Dear Dell,
My first computer, which I love like most people love their first car, came from you. I've been using it for coming up on six years, and I'm quite happy with it. It runs smoothly and does whatever I need it to do. The documentation that came with it is extremely clear and helpful; it taught me to set up a computer when I'd never done so before, and walked me through hardware upgrades that I'd never done before. I've only had one problem with this computer - the power supply died when it was into its third year - and that was promptly and helpfully replaced in my home, under warranty. So naturally, when I began looking into buying a new computer, I automatically assumed I would get a Dell.
However, I cannot buy a new computer from you if you don't answer my email.
I sent you an email through the Contact Us link on your website (which it took me a while to find!) asking for some specific technical details about the inside of the case, and some logistical questions about delivery. I sent this email last week, but I'm not sure whether it took because it just redirected me back to the same form. So I sent it again on Monday from work, since the web browser at work sometimes works when the one at home doesn't. That time it redirected me to the main Contact Us page.
I never received a message back from you. Not even an acknowledgement that my email had been received. I don't know whether you send confirmation emails, so I don't know if this is indicative of a technical problem. But, at any rate, it is indicative of a problem of some sort, because I should be able to easily email a company that sells products through its website, especially when I am in the process of making a $2000 purchase!
I will be phoning you tomorrow. I am not happy about this, because I do not like to conduct business on the phone - I prefer email. When I phone, I will be asking the agent I speak with the same questions I emailed, and I will also be asking them to check if my email was received.
If my email was lost in a technical glitch, I will forgive it, although the gracious thing for the agent to do would be to offer me a discount of some sort for my trouble. However, if my email has just been blithly ignored, I will have no choice but to not buy my computer through Dell.
I hate the idea of having to refuse to buy from Dell. I hate shopping, I don't want to have to go around and find another trustworthy vendor, I don't want to have to comparison shop. Having a known vendor I can trust makes my whole life much easier. But I simply cannot debase myself to making a $2000 purchase from a company who thinks me so subhuman that my emails are not even worthy of acknowledgement.
So please, answer my email by the time I get home tomorrow. If you haven't received my emails, answer all my questions clearly and promptly when I call tomorrow, offer me a discount for my trouble, and inform your webmaster that there's a problem with the email form. You can make me happy by offering me an nVidia Geforce for the price of an ATI Raedon, an LCD monitor for the price of a CRT monitor, or MS Office Pro for the price of MS Office Basic. Or by upgrading my processor speed.
I really do not want to have to leave Dell - the idea of having to do so is upsetting me even now. Please take good proper care of me as befits a purchase of this expense and importance so we can all be happy instead of none of us being happy.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Speaking of strange fashion ideas...
...there are a few gems in here!
-Always wear a size smaller than your actual size - Destiny
-When you walk in high heels ,don't walk on the heel; it makes you seem like you walk in them everyday.-- Nae
-Being a blond now is so cool, when I dyed my hair blonde, I became so poplar even if I'm Chinese. -- Angel
What are they thinking???
-Always wear a size smaller than your actual size - Destiny
-When you walk in high heels ,don't walk on the heel; it makes you seem like you walk in them everyday.-- Nae
-Being a blond now is so cool, when I dyed my hair blonde, I became so poplar even if I'm Chinese. -- Angel
What are they thinking???
Are celebrity stylists boycotting bras or something?
What's up with celebrities not wearing bras in situations where a good bra would vastly improve their look? I can see not wearing a bra if you're running down to the corner store, but on the red carpet you'd think they'd go to the effort to wear the most flattering foundational garments possible...
Overheard
1. "Mommy, why is that lady wearing black?" - from a small child (around five years old?) as I passed him and his mother walking down the sidewalk. For the record, my pants and shoes were black, but I was also wearing a green and white top.
2. "Because it's not really water" - random co-worker, unknown context.
2. "Because it's not really water" - random co-worker, unknown context.
Debunking moral platitudes
1. "You shouldn't use profanity because it isn't very creative."
I've heard people say this to their children, and I've heard the children parrot it back to others. The problem is that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with not being creative. Perhaps I'm not associating with the right people, but I've never seen a parent correct a child (or, indeed a person correct another person) about not being creative for anything other than profanity. After all, you wouldn't correct your child for answering the phone with "Hello?", would you? Besides, most people are as creative as they can be at any particular given moment - there are very few situations where a person would stifle their own creativity - so it's not like you could just say "That isn't creative. Be more creative!" and the person will instantly be more creative.
