Advertisement is something that all companies must work on to some degree. Whether they are selling shoes, life insurance, or comic books, producers need to find a way to get their potential buyers aware of their products. With the advent of television, commercials were born.
It seems like commercials have gotten much more tongue-in-cheek lately. Humor is being used to greater amounts than it used to. For instance, an advertisment promoting "safe drinking" used the following joke.
Man: if your friend has been drinking, then ask for his keys.
Drunk man: *refuses to give man his keys*
Man: If he refuses, then ask for his pants.
Drunk man: *removes pants and gives them to Man*
Man: You now have his keys, and his pants!
Where in the past this subject (safe drinking) would probably draw a much more serious style of commercial that focused on statistics and the severity of drunk driving, this newer commercial is approached with levity. I'm sort of curious as to why. Is it because, after so many advertisements bombarding us with slow music and horrible statistics, we just got desensitized? From a personal standpoint, I know that this humorous advertisement was far more memorable, and made a bigger impact on me than any serious one.
I've often thought that the best advertisment of all would be 15 seconds of a black screen, with plain white letters, simply saying "buy X". With all the lavish designs for ad campaigns nowadays, the starkness of such an ad seems like it would put it so far out there as to be very recognizable and memorable. And isnt that the point--to be memorable?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Pokemon
Although Punahou’s a good school where a lot of the usual “high school stereotypes” don’t apply. However, a few are ubiquitous, and still persist even here. One of those is of course, th at people who play video games, specifically “anime/Japanese video games”, are nerdy. Normally “nerdy’ people then get harassed by “cool” people, presumably because they fail at life for playing “Japanese video games”. Yet, there is one video game that crosses all such boundaries. I’m of course talking about Pokemon.
Recently, the latest installments in the Pokemon line, Pokemon Diamond/Pearl were released. Since my friends and I are into that sort of thing, we had known about the release. A few of my friends got the game, and of course, since its on a portable system, played it at school. I saw a few other “nerdy” people playing the game as well. All in all, there was a marked increase in the number of Nintendo DS’s that could be seen around the campus, Pokemon games at the ready.
One of my more “nerdy” friends was playing Pokemon before class as other people filtered in. pretty soon, a “cool” person walked in, went up to him, and commented on the pokemon. Because my friend sometimes gets targeted by the “cool” people, I was getting ready to stand up and chew him out when something funny happened. A conversation began in earnest between the two over strategies for beating the game, different tricks to try, and whatnot. Pokemon was common ground.
Since then, I have been amazed by the prevalence of Pokemon. I’ve seen people who would never be caught dead with a gameboy in hand play pokemon between classes. It’s served as a common ground between the cliques that sometimes form, and gotten people who would normally ignore each other to start talking. All in all, its been a good influence on the school (not counting the people who play it in assembly and chapel).
I wonder if anyone’s told Nintendo about this.
Recently, the latest installments in the Pokemon line, Pokemon Diamond/Pearl were released. Since my friends and I are into that sort of thing, we had known about the release. A few of my friends got the game, and of course, since its on a portable system, played it at school. I saw a few other “nerdy” people playing the game as well. All in all, there was a marked increase in the number of Nintendo DS’s that could be seen around the campus, Pokemon games at the ready.
One of my more “nerdy” friends was playing Pokemon before class as other people filtered in. pretty soon, a “cool” person walked in, went up to him, and commented on the pokemon. Because my friend sometimes gets targeted by the “cool” people, I was getting ready to stand up and chew him out when something funny happened. A conversation began in earnest between the two over strategies for beating the game, different tricks to try, and whatnot. Pokemon was common ground.
Since then, I have been amazed by the prevalence of Pokemon. I’ve seen people who would never be caught dead with a gameboy in hand play pokemon between classes. It’s served as a common ground between the cliques that sometimes form, and gotten people who would normally ignore each other to start talking. All in all, its been a good influence on the school (not counting the people who play it in assembly and chapel).
I wonder if anyone’s told Nintendo about this.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Formalities
About a month ago, I was getting ready to go to my last debate tournament. Although I enjoy debate, there's a couple of things about it I just can't stand. One of them, of course, is the tie.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind wearing "nice clothes". But a tie just crosses the line. Its uncomfortable and dangles all over the place. I've frequently referred to them as "stylized nooses". Now, I don't see what exactly makes wearing a length of cloth tied in a noose-like fashion about your neck "formal". For that matter, I don't understand why exactly anything is considered formal. What exactly makes ties formal? What makes coats and jackets formal? What makes putting the salad fork on the outside left of the plate, (with the bread plate and butterknife slightly to the left and up) formal?
