One of the great things about the web is that people can argue, debate and generally go back and forth about their ideas. Sometimes it can be calm, or heated and sometimes people can start screaming at each other (to the extent that one CAN "scream" in text) But one thing I find particularly vulgar is for person A to actually request that person B change the very words they wrote in order better satisfy person A. Is this voluntary censorship or debate? This is a fine line I'll grant you, but to me there is no grey area here. It is the difference between a real argument and self-censorship.
Censorship is wrong because it is a lie. If you alter the original idea you are fundamentally violating the author's ideas. No matter what positive end you hope to gain by altering the words it is still a lie. It is perfectly fine to challenge a person's ideas, to tell them why you think they're wrong, even to scream at them what an asshole they are. But to try and craft another individual's words to better suit your ideas about HOW they should come across to others is a terrible insult. It's so feeble-minded to try and do that. It shows that you don't really have an adequate response to their message but only wish that they hadn't said it like that. How weak!
How dare anyone seek to change what you say or how you say it by these mealy-mouthed requests! People's minds are changed and new ideas are gained by a long and continuous string of unfettered communication, not by going in 'behind the scenes' and tinkering with the parts. That to me smacks of poltics and bureaucracy rather than a free exchange of ideas. It goes a step backward from genuine persuasion. It is one thing if you are writing an article and working with an editor who wants to change your words around, but here I am speaking of online communication between people. Opinions vs. opinions.
Challenge people about what they say, but don't be so rude and self-important to make them change how they say it or what words they should or should not use. Offer your own idea in turn and explain why you think you're right. Don't tinker with the semantics! You may achieve the same ends after all.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Friday, August 3, 2007
Printing - The Case For A Single Dialog
In the general sense computers keep getting better and better, however there also exists the phenomenon of getting used to bad designs. We learn to accept and work around unnecessarily complex software. Perhaps complex is not the right word, more like disorganized. With the amount of functions that we want our software and hardware to do making things simpler isn't the easy answer, but I do think things can be made far more organized so that the operator can view and change the parameters without a lot of fuss. I speak specifically of printing. No matter if your platform is Mac or Windows, printing software is absurdly complex. There are literally dozens of dialog boxes you can go through, some of them are useful for what you want to print, others aren't. But no matter what you have to memorize a dizzying array of screens\dialogs to wade through before you get what you want. If you ask me the whole thing is a complete mess and we need to start over on this printing business. There is far too much rope with which to hang one's self.
I print stuff everyday on a variety of printers from desktop inkjets to laser printers and high end RIPs. Even though I have learned what most of the settings mean and how to get it to print in the way I want, it is still very frustrating and numerous mistakes are incredibly easy to make. Learning the settings is difficult enough, but the process is made all the worse in that there are too many places to make the settings. There's an OS interface, an application interface, and a printer interface and they all might have redundant or self-defeating settings. The possibility for screwing it all up is extremely high. Why does it have to be this complex? Why do we have so many places to change printer settings? We need ONE dialog box. Make it full screen. Use every inch of the monitor to display EVERY setting. Be able to change everything in one screen with NO hidden functions. Show a legible preview of exactly what you're getting.
The closest I have seen to a decently-designed print dialog is Adobe Acrobat's, but that's not saying much. There are still plenty of hidden functions. Why are there TWO separate dialogs for Page Setup and Print? If you hit Print and the page size isn't correct for your printer you have to exit that dialog and open another. It makes no sense, I am printing the damn thing, so why not have all the preferences clear and visible in one go? If it makes sense to hide the features you never use that's fine, but at least the option should be there.
Maybe nobody cares about printing in this day of gee whiz pocket organizer doodads, but I know my job would be a lot easier if I thought there was some logical interface to use when printing documents. We have just piled complex stuff on top of each other without trying to make it one cohesive operation.
I print stuff everyday on a variety of printers from desktop inkjets to laser printers and high end RIPs. Even though I have learned what most of the settings mean and how to get it to print in the way I want, it is still very frustrating and numerous mistakes are incredibly easy to make. Learning the settings is difficult enough, but the process is made all the worse in that there are too many places to make the settings. There's an OS interface, an application interface, and a printer interface and they all might have redundant or self-defeating settings. The possibility for screwing it all up is extremely high. Why does it have to be this complex? Why do we have so many places to change printer settings? We need ONE dialog box. Make it full screen. Use every inch of the monitor to display EVERY setting. Be able to change everything in one screen with NO hidden functions. Show a legible preview of exactly what you're getting.