If you don't want someone else to swear, saying "Please don't swear around me, it offends me" is far more valid than saying "Don't do that because it isn't very creative." Besides, it's counterproductive - if someone randomly and arbitrarily told you that your everyday speech patterns aren't creative enough for their tastes, wouldn't your instinct be to reply, "Fuck you!"?
2. "Don't take the easy way out."
The problem with this one is that difficulty does not affect moral value. Yes, there are some situations where the less moral choice happens to be the easiest, but it isn't the ease that makes it less moral - it's some completely unrelated factor. However, this platitude seems to have expanded so that some people seem to believe that doing something in a more difficult way is somehow inherently more moral. I can buy raw carrots and cook them myself, or I can buy frozen cooked carrots and microwave them. Choosing the raw carrots is morally superior, yes, but that's because the cooked ones come with more packaging and are therefore worse for the environment, not because they're easier. Easy does not automatically equal bad.
Even Dumbledore falls into this trap: "If the time should come when you ahve to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort." Here Dumbledore goes around tacitly assuming that joining Voldemort - doing the immoral thing - will automatically be easier. Also, Cedric never actually was in a position to choose between what is right and what is easy, he just kind of wandered through. Actually, if he had chosen what was easy - grabbing the cup and winning by himself (which wouldn't have been wrong - he was, after all, in a race) he alone would have been transported to the graveyard, and perhaps Voldemort would not have been resurrected at that point because he seemed to be rather gung ho about getting Harry's blood. At any rate, there's nothing to suggest that what is easy isn't going to be wrong, and what is right is going to be hard.
In a situation where the easy way out happens to also be the less moral choice, we should say something along the lines of "Don't do the wrong thing just because it's easier", or perhaps something catchier than that. But we really need to put an end to equating easy with morally wrong.
I've heard people say this to their children, and I've heard the children parrot it back to others. The problem is that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with not being creative. Perhaps I'm not associating with the right people, but I've never seen a parent correct a child (or, indeed a person correct another person) about not being creative for anything other than profanity. After all, you wouldn't correct your child for answering the phone with "Hello?", would you? Besides, most people are as creative as they can be at any particular given moment - there are very few situations where a person would stifle their own creativity - so it's not like you could just say "That isn't creative. Be more creative!" and the person will instantly be more creative.
If you don't want someone else to swear, saying "Please don't swear around me, it offends me" is far more valid than saying "Don't do that because it isn't very creative." Besides, it's counterproductive - if someone randomly and arbitrarily told you that your everyday speech patterns aren't creative enough for their tastes, wouldn't your instinct be to reply, "Fuck you!"?
2. "Don't take the easy way out."
The problem with this one is that difficulty does not affect moral value. Yes, there are some situations where the less moral choice happens to be the easiest, but it isn't the ease that makes it less moral - it's some completely unrelated factor. However, this platitude seems to have expanded so that some people seem to believe that doing something in a more difficult way is somehow inherently more moral. I can buy raw carrots and cook them myself, or I can buy frozen cooked carrots and microwave them. Choosing the raw carrots is morally superior, yes, but that's because the cooked ones come with more packaging and are therefore worse for the environment, not because they're easier. Easy does not automatically equal bad.
Even Dumbledore falls into this trap: "If the time should come when you ahve to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort." Here Dumbledore goes around tacitly assuming that joining Voldemort - doing the immoral thing - will automatically be easier. Also, Cedric never actually was in a position to choose between what is right and what is easy, he just kind of wandered through. Actually, if he had chosen what was easy - grabbing the cup and winning by himself (which wouldn't have been wrong - he was, after all, in a race) he alone would have been transported to the graveyard, and perhaps Voldemort would not have been resurrected at that point because he seemed to be rather gung ho about getting Harry's blood. At any rate, there's nothing to suggest that what is easy isn't going to be wrong, and what is right is going to be hard.
In a situation where the easy way out happens to also be the less moral choice, we should say something along the lines of "Don't do the wrong thing just because it's easier", or perhaps something catchier than that. But we really need to put an end to equating easy with morally wrong.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Consumer guilt redux
My new computer is sitting in a saved cart on the Dell website, waiting for me to complete the order. Fortuitous upgrade synchronicity means that the configuration I want is currently $400 cheaper than usual, including tax and delivery. But I feel guilty about actually ordering it.
It isn't about money. The total cost is less than 2 weeks' gross income - it's an amount I could easily hand over to a loved one in crisis without worrying about whether or not I'd be paid back. I don't need to make any economies or watch my spending after making this purchase it won't be out of necessity, it will be because my chequing account balance is lower than I'm accustomed to (but still well above the balance of anyone to whom I'd divulge my chequing account balance).