I'm not sure. Somewhere back down the line, I'm positive (hope) there's a perfectly logical reason. But that reason doesn't really matter anymore, does it? For whatever reason, ties are formal. If you want to show that you're trying to put on your best face, you wear one. That's just the way things are.
I remember in 9th guide, way back when, the teacher likened the creation of social norms to a bunch of monkeys surrounding a banana. Problem is, whenever a monkey touched the banana, all the monkeys would receive a shock. Naturally, the monkeys soon learned to not touch the banana, even if they all wanted to. When one monkey is taken out and replaced with a fresh monkey who doesn't know the rules, he'll of course reach for the banana. The other monkeys, knowing that reaching for the banana causes pain, will stop the new monkey. This new monkey will then learn that he is not supposed to reach for the banana, without knowing the reason why. If you continually replace old monkeys with new ones, this pattern will extend, and soon you will have a bunch of monkeys who don't do what they want to (touch the banana) without knowing the reason why.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind wearing "nice clothes". But a tie just crosses the line. Its uncomfortable and dangles all over the place. I've frequently referred to them as "stylized nooses". Now, I don't see what exactly makes wearing a length of cloth tied in a noose-like fashion about your neck "formal". For that matter, I don't understand why exactly anything is considered formal. What exactly makes ties formal? What makes coats and jackets formal? What makes putting the salad fork on the outside left of the plate, (with the bread plate and butterknife slightly to the left and up) formal?
I'm not sure. Somewhere back down the line, I'm positive (hope) there's a perfectly logical reason. But that reason doesn't really matter anymore, does it? For whatever reason, ties are formal. If you want to show that you're trying to put on your best face, you wear one. That's just the way things are.
I remember in 9th guide, way back when, the teacher likened the creation of social norms to a bunch of monkeys surrounding a banana. Problem is, whenever a monkey touched the banana, all the monkeys would receive a shock. Naturally, the monkeys soon learned to not touch the banana, even if they all wanted to. When one monkey is taken out and replaced with a fresh monkey who doesn't know the rules, he'll of course reach for the banana. The other monkeys, knowing that reaching for the banana causes pain, will stop the new monkey. This new monkey will then learn that he is not supposed to reach for the banana, without knowing the reason why. If you continually replace old monkeys with new ones, this pattern will extend, and soon you will have a bunch of monkeys who don't do what they want to (touch the banana) without knowing the reason why.
Routines
I always buy the same headphones. Not the cheapest ones, but one increment up. They're the blue sony ones (earbud style, that way I can wrap them up in my pocket) that loop around the back of your ears and fit in just so snugly that you get a good amount of sound, but not so tightly they're uncomfortable to use for long periods of time. They're pretty hardy and last a long time. Yet, I recently had my last pair break, so I went back to Longs to get a new pair.
I couldn't find them. I looked and looked, but there were none to be found. Finally, up on the top shelf, my eye spotted the Sony headphones. Just one problem--they were black, not blue.
I bought them and all, and theyre functionally the same headphones they always were. Yet, every time I pick them up to listen to some music, theres a brief nagging feeling. After years of having the same blue headphones, black somehow doesn't mesh, doesn't quite fit with the mental image I've made over all these years. It's interesting to think about how much you get used to a familiar thing, such as the sight of your alarm clock first thing in the morning, every morning--or the routine way that you put your cell phone in your right pocket, and your wallet in your left. Everyone has these familiar sights, sounds, and actions, and when they change they can be just a little uncomfortable, even if they're things as small as the color of your headphones.
I couldn't find them. I looked and looked, but there were none to be found. Finally, up on the top shelf, my eye spotted the Sony headphones. Just one problem--they were black, not blue.
I bought them and all, and theyre functionally the same headphones they always were. Yet, every time I pick them up to listen to some music, theres a brief nagging feeling. After years of having the same blue headphones, black somehow doesn't mesh, doesn't quite fit with the mental image I've made over all these years. It's interesting to think about how much you get used to a familiar thing, such as the sight of your alarm clock first thing in the morning, every morning--or the routine way that you put your cell phone in your right pocket, and your wallet in your left. Everyone has these familiar sights, sounds, and actions, and when they change they can be just a little uncomfortable, even if they're things as small as the color of your headphones.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Shaving the Legs
So, recently I had a talk with several of my friends on the subject of leg/chest hair. Many of the girls were of the opinion that chest and leg hair are now not "manly and masculine" as they supposedly were several decades ago, but now are gross. A couple of us guys looked at our legs for a second before coming up with a response. "Well, would you rather your boyfriend shaved his legs, since you think that leg hair is gross?" The answer was of course a resounding no.