The closest I have seen to a decently-designed print dialog is Adobe Acrobat's, but that's not saying much. There are still plenty of hidden functions. Why are there TWO separate dialogs for Page Setup and Print? If you hit Print and the page size isn't correct for your printer you have to exit that dialog and open another. It makes no sense, I am printing the damn thing, so why not have all the preferences clear and visible in one go? If it makes sense to hide the features you never use that's fine, but at least the option should be there.
Maybe nobody cares about printing in this day of gee whiz pocket organizer doodads, but I know my job would be a lot easier if I thought there was some logical interface to use when printing documents. We have just piled complex stuff on top of each other without trying to make it one cohesive operation.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What Defines Cheating In Sports?
I personally have no interest in following professional sports, but I do occasionally read other people talking about sports or listen to people talking about sports on the radio. It seems that there is a lot of hoopla over steroids and whatnot. I'd be curious to know what people are actually upset about when a certain athlete is found to have used steroids, or blood doping or whatever the heck it is that athletes do; is it because they broke the rules of the sport or because it is unethical and subjectively dirty and underhanded to use these substances? Personally the only argument I can support is that the athletes broke the rules of the sport. If the rules say you can't take drug A B or C then you ought to be disqualified. But if there aren't such rules I don't see using drugs in the same sense of cheating. There was some guy in the Tour De France who was kicked out for having a blood transfusion or something. I find it hard to feel much enmity towards these guys because whatever they are putting in their bodies they're still huffing it on a bike for miles and miles. To me cheating in a bike race isn't using drugs, it would be if you put a motor on the bike or sticking a rod through a guy's spokes, having your friends pull a rope across the road as your rival passed by, taking a shortcut off the course or something. Chemicals are a much more nebulous subject.
I'm sure if I was allowed to take every single performance-enhancing drug known to man I still would not be able to throw a baseball as good as the worst professional ball player out there. The degree of physical ability and training that pro athletes have seems amazing enough to me. I would be more likely to call drugs cheating if there exists such a drug where you can take a guy off the couch, inject him with this substance and he can beat the undrugged pro athlete who has been training and practicing for years.
I dunno, I'm just glad I don't actually care about this subject! HA!
I'm sure if I was allowed to take every single performance-enhancing drug known to man I still would not be able to throw a baseball as good as the worst professional ball player out there. The degree of physical ability and training that pro athletes have seems amazing enough to me. I would be more likely to call drugs cheating if there exists such a drug where you can take a guy off the couch, inject him with this substance and he can beat the undrugged pro athlete who has been training and practicing for years.
I dunno, I'm just glad I don't actually care about this subject! HA!
Monday, July 23, 2007
Quark License Administrator
The government isn't the only group that can treat you like a suspected criminal at all times. Take for instance, Quark Inc. If it were up to me we would never pay money to endure this sort of anti-piracy abuse. Quark does not trust you, they think you are a low down dirty software pirate stealing bread from their table. You pay them five fucking grand for their goddamn page layout software and then you have to endure the most draconian software licensing scheme I have EVER encountered. Why? Because you're not a valued customer, you are a potentional enemy and thus you must prove yourself worthy every time you boot the program. Convicted child rapists probably undergo less scrutiny than the average Quark user! My fear is that Adobe will also adopt this customer-is-criminal approach too. Look, I realize piracy is an issue but it did not stop these companies from becoming HUGELY SUCCESSFUL. Legit, paying customers are keeping these guys afloat and as a legit user I must protest this draconian horseshit. I want to pay to use a page layout program, not appease some whiny Quark License Administrator software! Fuck QLA, fuck it right in the ear.