No, I feel guilty about abandoning my old computer, tossing it aside like an old shoe. It may sound silly to be so attached to a household item, a commodity, but this computer (which, I just realized, I never even bothered to name!) has been there with me my entire adult life, and was the greatest symbol of my transition into adulthood until I got that beautiful letter from my current employer formally offering me a full-time permanent position.
This computer allowed me to game, chat and participate in web communities well into the night and away from the prying eyes of meddling grownups. I fell in love with mi cielito through its keyboard and screen. It bore withness to years of gloriously banal conversations with my truest friends. It served me loyally as I completed all the coursework necessary to obtain my undergrad degree. It saw me through many the rough night with games and internet, and would joyously cry "User is online!" to announce the arrive of someone who could make my rough nights easier. It tolerantly allowed me to install all manner of games produced in the last 20 years and in the 21st century, commercial software of various degrees of legitimacy, and propriety software whose existence the powers that be at Microsoft and Dell have never fathomed - all the while allowing me to freely alt-tab in between them so I could blog, as I'm doing now, thoughts that occurred to me while playing a game that I was too young to play when it was first released. This computer was instrumental to my first instant messages, my first hardware upgrades, my first software and peripheral installations, my first MP3s, my first love, my first move out of my parents' home, my first network troubleshooting, my first network security, my first pornography, my first FTP, my first translation, my first digital photos, my first hacking, my first email attachment, my first distributed computing, my first Sims, my first technical writing, my first Russian, my first Polish, my first photo manipulation, my first terminological research, my first apartment, my first internship, my first Harry Potter, my first fandom participation, my first RRSPs, my first online purchases, every university registration except my first, and even, as soon as I work up the courage to complete the transaction, my first purchase of a computer all by myself. It has participated hugely, perhaps moreso than anything or anyone other than mi cielito, in my becoming the person I am today. And I don't feel good about just abandoning it because it's old when it's still perfectly functional.
I know that by all standards, except those of the strictest frugality geeks or the poorer citizens of this planet, it is ridiculous for a person of my station in life to be using a computer that was built in the 20th century. I know that no one would begrudge me this worthwhile investment given my financial resources and given the major role that a computer plays in my social, recreational and professional life, especially since empirical evidence suggests that computers under my care last over five years, with only minor problems that are promptly and effectively dealt with under warranty. But I just don't feel good about abandoning the old one after it's been so good to me...
It isn't about money. The total cost is less than 2 weeks' gross income - it's an amount I could easily hand over to a loved one in crisis without worrying about whether or not I'd be paid back. I don't need to make any economies or watch my spending after making this purchase it won't be out of necessity, it will be because my chequing account balance is lower than I'm accustomed to (but still well above the balance of anyone to whom I'd divulge my chequing account balance).
No, I feel guilty about abandoning my old computer, tossing it aside like an old shoe. It may sound silly to be so attached to a household item, a commodity, but this computer (which, I just realized, I never even bothered to name!) has been there with me my entire adult life, and was the greatest symbol of my transition into adulthood until I got that beautiful letter from my current employer formally offering me a full-time permanent position.
This computer allowed me to game, chat and participate in web communities well into the night and away from the prying eyes of meddling grownups. I fell in love with mi cielito through its keyboard and screen. It bore withness to years of gloriously banal conversations with my truest friends. It served me loyally as I completed all the coursework necessary to obtain my undergrad degree. It saw me through many the rough night with games and internet, and would joyously cry "User is online!" to announce the arrive of someone who could make my rough nights easier. It tolerantly allowed me to install all manner of games produced in the last 20 years and in the 21st century, commercial software of various degrees of legitimacy, and propriety software whose existence the powers that be at Microsoft and Dell have never fathomed - all the while allowing me to freely alt-tab in between them so I could blog, as I'm doing now, thoughts that occurred to me while playing a game that I was too young to play when it was first released. This computer was instrumental to my first instant messages, my first hardware upgrades, my first software and peripheral installations, my first MP3s, my first love, my first move out of my parents' home, my first network troubleshooting, my first network security, my first pornography, my first FTP, my first translation, my first digital photos, my first hacking, my first email attachment, my first distributed computing, my first Sims, my first technical writing, my first Russian, my first Polish, my first photo manipulation, my first terminological research, my first apartment, my first internship, my first Harry Potter, my first fandom participation, my first RRSPs, my first online purchases, every university registration except my first, and even, as soon as I work up the courage to complete the transaction, my first purchase of a computer all by myself. It has participated hugely, perhaps moreso than anything or anyone other than mi cielito, in my becoming the person I am today. And I don't feel good about just abandoning it because it's old when it's still perfectly functional.