"So we're not supposed to have much leg hair?"
"yes"
"but we're not allowed to shave it to make it the 'right' amount?"
"ewwww, no"
I'm sure you see the paradox.
In my opinion, it seems simpler for girls, who are simply expected to shave their legs. Yes, it is true that they have to put effort into it, but on the other hand, girls leg hair is standardized, and girl's are allowed the freedom to alter their appearance to the "right" one without ridicule. On the other hand, guys (with respect to leg hair), must innately have the "right" amount. If a guy decided that he didn't like the way it looked, he wouldn't have the freedom to change it (in this case, by shaving his legs), because of the general stigma. If I had to choose, I'd rather have the freedom to change my appearance, even if doing so was tedious.
"So we're not supposed to have much leg hair?"
"yes"
"but we're not allowed to shave it to make it the 'right' amount?"
"ewwww, no"
I'm sure you see the paradox.
In my opinion, it seems simpler for girls, who are simply expected to shave their legs. Yes, it is true that they have to put effort into it, but on the other hand, girls leg hair is standardized, and girl's are allowed the freedom to alter their appearance to the "right" one without ridicule. On the other hand, guys (with respect to leg hair), must innately have the "right" amount. If a guy decided that he didn't like the way it looked, he wouldn't have the freedom to change it (in this case, by shaving his legs), because of the general stigma. If I had to choose, I'd rather have the freedom to change my appearance, even if doing so was tedious.
Wind (in class)
Wind is one of those forces that you don’t realize. It can be a gentle breeze or a completely destructive hurricane that uproots trees and houses. In either form, the wind has one constant advantage—it is invisible. You cannot see the wind, only the effects it has. It’s always a surprise. If it’s a hot day and a breeze kicks up, you’d be pleasantly surprised.
***revised***
Wind has many forms. It can come as a slow breeze, languidly cooling, relieving, and refreshing you on the hottest of days, a constant comfort in the face of a harsh summer. But it also blasts in brief bursts, blowing all way. No matter the form, one thing remains constant. It is invisible. Surprising, always. You could look an approaching wind front head on, and not know its size, power, or temperament. You’d be left with clues to guess. Its howling and whistling might belie and angry and tempestuous nature, or a cloud of displaced dust and violent leaves might show its power. Yet just as easily, it could be a soothing, gentle wind, blowing softly on a muggy day. Once again, only one this is constant—the wind cannot be predicted.
Colors
Colors are one of those things for which we have no descriptions. There is no way to really objectively describe a color, rather, you must be shown it. How would someone describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue? The only way to really describe color thus far is to describe it in relation to another color. For instance, you'd describe purple by saying it was like a mix of red and blue. You could describe pink by saying that it was a light shade of red. In these ways you can approximate a description, albeit one that relys on the other person having some knowledge of color already.
The other thing is, how do I know that me and you see the same colors? Theres no way to tell here either. When we were both younger, we learned what the color green was. Green was that color that the trees and grasses were, and the outside of watermelons, and the top light on a stoplight. That was green. But maybe the color I percieve as being green is the color you percieve as being yellow. Would there be any way to really tell? I would still point at a tree and say "hey, thats green." and you would agree. Because we cant describe color, theres no way to know for sure.
The other thing is, how do I know that me and you see the same colors? Theres no way to tell here either. When we were both younger, we learned what the color green was. Green was that color that the trees and grasses were, and the outside of watermelons, and the top light on a stoplight. That was green. But maybe the color I percieve as being green is the color you percieve as being yellow. Would there be any way to really tell? I would still point at a tree and say "hey, thats green." and you would agree. Because we cant describe color, theres no way to know for sure.
Psychic Residue
Ever had one of those moments where you do something stupid, like drop your toothbrush on a super-grungy gas station's restroom floor? Now, everyone knows how dirty those floors are, so obviously you are grossed out by the thought of putting that toothbrush in your mouth. You turn a sink on so that you can wash your toothbrush off, but an odd phenomena occurs. No matter how much you wash and sanitize that toothbrush, the thought of it landing in some odd puddle on the restroom floor prevails. Ten minutes of washing later, you know that there's no way it could still be dirty, yet the thought of it being there makes you completely refuse to put it in your mouth. Eventually, you get a new toothbrush.
This phenomena is that of Psychic Residue, where the mere thought of something being dirty or used makes you think that it is actually filthy. No matter on what concious level you may know that you've washed something to the point that it is squeaky clean, the imagined filthyness prevails.