Monday, July 2, 2007
I Don't Get MySpace
In addition to not being hip to myspace whenever the hell it started becoming the popular thing I also developed an unexplained aversion to it. I don't know why. Perhaps it's the fact that every myspace page I ever looked at is a design abortion? What the hell is going on there? Why does everyone choose to use a complex photo background so you can't READ ANYTHING??? I don't have cause to go there but whenever I have the page looks like digital vomit. They remind me of those copy protection schemes used by computer games back in the old days where you had to read something using a red filter over your eye.
That's what I like about Blogger here, its templates do not encourage hideous web design. You have to try harder to fuck it up and make it an illegible mess. Seems like with MySpace the illegible mess goes with the territory. I don't get it.
That's what I like about Blogger here, its templates do not encourage hideous web design. You have to try harder to fuck it up and make it an illegible mess. Seems like with MySpace the illegible mess goes with the territory. I don't get it.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Gas Boycott, What Was I Thinking!?
Recently I put my foot right in a big cowpile of illogic and thought I should come clean. I was headed out to my step brother's place this past Mother's Day with my folks. My dad informed me of some 'nationwide gas boycott' thing where you weren't supposed to buy gas on tuesday. I thought it was a good idea because it was a market-based solution, not a government regulation one. I thought it was a good way to Stick It To The Man. But the next day my stupidity became embarrassingly obvious. A one day gas boycott, are you freakin' NUTS? What the hell is that gonna do!? Don't buy gas tuesday but wednesday's okay? Ridiculous! I am not very good at thinking on my feet unfortunately.
If you want to Stick It To The Oil Man you simply have to make a LONG TERM CHANGE IN YOUR GASOLINE CONSUMPTION. Better yet, make a short term change by actually consuming gasoline. You will die and Mother Earth will be reborn in splendor. No but seriously, unless you make a fundamental reduction in buying gas they aren't going to see any decline in sales. Reduce unnecessary trips, use a bike instead of a car, move closer to work, buy a more efficient car...these things will actually help. Everything else will be either symbolically good but useless or have the reverse effect.
But fundamentally I am stumped by the fact that complaining about gasoline prices are a favorite pastime of Americans. I am an evil person who wants to destroy the universe which means I commute a long distance to work everyday, burning fossil fuels and causing unborn babies to choke on deadly smog. However, the cost of this earth-raping madness of mine has never really caused me undue grief. Gasoline does not comprise a huge portion of my spending. If it bothered me so much I would have recourse, I could move closer to work. I wish all the gas price complaints were directed instead at something truly nefarious like say the income tax, or our fiat currency system which causes inflation in the first place.
A boycott of a certain product or company seems to be a form of protest. But what was the message of this alleged one-day gas boycott?
"We're pissed about high gas prices and you oil companies can go to hell!"
or was it actually:
"We're pissed about high gas prices and uh, we're going to keep buying it anyway. So yeah, go to hell oil companies! Um, just as long as you can still sell me gas in Hell...please? I need it..."
Let's face it, certain industries have got us by the balls. The energy business is a great business to be in. We all want it, and there's people willing to provide it. Sure we can go without, but well, it's really really nice to have. Sometimes I wish I worked in such an industry. Something like energy, food, drugs, funeral homes...these are industries that will never go away. I work in a lesuire activity industry that's based upon another industry whose golden age is slowly fading into history: model railroading! And it's in the printed page too, another area I worry is threatened by the steady march of progress. But I digress...
As they say in Morbid Angel, "send up our hate\to burn Heaven's gate". Such hate ought to be addressed to Washington D.C. and not the local filling station in my opinion.
(cripes, don't use the spell check on Blogger, it fucks up your text! *doh*)
If you want to Stick It To The Oil Man you simply have to make a LONG TERM CHANGE IN YOUR GASOLINE CONSUMPTION. Better yet, make a short term change by actually consuming gasoline. You will die and Mother Earth will be reborn in splendor. No but seriously, unless you make a fundamental reduction in buying gas they aren't going to see any decline in sales. Reduce unnecessary trips, use a bike instead of a car, move closer to work, buy a more efficient car...these things will actually help. Everything else will be either symbolically good but useless or have the reverse effect.