I know that by all standards, except those of the strictest frugality geeks or the poorer citizens of this planet, it is ridiculous for a person of my station in life to be using a computer that was built in the 20th century. I know that no one would begrudge me this worthwhile investment given my financial resources and given the major role that a computer plays in my social, recreational and professional life, especially since empirical evidence suggests that computers under my care last over five years, with only minor problems that are promptly and effectively dealt with under warranty. But I just don't feel good about abandoning the old one after it's been so good to me...
How faith works
Can people who are religious make a conscious, deliberate decision to believe in something, and then they believe in it? I don't mean organizing one's life or basing one's actions or choices on what one believes in, I mean the actual act of believing.
I'm wondering this because I occasionally see things coming from religious people who seem to think that atheists are beligerently not believing in god out of stubbornness, like a toddler holding their breath. This seems strange to me, because I, personally, cannot just believe in something. Either I believe in it or I don't, like either I like a food or I don't - it can't be turned on and off at will or changed through a deliberate decision. I did make a deliberate decision to live as an atheist rather than submitting to the hypocrisy of false piety, but what I actually believe has always remained the same, no matter how much I tried to change it to conform.
But then I remembered that my catechism also presented faith as someone one could control. Be good, don't tell lies, have faith. I can make a conscious choice not to lie, cheat or steal, say "No, I will not do that because I have decided that I am going to lie, cheat or steal," and then end up not lying, cheating or stealing. However, if I make a conscious decision to believe in something, the closest I can come to succeeding is going through the motions of believing in it. I might be able to convince the entire world that I believe, but no matter how hard I try I will not end up actually believing.
But why would they present faith as a deliberate choice if it is not? Are there people out there who can tell themselves, "From now on, I will believe that the universe is ruled by a flying red dog," and then they just automatically believe it?
If there are people whose minds work this way, I wonder if it can show up in a brain scan - could you scan someone's brain and see if they're religious or an atheist?
I'm wondering this because I occasionally see things coming from religious people who seem to think that atheists are beligerently not believing in god out of stubbornness, like a toddler holding their breath. This seems strange to me, because I, personally, cannot just believe in something. Either I believe in it or I don't, like either I like a food or I don't - it can't be turned on and off at will or changed through a deliberate decision. I did make a deliberate decision to live as an atheist rather than submitting to the hypocrisy of false piety, but what I actually believe has always remained the same, no matter how much I tried to change it to conform.
But then I remembered that my catechism also presented faith as someone one could control. Be good, don't tell lies, have faith. I can make a conscious choice not to lie, cheat or steal, say "No, I will not do that because I have decided that I am going to lie, cheat or steal," and then end up not lying, cheating or stealing. However, if I make a conscious decision to believe in something, the closest I can come to succeeding is going through the motions of believing in it. I might be able to convince the entire world that I believe, but no matter how hard I try I will not end up actually believing.
But why would they present faith as a deliberate choice if it is not? Are there people out there who can tell themselves, "From now on, I will believe that the universe is ruled by a flying red dog," and then they just automatically believe it?
If there are people whose minds work this way, I wonder if it can show up in a brain scan - could you scan someone's brain and see if they're religious or an atheist?
Friday, May 27, 2005
I don't like wedding registries
Circumstances led me to be looking at a couple of wedding registries lately. I cannot imagine making a wedding registry. I cannot imagine asking people for dishes and linens and household items. I'd think people would react with "What's the matter with you? Aren't you a grownup? Don't you have basic household items?" I guess it's because my attitude is that gifts among equals (and, for the purposes of gifts, I consider myself "equals" with all self-supporting adults, even if they are older than me) should be fun things, interesting things, not everyday household necessities. I feel like as long as one is self-supporting and gainfully employed, one should buy one's own household items as required. (Obviously the situation is different if the recipient of the gift is not in a financially secure position and is lacking some basic necessities). To buy a self-sufficient adult bedsheets or drinking glasses feels to me like buying them everyday groceries or toilet paper. Self-sufficient adults should buy each other things that are "I saw this and I thought it was cool," or "You'd enjoy this but would never splurge on it yourself," or "This fulfills a need that you didn't know until now that you had," or "You've been looking everywhere for one of these and could never find it," even "Look! A joke that will make us all have a good laugh!" I understand it is traditional, but I couldn't look the world in the eye and say "I want you to buy me everyday necessities."