This also applies to the percieved grossness of using someone else's personal items. For instance, you may be spending the night at a friends house, and forgotton a change of clothes. You have no clean underwear. Your friend (who wears the exact same brand and type of underwear as you) offers to lend you a pair. Naturally, you'd be reluctant to wear another person's underwear. Despite the fact that you intellectually understand that his underwear is clean, the psychic residue prevails.
This phenomena is that of Psychic Residue, where the mere thought of something being dirty or used makes you think that it is actually filthy. No matter on what concious level you may know that you've washed something to the point that it is squeaky clean, the imagined filthyness prevails.
This also applies to the percieved grossness of using someone else's personal items. For instance, you may be spending the night at a friends house, and forgotton a change of clothes. You have no clean underwear. Your friend (who wears the exact same brand and type of underwear as you) offers to lend you a pair. Naturally, you'd be reluctant to wear another person's underwear. Despite the fact that you intellectually understand that his underwear is clean, the psychic residue prevails.
Reincarnation
Some people believe in reincarnation, or the beleif that your soul is reborn into another body upon your death. In your next life, you could be reborn into a higher social standing as a reward for your good deeds, or you could be brought back as a pig as punishment. But if people's souls are constantly being brought back in different guises, how many souls are there out there? If each person has a soul, and is reincarnated the moment their old body dies, then the population should never grow. Every time someone dies, someone else should be born. This obviously isnt the case--After all, our population is steadily increasing.
Why assume that you have to be reborn the moment you die? For that matter, why assume that your past life has to have actually been in the past, or your future life at a later date. Time seems to be a fluid concept, not a linear one. For this reason, it makes sense that a person's next life could be anywhere and anywhen. My current life would be that of a high schooler in 2007. My next life could be that of an 18th-century accountant, and the one before that a doctor from 3994. Time is not an issue.
But if time is not an issue, is it not also possible to be reincarnated when your first life is still in progress? To me, it seems possible. I could be living out my 2007 high schooler life right now, and cooexisting with myself 534 incarnations down the road, when I am reborn as one of my classmates. If you look at it this way, its possible for every person who ever lived to be an incarnation of the same being. Beats being reborn as a mosquito.
Why assume that you have to be reborn the moment you die? For that matter, why assume that your past life has to have actually been in the past, or your future life at a later date. Time seems to be a fluid concept, not a linear one. For this reason, it makes sense that a person's next life could be anywhere and anywhen. My current life would be that of a high schooler in 2007. My next life could be that of an 18th-century accountant, and the one before that a doctor from 3994. Time is not an issue.
But if time is not an issue, is it not also possible to be reincarnated when your first life is still in progress? To me, it seems possible. I could be living out my 2007 high schooler life right now, and cooexisting with myself 534 incarnations down the road, when I am reborn as one of my classmates. If you look at it this way, its possible for every person who ever lived to be an incarnation of the same being. Beats being reborn as a mosquito.
RENT and minimum wage
So I watched Rent again the other day, and was reminded how aggravating I find that movie/musical. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good story and I love most of the music, but the personalities of the main characters frustrate me. One of the main themes in the movie is the motto “No day but today”, which refers to the philosophy that one should live as if that day was the only day that they had to live. While this is idealistic, and I suppose carefree, in my opinion, it is wrong. Living with no regard to the future or past is almost a form of escapism. After all, if today is your last day to live, then it’s easy to justify putting off whatever may be troubling you. Now, if the main characters of Rent had no problems, I suppose it’d be easier to begrudge them their little philosophy. Yet, we know that they’re hardly without problems. They’re struggling artists with little money, incapable of paying their rent (they get evicted at one point), and some carry HIV. Living “in the moment” doesn’t seem to work in this situation, yet they cling to it anyways, remaining unemployed for the sake of their “bohemian way”. Personally, I’d have looked for a minimum-wage job at McDonalds if I wanted to pay some Rent, but that’s just me. On the other hand, they believe so strongly in their morals that they're willing to make sacrifices for them, and thats something.
Frazzled Hair
There’s a really easy way to tell if someone’s having a bad day. Just look at their hair. If its all in line and sleek and shiny, then it can’t be that bad of a day. However, if their hair is disheveled and full of those little wispy hairs that stick up from the head, then you can bet that their day has been stressful. Frazzly hair is a perfect indicator of stress.
What is it about this hair that is so closely linked to stress? Maybe people who have a large amount of other, more stressful things would not have time to brush their hair or comb it out. That would be one that made sense. Perhaps stress does just make your hair frizz. Who knows.
People have many tells such as this one. Emotions can make physical impressions. Look at ulcers. Stress leads to a painful stomach condition. An attraction to someone can make your heart rate rise with no particular reason. Perhaps the telltale frizzy hair is just another way you can see how someone’s feeling.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Livestock Peace Corps
Youtube Link, since blogger is stupid and wont let me embed the video.