But fundamentally I am stumped by the fact that complaining about gasoline prices are a favorite pastime of Americans. I am an evil person who wants to destroy the universe which means I commute a long distance to work everyday, burning fossil fuels and causing unborn babies to choke on deadly smog. However, the cost of this earth-raping madness of mine has never really caused me undue grief. Gasoline does not comprise a huge portion of my spending. If it bothered me so much I would have recourse, I could move closer to work. I wish all the gas price complaints were directed instead at something truly nefarious like say the income tax, or our fiat currency system which causes inflation in the first place.
A boycott of a certain product or company seems to be a form of protest. But what was the message of this alleged one-day gas boycott?
"We're pissed about high gas prices and you oil companies can go to hell!"
or was it actually:
"We're pissed about high gas prices and uh, we're going to keep buying it anyway. So yeah, go to hell oil companies! Um, just as long as you can still sell me gas in Hell...please? I need it..."
Let's face it, certain industries have got us by the balls. The energy business is a great business to be in. We all want it, and there's people willing to provide it. Sure we can go without, but well, it's really really nice to have. Sometimes I wish I worked in such an industry. Something like energy, food, drugs, funeral homes...these are industries that will never go away. I work in a lesuire activity industry that's based upon another industry whose golden age is slowly fading into history: model railroading! And it's in the printed page too, another area I worry is threatened by the steady march of progress. But I digress...
As they say in Morbid Angel, "send up our hate\to burn Heaven's gate". Such hate ought to be addressed to Washington D.C. and not the local filling station in my opinion.
(cripes, don't use the spell check on Blogger, it fucks up your text! *doh*)
Chubby Chasers: A Future Federal Agency?
As the USA stumbles inevitably towards its fascist destiny, blithely ignoring all the lessons of history I can't help but wonder if there will ever be a saturation point? Is there anything the feds will stop short of? Is there any War On _____ that will hit too close to home for even the slickest politicians to weasel out of? Personally I think it's gotta be the War on Fat. Nobody cares that much when minority groups have their rights bulldozed by the feds, but when the time comes when being overweight is illegal how will fat politicians possibly legitimize that? Fat people are the majority! America is large and in charge. JimSensenbrenner wants to make sure your papers are in order with his Real ID horseshit, but one look at the jowly mug of this creep and it's hard to imagine this guy pushing a fat crackdown. It would look very bad. I know, we're talking about professional hypocrites here, but somehow I think they'll stop short of the fat war.
All the other crackdowns middle America seems to be perfectly happy with. Yeah, go bust the pot smokers, the cigarette smokers, teenagers who have voluntary sex and get busted for mutual rape, go ahead and bust those terrible Mexicans who come here ILLEGALLY (*gasp*!) go ahead and bust down the wrong people's doors looking for naughty drugs, go ahead and strip search me at the airport; we're Average Americans, we don't give a shit! As long as the Other Guy is getting fucked we don't give two shits, right? But ahh, what's this now? Going to jail for being fat!? Mandatory federal exercise programs? Taxes levied per pound? Food bans? Wait a minute, I'M FAT! NOW I'M A CRIMINAL TOO!!! Oh no! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
But we're not going to do anything are we? We are gonna wait until the jackboot has got our oesophaguses halfway crushed before it dawns on us that gee, things may have gone too far. Yeah well, what can ya do? Humanity can't seem to get off this ride. Just a continuous cycle of oppression and bloodshed. We don't learn. *sigh*
Listen to movie Gandalf's advice, dammit:
"I would use this ring from a desire to do good! But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine!"
All the other crackdowns middle America seems to be perfectly happy with. Yeah, go bust the pot smokers, the cigarette smokers, teenagers who have voluntary sex and get busted for mutual rape, go ahead and bust those terrible Mexicans who come here ILLEGALLY (*gasp*!) go ahead and bust down the wrong people's doors looking for naughty drugs, go ahead and strip search me at the airport; we're Average Americans, we don't give a shit! As long as the Other Guy is getting fucked we don't give two shits, right? But ahh, what's this now? Going to jail for being fat!? Mandatory federal exercise programs? Taxes levied per pound? Food bans? Wait a minute, I'M FAT! NOW I'M A CRIMINAL TOO!!! Oh no! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
But we're not going to do anything are we? We are gonna wait until the jackboot has got our oesophaguses halfway crushed before it dawns on us that gee, things may have gone too far. