bear in mind that I stuck to the age limits of over 18 and under 30.
Summary
If you're looking for someone to have the perfect relationship with don't use online dating. If you're a male and you insist on it, you had better be comfortable with inheriting kids because she probably has at least one. Also, there is no significant difference between the level of maturity of someone who is 18 online and someone who is 28 online. If you're a female, and you insist on online dating, you had better be comfortable with guys that want sex--some of them may hold out for a short while but they'll all eventually expect sex.
The physical quality of the people you see on online dating is a good reflection of the physical quality of those you would meet in person--I would suggest that there is even an accurate ratio of the number of "good looking" (I know that that is a subjective term) people compared to not so good looking.
I think really I would be scared to do online dating knowing what I know now.--I still have accounts online but I use them for experimentation and occasionally I like to look at pictures of people, it's an odd fascination of mine I know, but I feel like self-taken photos and the photos people choose to represent themselves say a lot about them and it's all very interesting.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Notes on Pairs
This is a snippet of some notes I've been sitting on for a few months--I remember writing these late at night on my smart phone and I don't remember what I was going to do with them, whether they were meant to be an article or part of a story idea or what exactly I was going to do with them. Every week when I check the notes on my phone I see this and keep meaning to use it for something, so I figure I'll just post it with the preface that these are just notes and may not actually lead to a conclusion
----
Two identical, similar or corresponding things that are matched for use together.
Why are they put together? Because it makes it easier to accomplish things and some things can't be done with just one half of a pair (think scissors)
It's much easier and more efficient to be paired than separated and occasionally tow unpaird things are just two worthless objects because they are not paired (atomic bonds, scissors, etc).
Some separated pairs serve an entirely different functions whent ehy are not paird or can do a different functions better by not being paired (...the pair holds it back?--but I can't think of an example).
So what is their true purpose? The one[function] that can be fulfilled unpaired (if not in a pair) or a function that can be fulfilled only as a pair?
And What of people?
when people have been paird, of course it's easier to perform certain fu nctions. It's also easier and more fulfilling (accomplishes it's purpose), to perform functions without the other pair or part of the equation--when that other pair is missing...(Again, I can't think of a specific example).
Is it easier to be good or bad depending on who or what a person is paired with? Is it harder to be the opposite (good or bad) without the other matching pair?
Normal, sane individuals would have a hard time doing good or bad if they weren't paired with objects or people who influence them to do one or the other.
The true nature of an individual is not his or her influences then, because when paired with one or the other he or she will be influenced by them.
The true nature of a person then is his or her desires and ability to resist persuasions that go against their true desires.
----
Two identical, similar or corresponding things that are matched for use together.
Why are they put together? Because it makes it easier to accomplish things and some things can't be done with just one half of a pair (think scissors)
It's much easier and more efficient to be paired than separated and occasionally tow unpaird things are just two worthless objects because they are not paired (atomic bonds, scissors, etc).
Some separated pairs serve an entirely different functions whent ehy are not paird or can do a different functions better by not being paired (...the pair holds it back?--but I can't think of an example).
So what is their true purpose? The one[function] that can be fulfilled unpaired (if not in a pair) or a function that can be fulfilled only as a pair?
And What of people?
when people have been paird, of course it's easier to perform certain fu nctions. It's also easier and more fulfilling (accomplishes it's purpose), to perform functions without the other pair or part of the equation--when that other pair is missing...(Again, I can't think of a specific example).
Is it easier to be good or bad depending on who or what a person is paired with? Is it harder to be the opposite (good or bad) without the other matching pair?
Normal, sane individuals would have a hard time doing good or bad if they weren't paired with objects or people who influence them to do one or the other.
The true nature of an individual is not his or her influences then, because when paired with one or the other he or she will be influenced by them.
The true nature of a person then is his or her desires and ability to resist persuasions that go against their true desires.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Mothers and Daughters
I could approach writing this article in several different ways: I could act excited as though I just made a major discovery (Eureka!)--though I've known this for several years. I could act outraged as though the people who don't know this or don't do this are scum for not taking action--but the rhetoric of such an approach would only deter those people from ever doing it, and it would pit those who are doing it against those who aren't, and I don't think that will solve anything. I could also act scientific about it and pull out a bunch of statistics--but my experience has been that people are wowed by statistics at first but then forget about them (because 99% of people hear too many statistics in a given day to keep any of them straight).
Just watch this video and then I'll comment on the subject:
\
The biggest problem facing our society today is the lack of good treatment by parents towards their daughters, and the lack of respect that daughters have for parents because of it. We've empowered women over the years to make them more equal to men. Many barriers have been broken, admirably, by superior women. Just like young boys must earn the privilege to be called a man, women have earned the privilege to be equal to men on many accounts; and on what remains it is only likely that women will overcome those barriers too.
But when you start to talk about the problems facing this world--not the quantitative problems such as sickness, but the problems that limit our quality of life-- there is a clear wire connecting those problems and the treatment of women in general. Anger, revenge, fear, threatenings, vile behavior, incivility, and disrespect to name a few, can all be tied to the way in which young women are raised. When a young girl is treated with disrespect by her mother or father, when her parents fight all of the time, when parents take advantage of her timidity, or they use her for a scapegoat--she will not only be repelled from her parents, but she will also carry the cycle on to the relationships she has with other people and eventually to her children.
Culturally, men are different. For hundreds of years young boys have been taught to be tough, to not be emotional, to act and defend themselves and to be proactive. Tales from the bible, greek, roman, and norse mythology, and american cinema have always portrayed the male protagonist as violent, tough, and commanding and because of such a long history of this culture, when men are mistreated, they fight rather than flight, they prove themselves, and if they fail they accept their losses and their insignificance.