A preliminary glimpse into the mind's of the leading characters is as follows:
Rabbit's Point of View: Spot and Whitey are best friends. Every morning, they engage in a good-spirited game of tag. Because they are young and reckless, this game occasionally becomes physical and ends in a racous dogpile. One morning, Spot and Whitey are playing around when their game is interrupted by a violent pair of chickens who dont know that their game is fun sport, not fighting.
Chicken's Point of View: The Baron von Cluckenstein was surveying his territory early in the morning with his lackey Egg-or, when all of a sudden, he was disturbed by a pair of rambunctious bunnies. These bunnies were fighting viciously, and it was his duty to seperate them before they could harm him and his property.
Policing is a tricky business. On one hand, those who try and make peace often are doing so because they truely think its right. On the other hand, it seems like they are rarely appreciated. By definition, those who make peace are dealing with two (or more) parties who are in conflict, and thus probably acting confrontational. This means that at best, these two parties are going to be fighting, arguing, etc, and the peacemaker is often caught in the middle.
Interpretation can make the job trickier, as well. This is especially true when a cultural barrier gets in the way. What may appear to be a violent situation could in fact be a friendly one, and visa versa. Imagine a person with no knowledge of US culture watching a football game. To everyone else, it is a sport, but to the outsider, it may seem like a fight between two armies, one that they might want to stop. Could you imagine them running out onto the field to stop the fight?
Peacemaking and Policing are tricky indeed.
A preliminary glimpse into the mind's of the leading characters is as follows:
Rabbit's Point of View: Spot and Whitey are best friends. Every morning, they engage in a good-spirited game of tag. Because they are young and reckless, this game occasionally becomes physical and ends in a racous dogpile. One morning, Spot and Whitey are playing around when their game is interrupted by a violent pair of chickens who dont know that their game is fun sport, not fighting.
Chicken's Point of View: The Baron von Cluckenstein was surveying his territory early in the morning with his lackey Egg-or, when all of a sudden, he was disturbed by a pair of rambunctious bunnies. These bunnies were fighting viciously, and it was his duty to seperate them before they could harm him and his property.
Policing is a tricky business. On one hand, those who try and make peace often are doing so because they truely think its right. On the other hand, it seems like they are rarely appreciated. By definition, those who make peace are dealing with two (or more) parties who are in conflict, and thus probably acting confrontational. This means that at best, these two parties are going to be fighting, arguing, etc, and the peacemaker is often caught in the middle.
Interpretation can make the job trickier, as well. This is especially true when a cultural barrier gets in the way. What may appear to be a violent situation could in fact be a friendly one, and visa versa. Imagine a person with no knowledge of US culture watching a football game. To everyone else, it is a sport, but to the outsider, it may seem like a fight between two armies, one that they might want to stop. Could you imagine them running out onto the field to stop the fight?
Peacemaking and Policing are tricky indeed.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Horrible gruesome violence that fails to shock
Noah's blog made me think about something my dad said last night as we watched tv. It went vaguely like this:
"Whats up with all these shows?" he said. "Theres all this blood. Last night I was flipping channels and I saw some show where the guy was dying in the operating room and fluid came out of some iv etc. etc etc. It's not even hbo or anything, its normal primetime tv."
I flipped the channels. CSI: blood and fluids all over the floor. House: Blood and fluids being talked about, and occasionally all over the floor. Heroes, which I watched the night before: telekinetic scalping, after which point blood and fluids got all over the floor.
I realized that in fact, TV does have a lot of blood/fluids on it. Yet, it seems completly natural. The average person watching primetime tv probably does not even realize the amount of blood that gets shown it. It is only when someone fresh appears on the scene that they suffer the initial reaction "hey, theres a lot of violence."
I think initially, someone tried to be just a little more edgy, a little more dramatic, and so included a small amount of blood in their tv drama. This was HORRIBLE SHOCKING, and served its purpose. Yet, over time, people became desensitized to this small amount of blood, and so the only way to elict the same reaction was to up the ante with more blood/violence. Over time, we arrived at our present level. Its probably likely it'll still raise.
It's a lot like swearing. Swear words have power because they shock. at an older time, if someone swore, something SERIOUS had happened. Now, swearing seems so common as to be common everyday vocabulary that is nowhere near the levels of offensiveness that it once was. Over time, we build tolerance, and the only way to elicit the same reaction is to gradually increase.
Is it a bad thing? On one hand, we could trivialize violence or language, but on the other hand, we aren't shocked by as much. Maybe a higher tolerance prepares us for the "real world", where there are no network censors to tone down the violence or language.