New rule for elopements!
Whenever a couple elopes, they should make sure they have a bouquet. Then when they are leaving the venue where the wedding was conducted, gleefully running off towards their honeymoon, they should toss the bouquet to a random passer-by. Just because it would make life so much more interesting to be innocently walking down the street one day and suddenly someone tosses you a wedding bouquet.
The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in the Age of Terror by Michael Ignatieff
I wasn't excessively impressed by this book. I wasn't UNimpressed, but did leave feeling rather indifferent. It's a very small book for such a big subject, and didn't mention too much that I haven't read or heard before, although I haven't seen all these ideas set out all in a row in one place before.
At one point in the book, the author states as a given that committing acts of violence fulfils a psychological need. He presents this idea as though it's obvious, but it isn't obvious to me. I don't know anything about violence fulfilling a psychological need, so to me it reads like a random idea that he made up and stated as a given. This causes me to wonder what other givens in this book might not necessarily be facts.
The book also loses some credibility in my eyes because the author only barely alluded to the fact that if a state practises torture or takes preemptive military action, it thereby gives the impression that it thinks these kinds of actions are perfectly legitimate. By contributing towards this legitimization, the state is endangering its own citizens: show that you think torture is legitimate, and your enemy may take that as leave to torture your own citizens; show that you think preemptive military action is legitimate, and your enemy may take preemptive military action against you. This is very much something a state needs to take into consideration when ethically analyzing its position, and the author does a disservice by not including it in his book.
At one point in the book, the author states as a given that committing acts of violence fulfils a psychological need. He presents this idea as though it's obvious, but it isn't obvious to me. I don't know anything about violence fulfilling a psychological need, so to me it reads like a random idea that he made up and stated as a given. This causes me to wonder what other givens in this book might not necessarily be facts.
The book also loses some credibility in my eyes because the author only barely alluded to the fact that if a state practises torture or takes preemptive military action, it thereby gives the impression that it thinks these kinds of actions are perfectly legitimate. By contributing towards this legitimization, the state is endangering its own citizens: show that you think torture is legitimate, and your enemy may take that as leave to torture your own citizens; show that you think preemptive military action is legitimate, and your enemy may take preemptive military action against you. This is very much something a state needs to take into consideration when ethically analyzing its position, and the author does a disservice by not including it in his book.
Two unrelated etiquette questions
1. Suppose you're walking down the sidewalk when you come up behind someone who is walking far too slowly, and for whatever reason you have no room to pass them. How, logistically, do you walk behind them at an excruciatingly slow pace without your body language saying "OMG, I am walking SO slowly, I am SO put out!"? Whenever I find myself in this situation, I end up either taking extremely tiny steps or taking a step, then pausing, then taking another step, then pausing. I think both these actions communicate a sort of exaggerated passive-aggressive eye-rolling "This is SO SLOW, but I'm not going to complain, no, don't mind me, I don't have anywhere that I need to be or anything..." How does a fast walker walk slowly and make it look natural?
2. Today's Vine brought up the fact that you aren't supposed to wear black, white or red to a wedding. But what about patterns? Can I wear that retro black dress with 1940s-style white dots? Can I wear black with red flowers and white accents? Can I wear a plain black skirt with a top in a different colour? Can I wear my black, white and red skirt with a top in one of these three colours? What if it's a bad fashion season (like, oh, say, Spring 2005) and the only appropriate dresses available are lime green or hot pink - is it better to wear red than one of those ridiculously bright colours? What if my choices are black/white/red or some pastel that makes me look so sickly that everyone asks if I'd like to lie down or if I need a glass of water? I totally see the reason why you shouldn't wear a plain white (white's for the bride) or black (for mourning) or red (hello, I'm a siren!) dress, but the powers that be in the realm of fashion don't allow us infinite choice of colours and styles at any given moment, and if I'm spontaneously invited to a wedding there simply might not be anything available in stores at all in an appropriate and flattering non black or red shade.
2. Today's Vine brought up the fact that you aren't supposed to wear black, white or red to a wedding. But what about patterns? Can I wear that retro black dress with 1940s-style white dots? Can I wear black with red flowers and white accents? Can I wear a plain black skirt with a top in a different colour? Can I wear my black, white and red skirt with a top in one of these three colours? What if it's a bad fashion season (like, oh, say, Spring 2005) and the only appropriate dresses available are lime green or hot pink - is it better to wear red than one of those ridiculously bright colours? What if my choices are black/white/red or some pastel that makes me look so sickly that everyone asks if I'd like to lie down or if I need a glass of water? I totally see the reason why you shouldn't wear a plain white (white's for the bride) or black (for mourning) or red (hello, I'm a siren!) dress, but the powers that be in the realm of fashion don't allow us infinite choice of colours and styles at any given moment, and if I'm spontaneously invited to a wedding there simply might not be anything available in stores at all in an appropriate and flattering non black or red shade.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: let's all write in library books
I think whenever someone reading a library book has something useful and brief to say about the book while they are reading it, they should annotate their comments in the margins. And if a later reader has something useful and brief to say about a previous comment, they can answer it - like the graffiti conversations found in better bathrooms everywhere. I'm sure librarians and other purists wouldn't be too pleased about this, but I think it would be cool for everything to be annoted.
For example, in a rather academic book I'm currently reading, the author made a cause and effect statement and presented it as a given - as something that's common knowledge. I didn't see the connection between the cause and the effect, so this given didn't make sense to me. So what I'd do in this case is underline the phrase in question and ask "How so?" Then a future reader can elaborate if they are able to do so, or take advantage to this logical fallacy I pointed out if they're ever writing a paper on the book.
For example, in a rather academic book I'm currently reading, the author made a cause and effect statement and presented it as a given - as something that's common knowledge. I didn't see the connection between the cause and the effect, so this given didn't make sense to me. So what I'd do in this case is underline the phrase in question and ask "How so?" Then a future reader can elaborate if they are able to do so, or take advantage to this logical fallacy I pointed out if they're ever writing a paper on the book.
Things they should invent: cars with variable engine power/efficiency
Someone I know owns a big horse, so she needs a big SUV to pull her horse-trailer. However, she isn't pulling her horse trailer at all times - I'm sure she doesn't need to be using all that gasoline to drive to work or the grocery store - a smaller car would do just fine for these jobs. But owning two cars - a big one for the horse trailer and a small one for the everyday - is too costly or inconvenient for households with only one driver.
So what they should invent is a way to make cars switch between a more fuel-efficient but less powerful mode, and a less fuel-efficient but more powerful mode.
I'm really terribly shamefully ignorant about how cars work (I've never owned one), so I don't know how exactly this could be done. Some ideas, with the caveat that they may all be completely incompatible with the basic elements of car construction:
1. Part of the engine could be blocked off when the car is in Efficient mode, and the car can access that part when you switch to Powerful mode. (Like you know how there are V6 and V8 engines? Just turn off two of the V's)
2. Put two engines into the car, but only use one at a time (or use one in Efficient mode and both in Powerful mode)
3. If the efficiency/power of the car is more a function of its size (I know that bigger SUVs and trucks tend to be more powerful, but I don't know what the cause and effect elements of this phenomenon is), make it something that can be physically added on to the vehicle. Picture the ship Obi-Wan uses to go to Kamino in Attack of the Clones - he has a little ship with this big hyperspace engine thing, and when the time came to land on the planet he detached the ship from the big engine and went down to the planet using what the Star Trek universe calls impulse power. (Is this metaphor mixed up enough yet? Or should I add another fandom?) There could be something that hooks up to car in a relatively simple way and provides it with more power, and the user could remove it for their daily commute. Maybe, if you didn't need full engine power very often, you could even rent a power booster thing for when you take your boat up to the cottage once a year or whatever.
Anyway, the point is, even though some people need SUVs for some things they don't necessarily need them all the time, and it would be convenient if you could switch the extra engine power on and off, and save some gas in the process.
So what they should invent is a way to make cars switch between a more fuel-efficient but less powerful mode, and a less fuel-efficient but more powerful mode.
I'm really terribly shamefully ignorant about how cars work (I've never owned one), so I don't know how exactly this could be done. Some ideas, with the caveat that they may all be completely incompatible with the basic elements of car construction:
1. Part of the engine could be blocked off when the car is in Efficient mode, and the car can access that part when you switch to Powerful mode. (Like you know how there are V6 and V8 engines? Just turn off two of the V's)
2. Put two engines into the car, but only use one at a time (or use one in Efficient mode and both in Powerful mode)
3. If the efficiency/power of the car is more a function of its size (I know that bigger SUVs and trucks tend to be more powerful, but I don't know what the cause and effect elements of this phenomenon is), make it something that can be physically added on to the vehicle. Picture the ship Obi-Wan uses to go to Kamino in Attack of the Clones - he has a little ship with this big hyperspace engine thing, and when the time came to land on the planet he detached the ship from the big engine and went down to the planet using what the Star Trek universe calls impulse power. (Is this metaphor mixed up enough yet? Or should I add another fandom?) There could be something that hooks up to car in a relatively simple way and provides it with more power, and the user could remove it for their daily commute. Maybe, if you didn't need full engine power very often, you could even rent a power booster thing for when you take your boat up to the cottage once a year or whatever.