Recently, the female protagonist has split into two categories: The sexually powerful, commanding goddess, just like Madonna and Lady Gaga or Katy Perry, Angelina Jolie, Ke$ha, Britney Spears, all female super heroes, Desperate house wives, the princess on Avatar, the women of Star Trek, and many others. OR, the shy, timid, unlucky girl who gets a good life handed to her for no reason, such as Anne Hathaway, Julia Robberts, Bella, any Disney Princess, etc.. The problem with this is that whereas the male figure teaches men to be tolerant and to stand firm to what they believe and to go after what they want and be proactive, the two female figures teach women that it is okay to control other people using their body, that in order to get what she wants she has to be confrontational rather than suave, that it is okay to be emotional and angry and to run away from situations if she doesn't get what she wants, that revenge is perfectly justified, and if not any of those then that in the end luck will always prevail to help her get everything she wants in the end whether she deserves it or not.--It culturally enforces the stereotypes men apply to women: that they're emotional, grouchy, unrealistically demanding, controlling, and that they control the sexual aspects of a relationship and if a man wants to have sex he must assert control over her/tame her, and that she will still always possess these irrational traits and that man just needs to deal with them and no run away.---------------This is nothing new. Thousands of people have presented this argument, and my job is to present further argument in line with this one, not restate old arguments.
When a young girl feels like she isn't loved at home, she retreats from home.--she may still live at home, but she despises home and she finds things to do that her parents wouldn't approve of simply out of subconscious revenge for being mistreated. She disregards simple advice of her parents because her parents' ethos has been damaged to the point where she subconsciously believes that what they say might be the opposite of what she should do. She ventures into the world too trusting of outsiders and not trusting enough of insiders, then she gets burned by someone who she thinks she loves and who loves her, when in reality she has no idea what love is because she hasn't ever experienced it before in her life--not even by her parents. Granted, this is an over simplified story--there are many variations of this scenario, nevertheless they all conclude that if the parents would have treated their daughter with a little more respect and formed an actual relationship with her rather than an obligated relationship, the daughter might have gone to them for advice, might have recognized what true love is in the first place and avoided the charms of others who claim love and have other motives in mind.
Just like John Mayer sings, "girls become lovers and turn into mothers"--that's pretty simple, but she only becomes a mother like her mother if she decides to be a mother at all. If she never knows what true love is like, how is she going to love her daughters (or sons) that way?
Many young girls go down dark paths and make stupid decisions because no one loves them. --This is not gender specific, young boys do the same until they realize how to follow the culture of the man and they stand up for themselves and suddenly it becomes okay for them to go in and out of the dark paths of life because that's part of being a man--Taking drugs, getting pregnant, having abusive relationships, breaking the law, all of these things come about when people don't feel loved or lose track of how to love other people even when those people don't love them back.
And let me present a counter argument in case anyone tries to point out the painfully obvious: Men can love too. Men can love women and break the cycle of a woman not being loved. They can have children and even though the woman doesn't know entirely what a loving relationship is (other than the one with her husband) her husband can love the children and correct any maladies in the cycle. [[how does biology correct defects in one person's gene line? It takes the good genes from both sides and tries to eliminate the bad ones--love can work the same way and hopefully correct the bad characteristics]]. However, even though our society is on the verge of equalizing man and women, the women typically get the kids, even if the man has a better job and could raise those kids, and even if the man might be the one who knows how to love better than the other--the woman gets the kids simply because of the cultural implications that men are supposed to be a certain way and women another way (unless the woman has done something terribly wrong that would make her place unsafe for kids).
The only thing I can see that would correct our society and make life "fair" is if parents loved their kids--really loved their kids. And knew how to love those kids. And if they didn't know how to really love and respect and care about their kids and show their kids how to love and respect and care about other people, then those same parents would LEARN how to do these things. --I don't think there is any excuse for not figuring out how to have a good relationship, people make excuses because they're lazy. The truth is, you can have an amazing relationship (friends, lovers, parent-children, mentor, etc) with ANYONE if you really want that. And THAT is what can improve the quality of life (as opposed to quantity of life).
Just watch this video and then I'll comment on the subject:
The biggest problem facing our society today is the lack of good treatment by parents towards their daughters, and the lack of respect that daughters have for parents because of it. We've empowered women over the years to make them more equal to men. Many barriers have been broken, admirably, by superior women. Just like young boys must earn the privilege to be called a man, women have earned the privilege to be equal to men on many accounts; and on what remains it is only likely that women will overcome those barriers too.
But when you start to talk about the problems facing this world--not the quantitative problems such as sickness, but the problems that limit our quality of life-- there is a clear wire connecting those problems and the treatment of women in general. Anger, revenge, fear, threatenings, vile behavior, incivility, and disrespect to name a few, can all be tied to the way in which young women are raised. When a young girl is treated with disrespect by her mother or father, when her parents fight all of the time, when parents take advantage of her timidity, or they use her for a scapegoat--she will not only be repelled from her parents, but she will also carry the cycle on to the relationships she has with other people and eventually to her children.
Culturally, men are different. For hundreds of years young boys have been taught to be tough, to not be emotional, to act and defend themselves and to be proactive. Tales from the bible, greek, roman, and norse mythology, and american cinema have always portrayed the male protagonist as violent, tough, and commanding and because of such a long history of this culture, when men are mistreated, they fight rather than flight, they prove themselves, and if they fail they accept their losses and their insignificance.
Recently, the female protagonist has split into two categories: The sexually powerful, commanding goddess, just like Madonna and Lady Gaga or Katy Perry, Angelina Jolie, Ke$ha, Britney Spears, all female super heroes, Desperate house wives, the princess on Avatar, the women of Star Trek, and many others. OR, the shy, timid, unlucky girl who gets a good life handed to her for no reason, such as Anne Hathaway, Julia Robberts, Bella, any Disney Princess, etc.. The problem with this is that whereas the male figure teaches men to be tolerant and to stand firm to what they believe and to go after what they want and be proactive, the two female figures teach women that it is okay to control other people using their body, that in order to get what she wants she has to be confrontational rather than suave, that it is okay to be emotional and angry and to run away from situations if she doesn't get what she wants, that revenge is perfectly justified, and if not any of those then that in the end luck will always prevail to help her get everything she wants in the end whether she deserves it or not.--It culturally enforces the stereotypes men apply to women: that they're emotional, grouchy, unrealistically demanding, controlling, and that they control the sexual aspects of a relationship and if a man wants to have sex he must assert control over her/tame her, and that she will still always possess these irrational traits and that man just needs to deal with them and no run away.---------------This is nothing new. Thousands of people have presented this argument, and my job is to present further argument in line with this one, not restate old arguments.