"Whats up with all these shows?" he said. "Theres all this blood. Last night I was flipping channels and I saw some show where the guy was dying in the operating room and fluid came out of some iv etc. etc etc. It's not even hbo or anything, its normal primetime tv."
I flipped the channels. CSI: blood and fluids all over the floor. House: Blood and fluids being talked about, and occasionally all over the floor. Heroes, which I watched the night before: telekinetic scalping, after which point blood and fluids got all over the floor.
I realized that in fact, TV does have a lot of blood/fluids on it. Yet, it seems completly natural. The average person watching primetime tv probably does not even realize the amount of blood that gets shown it. It is only when someone fresh appears on the scene that they suffer the initial reaction "hey, theres a lot of violence."
I think initially, someone tried to be just a little more edgy, a little more dramatic, and so included a small amount of blood in their tv drama. This was HORRIBLE SHOCKING, and served its purpose. Yet, over time, people became desensitized to this small amount of blood, and so the only way to elict the same reaction was to up the ante with more blood/violence. Over time, we arrived at our present level. Its probably likely it'll still raise.
It's a lot like swearing. Swear words have power because they shock. at an older time, if someone swore, something SERIOUS had happened. Now, swearing seems so common as to be common everyday vocabulary that is nowhere near the levels of offensiveness that it once was. Over time, we build tolerance, and the only way to elicit the same reaction is to gradually increase.
Is it a bad thing? On one hand, we could trivialize violence or language, but on the other hand, we aren't shocked by as much. Maybe a higher tolerance prepares us for the "real world", where there are no network censors to tone down the violence or language.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Rubbing your body with lard and ashes
I remember one time I was at one of those historical re-enactment places. I think it was colonial Williamsburg. Everything was all colonial american-y, which means that there was traditional clothing, persons, food, and soap. Especially the soap. While a Colonial lady was doing a demonstration on colonial american crafts, she mentioned that she had save the fireplace ashes so she could make soap. I asked about it (oh, i shouldnt have).
Soap is apparently made from fat and ashes. I find it counterintuitive that rubbing lard and charcoal over your hands makes them cleaner, but who am I to question colonial logic.
I wonder who it was that discovered that this mixture made soap. I mean, some of those "old" inventions make sense. Milk makes sense. You see young cows drinking at the udders. You realize that it must be nutritous, as young animals consume it and get bigger. You make the connection. In this way, the discovery of milk seems totally logical.
Soap is not. Who was it that discovered that this odd mixture made scum and dirt come off? I suppose some pre-colonial woman could have been cleaning her fireplace out with a pot of fatty pork cooling above when some of the fat could have drabbled out, mixing with the ashes. I then suppose her daughter could have come in the door, dirty from playing out in the fields. In a loving gesture, the colonial woman could have tried to brush the dirt from her daughters face, forgetting the fat/ash mixture on her hands. However, when she brushed her daughter, she may have realized that the dirt came off.
Anyways, thats my take on it. There is no other possible way people could have figured out that mixing beef fat and ash could make soap. Its almost as illogical as extracting an enzyme from bull liver, putting it in a thai energy drink, and marketing it as red bull.
Soap is apparently made from fat and ashes. I find it counterintuitive that rubbing lard and charcoal over your hands makes them cleaner, but who am I to question colonial logic.
I wonder who it was that discovered that this mixture made soap. I mean, some of those "old" inventions make sense. Milk makes sense. You see young cows drinking at the udders. You realize that it must be nutritous, as young animals consume it and get bigger. You make the connection. In this way, the discovery of milk seems totally logical.
Soap is not. Who was it that discovered that this odd mixture made scum and dirt come off? I suppose some pre-colonial woman could have been cleaning her fireplace out with a pot of fatty pork cooling above when some of the fat could have drabbled out, mixing with the ashes. I then suppose her daughter could have come in the door, dirty from playing out in the fields. In a loving gesture, the colonial woman could have tried to brush the dirt from her daughters face, forgetting the fat/ash mixture on her hands. However, when she brushed her daughter, she may have realized that the dirt came off.
Anyways, thats my take on it. There is no other possible way people could have figured out that mixing beef fat and ash could make soap. Its almost as illogical as extracting an enzyme from bull liver, putting it in a thai energy drink, and marketing it as red bull.
The unnecesary warning labels.
So, Last night over dinner, I found out that there was some parental strife with the issues of students keeping online blogs. Apparently some parent(s) were concerned about the idea of their children being prey to online stalking. Anyways, it is possible that we may see permission slips getting sent out to parents, asking them for their permission to have students post their ideas online. I dislike this.