Anyway, the point is, even though some people need SUVs for some things they don't necessarily need them all the time, and it would be convenient if you could switch the extra engine power on and off, and save some gas in the process.
What the other 90% of the brain does
They say you only use 10% of your brain. I'm pleased to announce that yesterday I located part of the 90% that I don't use. I was playing Jeopardy, and one of the categories was something like "Alphabetically Last" - it gave the name of a set of items, and asked for the thing in that set that was last in alphabetical order. For example, the clue would be "The nine planets in our solar system", and the correct answer would be "Venus". Or the clue would be "South American countries" and the correct answer would be "Venezuela".
As I was trying to mentally list and put in reverse order all the planets or all the south american countries before those super-fast ultimate tournament of champions players answered, I noticed that this was a new part of my brain I was working. I've never used that part of my brain before! It felt exactly like if you learn a new exercise that stretches or exercises a muscle you've never targeted before.
As I was trying to mentally list and put in reverse order all the planets or all the south american countries before those super-fast ultimate tournament of champions players answered, I noticed that this was a new part of my brain I was working. I've never used that part of my brain before! It felt exactly like if you learn a new exercise that stretches or exercises a muscle you've never targeted before.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Huge Star Wars plot hole! (spoiler-free)
This post mentions things that we know have to happen between Episode 2 and Episode 4, but spoiling details are not given. It also mentions things that should be, but are not, explained in Episode 3, and provides the EU explanation. If this is not spoiler-free enough for you, stop reading.
Episode 2 mentions a Jedi named Sifo-Dyas who ordered the creation of the clone army, but who Sifo-Dyas was and why he ordered the creation of a clone army are not explained in the movies. A bit of googling showed that this comes up in one of the EU books, and that Sifo-Dyas is nobody (the Mark Evans of the Star Wars universe). He's just a random Jedi who randomly ordered the creation of a clone army. The EU book may explain why he chose to do this, but it certainly doesn't come up in the movies. It really should have been in the movies, because after I saw Episode 2 the first time I went into fandom to find out theories about Sifo-Dyas, and I never spend time in Star Wars fandom!
We also know that the clones are on the Jedi side in Episode 2, and on the Sith side in Episode 4. In Episode 3 we see this switch happen, but, unless I missed it (I've only seen the movie once), we don't see why and how it happens. We don't learn which Sith or Sith ally is responsible for making the clones switch sides and how this happened. And if Sifo-Dyas is really going to be a nobody, Episode 3 really ought to have explained what when on behind the scenes.
Episode 2 mentions a Jedi named Sifo-Dyas who ordered the creation of the clone army, but who Sifo-Dyas was and why he ordered the creation of a clone army are not explained in the movies. A bit of googling showed that this comes up in one of the EU books, and that Sifo-Dyas is nobody (the Mark Evans of the Star Wars universe). He's just a random Jedi who randomly ordered the creation of a clone army. The EU book may explain why he chose to do this, but it certainly doesn't come up in the movies. It really should have been in the movies, because after I saw Episode 2 the first time I went into fandom to find out theories about Sifo-Dyas, and I never spend time in Star Wars fandom!
We also know that the clones are on the Jedi side in Episode 2, and on the Sith side in Episode 4. In Episode 3 we see this switch happen, but, unless I missed it (I've only seen the movie once), we don't see why and how it happens. We don't learn which Sith or Sith ally is responsible for making the clones switch sides and how this happened. And if Sifo-Dyas is really going to be a nobody, Episode 3 really ought to have explained what when on behind the scenes.
The Nine Planets by Edward Riche
I did not enjoy this book. The main protagonist (who is also the first-person narrator) is a singularly unpleasant person, so I simply did not enjoy spending time in his head. The secondary protagonist is more interesting, but nothing is done with her character. She literally just wanders around. At the end of the book it seemed like the main protagonist was going to get some comeuppance and I was eagerly reading ahead so I could watch it happen, it was all being nicely lined up and I was ready for a glorious burst of schadenfreude, and then the book just petered out in a trickle of sentimental pap.