When a young girl feels like she isn't loved at home, she retreats from home.--she may still live at home, but she despises home and she finds things to do that her parents wouldn't approve of simply out of subconscious revenge for being mistreated. She disregards simple advice of her parents because her parents' ethos has been damaged to the point where she subconsciously believes that what they say might be the opposite of what she should do. She ventures into the world too trusting of outsiders and not trusting enough of insiders, then she gets burned by someone who she thinks she loves and who loves her, when in reality she has no idea what love is because she hasn't ever experienced it before in her life--not even by her parents. Granted, this is an over simplified story--there are many variations of this scenario, nevertheless they all conclude that if the parents would have treated their daughter with a little more respect and formed an actual relationship with her rather than an obligated relationship, the daughter might have gone to them for advice, might have recognized what true love is in the first place and avoided the charms of others who claim love and have other motives in mind.
Just like John Mayer sings, "girls become lovers and turn into mothers"--that's pretty simple, but she only becomes a mother like her mother if she decides to be a mother at all. If she never knows what true love is like, how is she going to love her daughters (or sons) that way?
Many young girls go down dark paths and make stupid decisions because no one loves them. --This is not gender specific, young boys do the same until they realize how to follow the culture of the man and they stand up for themselves and suddenly it becomes okay for them to go in and out of the dark paths of life because that's part of being a man--Taking drugs, getting pregnant, having abusive relationships, breaking the law, all of these things come about when people don't feel loved or lose track of how to love other people even when those people don't love them back.
And let me present a counter argument in case anyone tries to point out the painfully obvious: Men can love too. Men can love women and break the cycle of a woman not being loved. They can have children and even though the woman doesn't know entirely what a loving relationship is (other than the one with her husband) her husband can love the children and correct any maladies in the cycle. [[how does biology correct defects in one person's gene line? It takes the good genes from both sides and tries to eliminate the bad ones--love can work the same way and hopefully correct the bad characteristics]]. However, even though our society is on the verge of equalizing man and women, the women typically get the kids, even if the man has a better job and could raise those kids, and even if the man might be the one who knows how to love better than the other--the woman gets the kids simply because of the cultural implications that men are supposed to be a certain way and women another way (unless the woman has done something terribly wrong that would make her place unsafe for kids).
The only thing I can see that would correct our society and make life "fair" is if parents loved their kids--really loved their kids. And knew how to love those kids. And if they didn't know how to really love and respect and care about their kids and show their kids how to love and respect and care about other people, then those same parents would LEARN how to do these things. --I don't think there is any excuse for not figuring out how to have a good relationship, people make excuses because they're lazy. The truth is, you can have an amazing relationship (friends, lovers, parent-children, mentor, etc) with ANYONE if you really want that. And THAT is what can improve the quality of life (as opposed to quantity of life).
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Our non-realities aren't even Believeable
AMC is playing the matrix trilogy right now and every time I see the first 30 minutes of the show I'm reminded of how IT has shaped the way we approach movies today.
An entire genre--two genres even--has developed all because of the popularity of the Matrix. 1st, the live-action anime. 2nd, the comic book film. Granted, comic book films have been around since the first Batman in 1989 or Superman in 1978, but it wasn't until recently that comic book films have caught fire in the film industry.
The logic goes like this: comic books already have an established audience. They already have an artistic style and costumes and even camera movements can be seen in the way that the artist draws their panels. Turning popular books into films has been around forever because it's easy to market them, and it's a little easier to produce them because a lot of the creative decisions have already been made. All of this just means that it's easier. Easier, easier. They already know what the audience expects from them before they get to the theater.
Live Action Animes. Well, let's see, there is the Matrix, Sin City,Ultra Violet, Resident Evil, Aeon Flux, (I suppose I should include Transformers) &c. &c. They're starting to become more and more popular with western audiences and we will no doubt see more and more of them into the future.
The future. That's an interesting concept. It's something that all anime movies are about. --I'll admit to watching a few animes. I'm curious about this genre so I've seen a few of the most popular series, Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, Escaflowne, Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, Berserk, and a few others. I can see a lot of potential in the genre and I've been impressed by all of the works of Hayao Miyazaki, including Panda! Go Panda!, but overall the anime genre is tainted by the least creative plot lines, too overthetop characters, and in-coherent themes.
The problems with animes aren't their ideas. They have brilliant ideas, such as a man with a bounty on his head on a desert planet where there is a mixture between modern technology and western era technology--steampunkeque (trigun). Or how about In a fantasy world, a good king is overthrown by an evil one and his son has to get revenge and save the country using only a giant mecha suit (Escaflowne). In the future on mars, a bounty hunter sets out to capture the ultimate criminal (sounds like a Bruce Willis film, but no, it's Cowboy Bebop). The ideas are solid, it's the implementation of those ideas that flop.
I think it centers around the themes of Animes (anime? is that the plural of anime?). They try too hard to make a dramatic point about life or the environment or about good and evil. The worst storytelling I have ever seen was in Escaflowne, where for 3/4 of the series everything is outstanding, but then it all goes downhill when they introduce the fate machine. A machine that controls fate. I think they even called it Deus Ex Machina--I have to give them credit, it is correctly titled, and unless you have something to say about poor storytelling you should never center your story on an actual deus ex machina. --I'm not kidding, and neither were the makers of that anime. It was really terrible because it at the 3/4 mark the main character had killed his main opponent and his conflicted older brother, who was working for the enemy, was still alive and starting to feel guilt, and the boss of the main characters' foil character (who he had just killed) was still alive, and you assumed at the 3/4 mark that he would make amends with his brother and kill the SOB who brainwashed his brother into being evil. --Yes, that's how it ends. But to justify all of that, they include the 5 or so episodes about how they had built a machine that could predict the future and that they could change fate by correcting anything that opposes them.
Why did they do that? Why didn't they just conclude the series by making it obvious that the main boss was a wicked genius and good at persuading people to follow him, and then have the MC do what he needed to do?