Not so much because the blog is an evil thing, or because of the hassle of permission, but because its just one of those instances where because of the actions of a single person, an entire group must change theyre stuff, because of the even-impending fear of backlash (most of the time in the form of legal suits.) Ironically, the average student knows about five times more about internet safety than the average parent. Yet, just to be safe, the school must have parents sign off.
The phenomena is a lot like McDonalds coffee. Anyone in their right mind knows that coffee is hot (except for iced coffee, which is different altogether.) Yet, McDonalds must now put warning labels on their coffee that state "Hey, its hot, you retard," just to avoid lawsuits. Similar examples of warning labels and release forms for totally common everyday things litter stores and servicies everywhere. Yes, the coffee is hot. Yes, the food is fattening(but thats why you like it). Yes, smoking this is bad for you.
We need less warning labels and more common sense, i guess.
Not so much because the blog is an evil thing, or because of the hassle of permission, but because its just one of those instances where because of the actions of a single person, an entire group must change theyre stuff, because of the even-impending fear of backlash (most of the time in the form of legal suits.) Ironically, the average student knows about five times more about internet safety than the average parent. Yet, just to be safe, the school must have parents sign off.
The phenomena is a lot like McDonalds coffee. Anyone in their right mind knows that coffee is hot (except for iced coffee, which is different altogether.) Yet, McDonalds must now put warning labels on their coffee that state "Hey, its hot, you retard," just to avoid lawsuits. Similar examples of warning labels and release forms for totally common everyday things litter stores and servicies everywhere. Yes, the coffee is hot. Yes, the food is fattening(but thats why you like it). Yes, smoking this is bad for you.
We need less warning labels and more common sense, i guess.
On Subtext
So, I saw Madame Butterfly the other day. Pretty good, and the design was incredible (mostly), but thats another story. In looking through the programs, I found that the japanese characters had actually believable Japanese names (Suzuki, Goro, etc). Contrast this with a different Puccini opera (Turandot), where the "Chinese" characters have pseudo-white names like..well, Turandot.
The ubiquitous Madame Butterfly's name is "Cho-Cho-san". At first, I dismissed this as being a european composer's name for a character living in a far off land he had never seen, but then I realized that "Chou" is the Japanese word for "butterfly". I'm not sure whether this was coincidence or planning, but it took me by surprise.
If it was planned, then I applaud Puccini for writing an opera where his characters, or at least the main ones, have meaning to their names. It shows a sort of premeditated idea about the play, and a skill to layer meanings together. But if its just a fluke, then am I praising Puccini for something that was totally not intended? It's hard to tell whether the artist intended some of his artistic accomplishments.
It shows up in a lot of art, actually. Is the subtext intended, or is it something that we as viewers fabricate, because we beleive that the artist is good. Because this is undoubtably a good author, he must have intended to make the flowers in chapter one blue. Because blue is the color of sorrow, and the flowers are outside sally's house, and sally has sorrow enter her life when her mother dies in chapter 5, which is the number of blue flowers that grow outside her house. Sometimes I am unable to accept the minutia that some readers/viewers/listeners find in art, and I wonder.
Maybe the author just likes blue flowers.
The ubiquitous Madame Butterfly's name is "Cho-Cho-san". At first, I dismissed this as being a european composer's name for a character living in a far off land he had never seen, but then I realized that "Chou" is the Japanese word for "butterfly". I'm not sure whether this was coincidence or planning, but it took me by surprise.
If it was planned, then I applaud Puccini for writing an opera where his characters, or at least the main ones, have meaning to their names. It shows a sort of premeditated idea about the play, and a skill to layer meanings together. But if its just a fluke, then am I praising Puccini for something that was totally not intended? It's hard to tell whether the artist intended some of his artistic accomplishments.
It shows up in a lot of art, actually. Is the subtext intended, or is it something that we as viewers fabricate, because we beleive that the artist is good. Because this is undoubtably a good author, he must have intended to make the flowers in chapter one blue. Because blue is the color of sorrow, and the flowers are outside sally's house, and sally has sorrow enter her life when her mother dies in chapter 5, which is the number of blue flowers that grow outside her house. Sometimes I am unable to accept the minutia that some readers/viewers/listeners find in art, and I wonder.
Maybe the author just likes blue flowers.
Monday, March 5, 2007
On Cost
Everything has a cost. Period. I really really REEEEEEEEALLY hate to admit it, but it does. I guess this means I have to work or something.
First, there are the obvious costs, like what you have to spend in order to obtain food, a house, a trained sloth, and so forth. These ones are straightforward. In order to eat for 2 days, I need to spend $xx.xx on food. Say you have twenty dollars. This will buy you food and drink for two days. This is the only money you have to do ANYTHING with at all.