There must be readers out there who enjoy books with unpleasant, unsympathetic protagonists because I keep stumbling upon these kinds of books, and they're often critically acclaimed. However, I do not enjoy spending time inside the heads of asshole characters unless I get a good, solid, Nelson-style "HA HA!" out of the book (which happens all too rarely), so these books don't work for me. I only wish critics would make it obvious that they are giving certain books good reviews because of the unpleasant, unsympathetic characters, so I would know to avoid those books.
There must be readers out there who enjoy books with unpleasant, unsympathetic protagonists because I keep stumbling upon these kinds of books, and they're often critically acclaimed. However, I do not enjoy spending time inside the heads of asshole characters unless I get a good, solid, Nelson-style "HA HA!" out of the book (which happens all too rarely), so these books don't work for me. I only wish critics would make it obvious that they are giving certain books good reviews because of the unpleasant, unsympathetic characters, so I would know to avoid those books.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Wherein Dear Abby does a huge disservice to all her readers
A reader writes in to Dear Abby complaining that her fiancé is hiding gay porn around the house and hitting on her male friend. Dear Abby replies:
While I can see that it could be a problem if the fiancé is not capable of being sexually attracted to the woman who wrote in, because most people do want mutually satisfying sex to be part of their marriage. However, if he is capable of being sexually attracted to her, regardless of whom else he may be capable of finding attractive, the crux of the problem seems to be that he's hiding porn in the marital bed and hitting on her friend, no?
It is highly unusual for straight men to keep pictures of naked men under their mattress. You have given me three reasons why you suspect he's gay, which indicates that your alarm bells are sounding. By all means address the subject with your boyfriend.Yeah, good job Dear Abby, go around precipitating the misconception that bisexual equals incapable of monogamy. That is going to do SO much good for all humanity!
Although your boyfriend may not be gay, he may be bisexual -- and that spells trouble ahead if you marry him. If I were you, I'd put the marriage on hold and listen to my intuition.
While I can see that it could be a problem if the fiancé is not capable of being sexually attracted to the woman who wrote in, because most people do want mutually satisfying sex to be part of their marriage. However, if he is capable of being sexually attracted to her, regardless of whom else he may be capable of finding attractive, the crux of the problem seems to be that he's hiding porn in the marital bed and hitting on her friend, no?
Thursday, May 19, 2005
More Star Wars ponderings (completely spoiler-free!)
I wonder what Lucas's intentions gave Padmé and Anakin a five-year age difference?
It's a hurdle to their relationship that was never addressed. Five years isn't that much for adults, but when Padmé and Anakin first me, she was functionally an adult and he was a child, so they would both be quite aware of the age difference. When they are reunited at the beginning of AotC, Padmé clearly still thinks of Anakin as something of a child, but that just vanishes, it's never addressed.
If Lucas didn't intend their age difference to serve any purpose, he could quite easily have made them closer in age (Padmé was already extremly young to be a queen and Anakin was already too old for Jedi training, so they could have made them both 12 without changing a thing), or he could have quite easily not had them meet until AotC, where they both appear to be grown adults and have plenty of time alone together. That might even have made their falling in love more believable, because the audience wouldn't be sitting there going "What about the age difference?" They're both young attractive people and spend a lot of time romping around on Naboo, that would be enough to convince the audience. But with the age difference, I found myself feeling unsatisfied that nothing in particular happened to make her think of him as a grownup. So what was its purpose?
It's a hurdle to their relationship that was never addressed. Five years isn't that much for adults, but when Padmé and Anakin first me, she was functionally an adult and he was a child, so they would both be quite aware of the age difference. When they are reunited at the beginning of AotC, Padmé clearly still thinks of Anakin as something of a child, but that just vanishes, it's never addressed.
If Lucas didn't intend their age difference to serve any purpose, he could quite easily have made them closer in age (Padmé was already extremly young to be a queen and Anakin was already too old for Jedi training, so they could have made them both 12 without changing a thing), or he could have quite easily not had them meet until AotC, where they both appear to be grown adults and have plenty of time alone together. That might even have made their falling in love more believable, because the audience wouldn't be sitting there going "What about the age difference?" They're both young attractive people and spend a lot of time romping around on Naboo, that would be enough to convince the audience. But with the age difference, I found myself feeling unsatisfied that nothing in particular happened to make her think of him as a grownup. So what was its purpose?
Budget passed
Budget passed, no election, pass it on!
I've never watched the H of C on TV before - it's really interesting!
I've never watched the H of C on TV before - it's really interesting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)