OR how about in Trigun, where Vash (anime are full of funny names for their characters), the MC goes around haphazardly helping all of the towns folk and what not and isn't a bad character he's just been labeled as such (every nerdy anime lover's dream come true, a character they can relate to). Nearing the conclusion (I think in this one it happens just before the climax), it is revealed that Vash is actually a superior alien race and that the planet is a new colony for humanity, but that his antagonist is actually his twin brother. Why do that? They had an amazing story until that point, all they needed to do was let the two characters have a showdown at high noon and then have Vash be declared a hero and retire?
In Berserk, the story shifts from being about a band of outlaw mercenaries who make a respectable life advancing to the thrown, to suddenly being about a magical token that the foil character carries around with him that grants him wishes and is actually evil... We don't find out about that until the last 4 or 5 episodes.
Introducing details so late in the story just ruins the story.
Pokemon at least did things right: It's ALWAYS about catching pokemon or beating trainers--preferably both in one episode. You know what you're getting into when you watch it, just like you know that the Simpsons will always start out on one path and end in another, or a character in Family Guy will do something completely ridiculous and stupid and have to correct that throughout the course of the episode. Pokemon's problem is that the characters are TOO over dramatic. Then again, twelve year old boys leaving home is always going to end in an over-dramatic mess...
My point is, we have changed so much over the last 10 years that now EVERYTHING has to be set in the present day in order to be interesting. I think they're trying too hard to sell their movie. Eventually, I suppose we'll reach a point where people realize that they want to approach movies with the understanding that it's not the real world and things don't work that way in real life. If the mass of society (The ones who are so attached to super hero films) doesn't realize this, then we'll probably see a breed of weirdos that are commonplace, just like anime weirdos are so...weird. In fact, we're already seeing them: people dressing in super suits to combat villains on the streets--and the crowd of people who endorse such behavior...
An entire genre--two genres even--has developed all because of the popularity of the Matrix. 1st, the live-action anime. 2nd, the comic book film. Granted, comic book films have been around since the first Batman in 1989 or Superman in 1978, but it wasn't until recently that comic book films have caught fire in the film industry.
The logic goes like this: comic books already have an established audience. They already have an artistic style and costumes and even camera movements can be seen in the way that the artist draws their panels. Turning popular books into films has been around forever because it's easy to market them, and it's a little easier to produce them because a lot of the creative decisions have already been made. All of this just means that it's easier. Easier, easier. They already know what the audience expects from them before they get to the theater.
Live Action Animes. Well, let's see, there is the Matrix, Sin City,Ultra Violet, Resident Evil, Aeon Flux, (I suppose I should include Transformers) &c. &c. They're starting to become more and more popular with western audiences and we will no doubt see more and more of them into the future.
The future. That's an interesting concept. It's something that all anime movies are about. --I'll admit to watching a few animes. I'm curious about this genre so I've seen a few of the most popular series, Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, Escaflowne, Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, Berserk, and a few others. I can see a lot of potential in the genre and I've been impressed by all of the works of Hayao Miyazaki, including Panda! Go Panda!, but overall the anime genre is tainted by the least creative plot lines, too overthetop characters, and in-coherent themes.
The problems with animes aren't their ideas. They have brilliant ideas, such as a man with a bounty on his head on a desert planet where there is a mixture between modern technology and western era technology--steampunkeque (trigun). Or how about In a fantasy world, a good king is overthrown by an evil one and his son has to get revenge and save the country using only a giant mecha suit (Escaflowne). In the future on mars, a bounty hunter sets out to capture the ultimate criminal (sounds like a Bruce Willis film, but no, it's Cowboy Bebop). The ideas are solid, it's the implementation of those ideas that flop.
I think it centers around the themes of Animes (anime? is that the plural of anime?). They try too hard to make a dramatic point about life or the environment or about good and evil. The worst storytelling I have ever seen was in Escaflowne, where for 3/4 of the series everything is outstanding, but then it all goes downhill when they introduce the fate machine. A machine that controls fate. I think they even called it Deus Ex Machina--I have to give them credit, it is correctly titled, and unless you have something to say about poor storytelling you should never center your story on an actual deus ex machina. --I'm not kidding, and neither were the makers of that anime. It was really terrible because it at the 3/4 mark the main character had killed his main opponent and his conflicted older brother, who was working for the enemy, was still alive and starting to feel guilt, and the boss of the main characters' foil character (who he had just killed) was still alive, and you assumed at the 3/4 mark that he would make amends with his brother and kill the SOB who brainwashed his brother into being evil. --Yes, that's how it ends. But to justify all of that, they include the 5 or so episodes about how they had built a machine that could predict the future and that they could change fate by correcting anything that opposes them.
Why did they do that? Why didn't they just conclude the series by making it obvious that the main boss was a wicked genius and good at persuading people to follow him, and then have the MC do what he needed to do?
OR how about in Trigun, where Vash (anime are full of funny names for their characters), the MC goes around haphazardly helping all of the towns folk and what not and isn't a bad character he's just been labeled as such (every nerdy anime lover's dream come true, a character they can relate to). Nearing the conclusion (I think in this one it happens just before the climax), it is revealed that Vash is actually a superior alien race and that the planet is a new colony for humanity, but that his antagonist is actually his twin brother. Why do that? They had an amazing story until that point, all they needed to do was let the two characters have a showdown at high noon and then have Vash be declared a hero and retire?
In Berserk, the story shifts from being about a band of outlaw mercenaries who make a respectable life advancing to the thrown, to suddenly being about a magical token that the foil character carries around with him that grants him wishes and is actually evil... We don't find out about that until the last 4 or 5 episodes.
Introducing details so late in the story just ruins the story.
Pokemon at least did things right: It's ALWAYS about catching pokemon or beating trainers--preferably both in one episode. You know what you're getting into when you watch it, just like you know that the Simpsons will always start out on one path and end in another, or a character in Family Guy will do something completely ridiculous and stupid and have to correct that throughout the course of the episode. Pokemon's problem is that the characters are TOO over dramatic. Then again, twelve year old boys leaving home is always going to end in an over-dramatic mess...