You get bored and decide to alleviate your boredom with a good jog. That doesnt cost anything, right? You go out and do your jog. An hour later, you get back, and decide that you're thirsty. You reach into your refridgerator and pull out some water, and drink it.
You've just gone into your water stash. By jogging, you have increased the needs of your body (water) such that you had to drink more water to make up for it. In doing so, you will have to go buy more water to make up for the water that you just drank. Aha, a hidden cost.
Costs arent just monetary. Theres the much bigger issue of time. By doing one thing, you lose the opportunity to do other things. When you go jogging, you lose that block of time. You cannot use it to read, or go swimming, or play WoW. Time is a cost too, one larger than money.
First, there are the obvious costs, like what you have to spend in order to obtain food, a house, a trained sloth, and so forth. These ones are straightforward. In order to eat for 2 days, I need to spend $xx.xx on food. Say you have twenty dollars. This will buy you food and drink for two days. This is the only money you have to do ANYTHING with at all.
You get bored and decide to alleviate your boredom with a good jog. That doesnt cost anything, right? You go out and do your jog. An hour later, you get back, and decide that you're thirsty. You reach into your refridgerator and pull out some water, and drink it.
You've just gone into your water stash. By jogging, you have increased the needs of your body (water) such that you had to drink more water to make up for it. In doing so, you will have to go buy more water to make up for the water that you just drank. Aha, a hidden cost.
Costs arent just monetary. Theres the much bigger issue of time. By doing one thing, you lose the opportunity to do other things. When you go jogging, you lose that block of time. You cannot use it to read, or go swimming, or play WoW. Time is a cost too, one larger than money.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
On Choice
I remember in 8th grade, Mrs. PK used to always end class by saying "remember, you always have a choice." I have decided that she was right.
The element of choice always exists. If you think about it, the statement, "I have to do X" is never one hundred percent correct. Not to sound like a sterotypically rebellious teenager, but I think that nobody can ever be forced into doing something. Rather, people can be presented with several alternatives, some of which are collosally more practical or appealing than others.
Let's take the following situation into account. It is early, and your alarm clock wakes you up. You roll out of bed sleepily, thinking, "I have to get ready for school." But surely if you wanted to you could sleep in an extra fifteen minutes. There is no physical barrier stopping you from doing so, right? All it would mean would be that you would get to school fifteen minutes late. Here, you have two alternatives. Get up now, and get to school earlier, OR sleep in, and arrive late. If you were okay with being 15 minutes tardy, then you could very easily go back to bed of your own volition.
Imagine a more serious circumstance. You are at the bank, and a robbery occurs. You are threatened at gunpoint to hand over your valubles. Some people might say that this constitues "force". Yet once again, all that is happening is that you are being presented with alternatives. Option 1: Turn the valubles over, don't die. Option 2: Keep the valubles, and presumably get shot. You do still have the ability to choose option 2, it is just (to most people) so much less attractive that anyone else would go with option 1.
In this way, the element of choice does always exist. One can never be forced into something, only given choices, some of which may be so unfavorable that people may think that they are not options at all. Yet, my 8th grade teacher was right; you do always have a choice.
The element of choice always exists. If you think about it, the statement, "I have to do X" is never one hundred percent correct. Not to sound like a sterotypically rebellious teenager, but I think that nobody can ever be forced into doing something. Rather, people can be presented with several alternatives, some of which are collosally more practical or appealing than others.
Let's take the following situation into account. It is early, and your alarm clock wakes you up. You roll out of bed sleepily, thinking, "I have to get ready for school." But surely if you wanted to you could sleep in an extra fifteen minutes. There is no physical barrier stopping you from doing so, right? All it would mean would be that you would get to school fifteen minutes late. Here, you have two alternatives. Get up now, and get to school earlier, OR sleep in, and arrive late. If you were okay with being 15 minutes tardy, then you could very easily go back to bed of your own volition.
Imagine a more serious circumstance. You are at the bank, and a robbery occurs. You are threatened at gunpoint to hand over your valubles. Some people might say that this constitues "force". Yet once again, all that is happening is that you are being presented with alternatives. Option 1: Turn the valubles over, don't die. Option 2: Keep the valubles, and presumably get shot. You do still have the ability to choose option 2, it is just (to most people) so much less attractive that anyone else would go with option 1.
In this way, the element of choice does always exist. One can never be forced into something, only given choices, some of which may be so unfavorable that people may think that they are not options at all. Yet, my 8th grade teacher was right; you do always have a choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)