Comic Book movies are the same way though... The Quirky Tony Stark invents a suit to help him--battle evil. Turns out that his partner steals his suit idea, has him fired, and then they have to duke it out suit against suit, but...turns out there are other bad guys out there and Stark will have to team up with other super heroes (with real super powers) and eventually the x-men in order to save the world
There is nothing wrong with this I suppose, but you'd think they would at least put it in the distant future, not the present.--ten years from now these films are going to be so dated--dated like the matrix using a 56k modem noise for the first time Neo goes out of the matrix.
Going to a movie, comic book or anime, I expect the world to not be believable, just like I do in a sci-fi. I expect the world in it to not be believable, but I expect the maker of the film to make a case that it is believable. These days, comic book and anime films compensate for the implausibility by setting them in the present day--transformers in 2007, no way!--you mean there is a secret school for genetic mutation humanoids in which they train their powers and use them for good? You mean this reality is not this reality, it's the matrix?
Come on, you don't need to do those things to have an enjoyable film, Metropolis and Gotham doesn't have to be New York city or Washington D.C. or anywhere else, just set them in an alternate, Marvel universe and we'll be perfectly happy.My point is, we have changed so much over the last 10 years that now EVERYTHING has to be set in the present day in order to be interesting. I think they're trying too hard to sell their movie. Eventually, I suppose we'll reach a point where people realize that they want to approach movies with the understanding that it's not the real world and things don't work that way in real life. If the mass of society (The ones who are so attached to super hero films) doesn't realize this, then we'll probably see a breed of weirdos that are commonplace, just like anime weirdos are so...weird. In fact, we're already seeing them: people dressing in super suits to combat villains on the streets--and the crowd of people who endorse such behavior...
Monday, April 23, 2012
Crosswalks
I quit facebook. Entirely. I didn't like that any stalker and his dog could look me up, size me up, chew me up, and spit me out before fighting me in person. I also envisioned myself in the future with the dog I want to get prowling around on facebook, sizing people up before I really met them.--I don't like that phony crap. If you want ammo to shoot at me, read my blog--at least there I get to track you, what city you live in, if you're bringing backup, and I can also make money if you click on my ads--I don't get those privileges on facebook, a place for gossip, a place for creeps. I don't care how many people potentially *could* find my blog from my facebook page, the costs are far greater than the benefits.
Before I get into today's article I want to announce a challenge. I started playing Yahoo's Fantasy Finance, a fantasy stock market game that runs the same way that all the other "fantasy --" games work: it takes real life measurements and applies them in game form.--this one is tied directly to Yahoo Finance, a stock market measuring app on the yahoo website. I started playing at the opening of the stock market this morning and at closing I had made $20 (after subtracting the fees involved for purchasing my next stock for tomorrow morning). I have a goal to double my money in 52 weeks (you start with $100,000).--It looks like a stretch right now, but I'm sure going to give it my all! --If you play (or you're going to start playing) feel free to add me as a friend and we can turn it into a friendly competition: (kyle_oakeson)
Now the real article:
--------------------------------------------------------
I was walking home along a crosswalk today--there's only one on the way to my house from campus, and jerk-off had the nerve to yell out the window of his truck "look both ways before crossing the street." If you ever see me cross the street right there, you know I don't look both ways. Most of the time I don't look either direction, the rest of the time I only look one way. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?
I'm 23, just finishing up with post-secondary school, and if you saw me walk into the street you'd think I had a death wish.--no, I don't value my education so poorly that I feel as though after I graduate I have no where to go, but I have two very "smart" reasons for boldly crossing the street. I've thought about them a lot and I figure I have such a solid knowledge on the subject that I'm 90% non-persuadable.
Although there are two main reasons, I'll keep this organized by numbering my points:
1) I have the right of way. I have the right of way no matter where I am, because I am on foot. I am a pedestrian. In a court of law, however, if I get hit while jay-walking in a speed-zone of higher than 30 then I don't really have a case for not looking both ways because the danger of the situation (higher speeds) would cause the average person to consider their own safety before venturing into dangerous territory.
2) There IS a crosswalk there. Crosswalks are legally marked off zones where pedestrians are designed to travel. The crosswalk was invented to protect the pedestrian by making drivers aware that they need to be cautious when driving over the crosswalk. During typical travel times of the day (which varies per crosswalk but in a realistic manner), drivers need to be extra careful so that they don't hit pedestrians. In this particular crosswalk, since it is right off of campus, it is understood that during times of the day when classes are held, pedestrians will use the crosswalk regularly. Meaning any time of day from 8AM to 6PM, a pedestrian could cross that walk.
A distinction needs to be made here about school zones however, lest my readers get confused. A school zone is designed to give children, who may or may not understand the danger and risk in crossing a street, extra protection against careless drivers. In a school zone, drivers are commanded to drive at 20 mph or less, which is still dangerous to a small individual (using simple physics, even getting hit at 10 mph by a 3000lb or heavier car can cause a lot of damage to someone who weighs under 50lbs and whose fulcrum is lower than 3 ft.).
Let me just paste in the Utah code concerning crosswalks because that will make a more valid case, starting with the least pertinent and building:
"Utah Code 41-6a-1707. Entering intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade -- Sufficient space required.
The operator of a vehicle may not enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, pedestrians, or railroad trains notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed."
So interpreting that: a vehicle (let's take a pickup truck for example) may not enter a crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on either side for the pedestrian (myself) to cross without being obstructed, or blocked. --This law is mostly talking about stopping on a crosswalk (such as what I have seen people do when they are turning right at an intersection and nearly hit a pedestrian [either in the act of turning right or as they approach the intersection]). It's still relevant though, because it says that they MAY NOT obstruct me from walking on the crosswalk.
"Utah Code 41-6a-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way -- Duty of pedestrian.
(1) (a) Except as provided under Subsection (2), when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way by slowing down or stopping if necessary:
(i) to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling; or
(ii) when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply under conditions of Subsection 41-6a-1003(2).
(c) A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."
Here's the real deal. A man in a deep blue truck in Logan, UT shall yield the right of way by slowing down or stopping to a pedestrian (myself and others) crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on half of the roadway or when the pedestrian (myself) is approaching so closely from the opposite half as to be in danger.
Interpreting: so if I'm crossing from left to right and a car is driving on the right side of the road, if I make it out into the road and he or she is not an immediate hazard, then they must slow down.
However, a pedestrian (myself) may not suddenly leave the curb into the path of a vehicle which is close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
3) Any vehicle driving on the right side of the road and is less than one car length away from the crosswalk is not an immediate hazard. I can say this quite confidently. I have seen several Cache Valley Public Transit Department Buses (these things weight tons!) stop in one car length on the right side of the road. Why? Because this is a hill. A very steep hill. My first car probably would struggle going up this hill in 3rd gear.
4)One car length is enough for me to see quite clearly without using my peripherals. When I said I only look one direction, I meant that I look up the hill. A car going down the hill will take more distance to stop than one going up. If my extended peripherals (I can see the top and the bottom of the hill which is probably 300-400 yards) indicate that I need to look up the hill, then I look up the hill and then look straight ahead. I have good peripherals. I can see OVER 180 degrees (beyond 180 degrees I lose track of detail but I can still clearly see motion, and a moving truck or bus is motion). It bothers me sometimes and I get jumpy and bugged out when someone moves, rather quickly, in my extended peripherals (beyond 180 degrees).
5) If you don't like me, don't like my attitude, just hit me. Seriously. The Utah code only goes so far. It makes for good guidelines, but these situations are far more complex and can involve a lot of emotions. In fact, the outcome of a court case on this matter may reveal something different than the interpretation of the present law. In other words, I DARE you to hit me, just like I DARE you to challenge the Utah court system. If we go to court, and I'm in crutches or a broken arm or your truck has a dent in it, or I'm in a wheelchair, and you stand before the judge and say: "He didn't look both ways."--that's your only defense. You can't say that you were driving ethically and responsibly and politely. A polite person (and bus drivers typically are) would notice the Asian man who has been standing on the right side of the road for 5 minutes and the tall, obvious and apparent 23 year old, boldly walking down steps towards the crosswalk, and that polite person would stop and allow the pedestrians to cross (Because of the way I walk, most people can see me and recognize me from beyond 500 yards). A responsible driver will get in the habit of checking for people along crosswalks or approaching crosswalks in the city. --have you ever been on a 4 lane (2 in each direction) road and someone's crossing the crosswalk and has the right lane stopped up and people in the left lane keep driving?--it's irresponsible!) And ethically, if you're gonna drive, you better at least follow the guidelines that say that a pedestrian has the right of way.
6) It's possibly more dangerous to challenge the law than it is to challenge life. If you kill someone while driving, you lose your license, you pay a huge fine to the victims family, you go to prison for 3-5 years for manslaughter, and you live with guilt for the rest of your life. Me, I lose my life, but then I'm in a happier place, I don't have guilt, I don't have to do anything other than be dead. No matter who you worship, God, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Christ, or Baal, if you kill someone because you didn't step on the break---you're going to regret it.
7) I'm a poor college student. If you hit me, your insurance will pay for my physical, medical expenses. The rest of the court system will pay for my tuition, and I'll go back to school in a wheelchair to become a lawyer and you'll see me on TV saying "one call, that's all."
8) Lest anyone try to use this article against me (if ever I get hit), I'm committing right now to make a more concentrated effort to look both ways before crossing the street.
The point is, if you're going to drive, drive ethically, responsibly, and politely. And don't scream out your window at someone who made you stop because in that case, I know for a fact that you were not a hazard: you did in fact have the time to stop for me, I.E. you were a danger, but not an immediate danger; and if you hit me it would hurt you more than it would hurt me.
Before I get into today's article I want to announce a challenge. I started playing Yahoo's Fantasy Finance, a fantasy stock market game that runs the same way that all the other "fantasy --" games work: it takes real life measurements and applies them in game form.--this one is tied directly to Yahoo Finance, a stock market measuring app on the yahoo website. I started playing at the opening of the stock market this morning and at closing I had made $20 (after subtracting the fees involved for purchasing my next stock for tomorrow morning). I have a goal to double my money in 52 weeks (you start with $100,000).--It looks like a stretch right now, but I'm sure going to give it my all! --If you play (or you're going to start playing) feel free to add me as a friend and we can turn it into a friendly competition: (kyle_oakeson)
Now the real article:
--------------------------------------------------------
I was walking home along a crosswalk today--there's only one on the way to my house from campus, and jerk-off had the nerve to yell out the window of his truck "look both ways before crossing the street." If you ever see me cross the street right there, you know I don't look both ways. Most of the time I don't look either direction, the rest of the time I only look one way. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?
I'm 23, just finishing up with post-secondary school, and if you saw me walk into the street you'd think I had a death wish.--no, I don't value my education so poorly that I feel as though after I graduate I have no where to go, but I have two very "smart" reasons for boldly crossing the street. I've thought about them a lot and I figure I have such a solid knowledge on the subject that I'm 90% non-persuadable.
Although there are two main reasons, I'll keep this organized by numbering my points:
1) I have the right of way. I have the right of way no matter where I am, because I am on foot. I am a pedestrian. In a court of law, however, if I get hit while jay-walking in a speed-zone of higher than 30 then I don't really have a case for not looking both ways because the danger of the situation (higher speeds) would cause the average person to consider their own safety before venturing into dangerous territory.
2) There IS a crosswalk there. Crosswalks are legally marked off zones where pedestrians are designed to travel. The crosswalk was invented to protect the pedestrian by making drivers aware that they need to be cautious when driving over the crosswalk. During typical travel times of the day (which varies per crosswalk but in a realistic manner), drivers need to be extra careful so that they don't hit pedestrians. In this particular crosswalk, since it is right off of campus, it is understood that during times of the day when classes are held, pedestrians will use the crosswalk regularly. Meaning any time of day from 8AM to 6PM, a pedestrian could cross that walk.
A distinction needs to be made here about school zones however, lest my readers get confused. A school zone is designed to give children, who may or may not understand the danger and risk in crossing a street, extra protection against careless drivers. In a school zone, drivers are commanded to drive at 20 mph or less, which is still dangerous to a small individual (using simple physics, even getting hit at 10 mph by a 3000lb or heavier car can cause a lot of damage to someone who weighs under 50lbs and whose fulcrum is lower than 3 ft.).
Let me just paste in the Utah code concerning crosswalks because that will make a more valid case, starting with the least pertinent and building:
"Utah Code 41-6a-1707. Entering intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade -- Sufficient space required.
The operator of a vehicle may not enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, pedestrians, or railroad trains notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed."
So interpreting that: a vehicle (let's take a pickup truck for example) may not enter a crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on either side for the pedestrian (myself) to cross without being obstructed, or blocked. --This law is mostly talking about stopping on a crosswalk (such as what I have seen people do when they are turning right at an intersection and nearly hit a pedestrian [either in the act of turning right or as they approach the intersection]). It's still relevant though, because it says that they MAY NOT obstruct me from walking on the crosswalk.
"Utah Code 41-6a-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way -- Duty of pedestrian.
(1) (a) Except as provided under Subsection (2), when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way by slowing down or stopping if necessary:
(i) to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling; or
(ii) when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply under conditions of Subsection 41-6a-1003(2).
(c) A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."
Here's the real deal. A man in a deep blue truck in Logan, UT shall yield the right of way by slowing down or stopping to a pedestrian (myself and others) crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on half of the roadway or when the pedestrian (myself) is approaching so closely from the opposite half as to be in danger.
Interpreting: so if I'm crossing from left to right and a car is driving on the right side of the road, if I make it out into the road and he or she is not an immediate hazard, then they must slow down.
However, a pedestrian (myself) may not suddenly leave the curb into the path of a vehicle which is close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
3) Any vehicle driving on the right side of the road and is less than one car length away from the crosswalk is not an immediate hazard. I can say this quite confidently. I have seen several Cache Valley Public Transit Department Buses (these things weight tons!) stop in one car length on the right side of the road. Why? Because this is a hill. A very steep hill. My first car probably would struggle going up this hill in 3rd gear.
4)One car length is enough for me to see quite clearly without using my peripherals. When I said I only look one direction, I meant that I look up the hill. A car going down the hill will take more distance to stop than one going up. If my extended peripherals (I can see the top and the bottom of the hill which is probably 300-400 yards) indicate that I need to look up the hill, then I look up the hill and then look straight ahead. I have good peripherals. I can see OVER 180 degrees (beyond 180 degrees I lose track of detail but I can still clearly see motion, and a moving truck or bus is motion). It bothers me sometimes and I get jumpy and bugged out when someone moves, rather quickly, in my extended peripherals (beyond 180 degrees).
5) If you don't like me, don't like my attitude, just hit me. Seriously. The Utah code only goes so far. It makes for good guidelines, but these situations are far more complex and can involve a lot of emotions. In fact, the outcome of a court case on this matter may reveal something different than the interpretation of the present law. In other words, I DARE you to hit me, just like I DARE you to challenge the Utah court system. If we go to court, and I'm in crutches or a broken arm or your truck has a dent in it, or I'm in a wheelchair, and you stand before the judge and say: "He didn't look both ways."--that's your only defense. You can't say that you were driving ethically and responsibly and politely. A polite person (and bus drivers typically are) would notice the Asian man who has been standing on the right side of the road for 5 minutes and the tall, obvious and apparent 23 year old, boldly walking down steps towards the crosswalk, and that polite person would stop and allow the pedestrians to cross (Because of the way I walk, most people can see me and recognize me from beyond 500 yards). A responsible driver will get in the habit of checking for people along crosswalks or approaching crosswalks in the city. --have you ever been on a 4 lane (2 in each direction) road and someone's crossing the crosswalk and has the right lane stopped up and people in the left lane keep driving?--it's irresponsible!) And ethically, if you're gonna drive, you better at least follow the guidelines that say that a pedestrian has the right of way.
6) It's possibly more dangerous to challenge the law than it is to challenge life. If you kill someone while driving, you lose your license, you pay a huge fine to the victims family, you go to prison for 3-5 years for manslaughter, and you live with guilt for the rest of your life. Me, I lose my life, but then I'm in a happier place, I don't have guilt, I don't have to do anything other than be dead. No matter who you worship, God, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Christ, or Baal, if you kill someone because you didn't step on the break---you're going to regret it.
7) I'm a poor college student. If you hit me, your insurance will pay for my physical, medical expenses. The rest of the court system will pay for my tuition, and I'll go back to school in a wheelchair to become a lawyer and you'll see me on TV saying "one call, that's all."
8) Lest anyone try to use this article against me (if ever I get hit), I'm committing right now to make a more concentrated effort to look both ways before crossing the street.
The point is, if you're going to drive, drive ethically, responsibly, and politely. And don't scream out your window at someone who made you stop because in that case, I know for a fact that you were not a hazard: you did in fact have the time to stop for me, I.E. you were a danger, but not an immediate danger; and if you hit me it would hurt you more than it would hurt me.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
The New Bards pt 3 Poetry Series
The money-making marketer
sat, stood, and sang
bringing buyers back
increasing income
and producing profit.
In the olden days there used to be a profession called the "bard." Bards were patronized, which means someone rich was paying their bills. In exchange, the bard would write songs for them and entertain them, but more importantly they would travel around and spread their stories. Rich people, typically kings or oligarchs, were willing to pay for bards to be lazy and sit around writing songs and saying poems all day long because it was beneficial for the king to have someone talk about him to their peasants and other kings around the world.
Today, a super-star's power is measured in how much "Buzz" they generate. Buzz is the term for how much people are talking about someone (or something). Marketers are in charge of generating this buzz, measuring it, controlling it, and using it for the benefit of the person they represent. Typically, marketers work for a corporation, organization, or company. However, there are plenty of sole proprietorships out there (individuals conducting business) who hire someone to do their marketing--there is also the more obvious politician, who hires several teams of "marketers" to create buzz for them.
As you can see, the "bard" isn't an obsolete occupation--it's an evolved occupation.
It is a common rhetorical practice to change the names of things to make them sound more edgy and applicable. One can easily see why they would change the name of "bard" to "marketer"--a marketer sounds much more like a financial occupation than a boring one. After making the name change, bards cut word-associations of their profession such as "boring bards" "bad bards" and "bland bards" and instead associated them with "Marketers at the market" "money-making marketers" or even, "Mass media marketer." Teachers just never learn do they? They've been called teacher for countless years!
If you want to sit around and write poetry all day, you might want to take a reality check and reconsider real professions. You can make a lot of money applying the skills of a poet to practical things, how many times have you turned on tv to the jingle "give me a break, give me a break..." or "doo doo doo doo doo doo dowaa, It doesn't matter what comes, fresh goes better in life..."
Now is a good time for me to argue something else:
A lot of people look to English majors with confusion: What is English, what is its practical purpose? "So you're gonna write books?--Oh, then you're going to be a teacher?" Others say that majoring in English is just an excuse to take a break from real life and write...poetry...all day. *sigh*
The GOP Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney was an English Major. Now days, the worst dirt people can find on him is that he makes so much money and hasn't done anything wrong. How is that possible? Being rich and a good person, is that real?
Socrates argued this issue a long time ago and concluded that the best leaders are just and honest, and they are just and honest because they are reasonable.--Reasonable in the sense that they are capable of reasoning: picking a side of an argument, evaluating it, and changing sides of the argument when they realize their side isn't the most logical. --This is what English majors do. They learn how to argue, how to evaluate ideas, how to generate their own ideas and think for themselves, and they learn how to effectively communicate those ideas to other people.
Choosing to get a degree in English is like choosing to major in good leadership. Business degrees these days only teach you how to make money and how to overcome obstacles, but they won't teach you how to act ethically for any other reason than that the punishment for unethical behavior is worse than the benefits. They can only teach you a sub-par communication skills when compared to the skills an English major learns. They lack the foundation to teach you how to think creatively. And, granted, they're starting to teach leadership skills, but you'll notice that they're only a side-thought: Interpersonal skills? That's just a fancy way of saying don't step on anyone's toes, give everyone a chance, and don't be afraid to speak up. That's the first class they teach an english student and then they give them 10,000 hours of practice at it, and as all of the seasoned professionals in the business world say: Being able to act and communicate will get you further than being able to crunch numbers.
Anyone can crunch numbers. Technology is advancing to the point where you don't even really need to crunch numbers, a computer will do that for you. But creativity and communication are indispensable skills that cannot be replaced by a machine--true, they follow patterns just like mathematics follow patterns and rules and they all have variables, but communcation is the presentation of ideas, and ideas are always changing whereas math never changes.
You want to be a bard? Focus on the most important job functions first and then you'll be permitted to use your poetic skills on the side--and be paid for them.
sat, stood, and sang
bringing buyers back
increasing income
and producing profit.
In the olden days there used to be a profession called the "bard." Bards were patronized, which means someone rich was paying their bills. In exchange, the bard would write songs for them and entertain them, but more importantly they would travel around and spread their stories. Rich people, typically kings or oligarchs, were willing to pay for bards to be lazy and sit around writing songs and saying poems all day long because it was beneficial for the king to have someone talk about him to their peasants and other kings around the world.
Today, a super-star's power is measured in how much "Buzz" they generate. Buzz is the term for how much people are talking about someone (or something). Marketers are in charge of generating this buzz, measuring it, controlling it, and using it for the benefit of the person they represent. Typically, marketers work for a corporation, organization, or company. However, there are plenty of sole proprietorships out there (individuals conducting business) who hire someone to do their marketing--there is also the more obvious politician, who hires several teams of "marketers" to create buzz for them.
As you can see, the "bard" isn't an obsolete occupation--it's an evolved occupation.
It is a common rhetorical practice to change the names of things to make them sound more edgy and applicable. One can easily see why they would change the name of "bard" to "marketer"--a marketer sounds much more like a financial occupation than a boring one. After making the name change, bards cut word-associations of their profession such as "boring bards" "bad bards" and "bland bards" and instead associated them with "Marketers at the market" "money-making marketers" or even, "Mass media marketer." Teachers just never learn do they? They've been called teacher for countless years!
If you want to sit around and write poetry all day, you might want to take a reality check and reconsider real professions. You can make a lot of money applying the skills of a poet to practical things, how many times have you turned on tv to the jingle "give me a break, give me a break..." or "doo doo doo doo doo doo dowaa, It doesn't matter what comes, fresh goes better in life..."
Now is a good time for me to argue something else:
A lot of people look to English majors with confusion: What is English, what is its practical purpose? "So you're gonna write books?--Oh, then you're going to be a teacher?" Others say that majoring in English is just an excuse to take a break from real life and write...poetry...all day. *sigh*
The GOP Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney was an English Major. Now days, the worst dirt people can find on him is that he makes so much money and hasn't done anything wrong. How is that possible? Being rich and a good person, is that real?
Socrates argued this issue a long time ago and concluded that the best leaders are just and honest, and they are just and honest because they are reasonable.--Reasonable in the sense that they are capable of reasoning: picking a side of an argument, evaluating it, and changing sides of the argument when they realize their side isn't the most logical. --This is what English majors do. They learn how to argue, how to evaluate ideas, how to generate their own ideas and think for themselves, and they learn how to effectively communicate those ideas to other people.
Choosing to get a degree in English is like choosing to major in good leadership. Business degrees these days only teach you how to make money and how to overcome obstacles, but they won't teach you how to act ethically for any other reason than that the punishment for unethical behavior is worse than the benefits. They can only teach you a sub-par communication skills when compared to the skills an English major learns. They lack the foundation to teach you how to think creatively. And, granted, they're starting to teach leadership skills, but you'll notice that they're only a side-thought: Interpersonal skills? That's just a fancy way of saying don't step on anyone's toes, give everyone a chance, and don't be afraid to speak up. That's the first class they teach an english student and then they give them 10,000 hours of practice at it, and as all of the seasoned professionals in the business world say: Being able to act and communicate will get you further than being able to crunch numbers.
Anyone can crunch numbers. Technology is advancing to the point where you don't even really need to crunch numbers, a computer will do that for you. But creativity and communication are indispensable skills that cannot be replaced by a machine--true, they follow patterns just like mathematics follow patterns and rules and they all have variables, but communcation is the presentation of ideas, and ideas are always changing whereas math never changes.
You want to be a bard? Focus on the most important job functions first and then you'll be permitted to use your poetic skills on the side--and be paid for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)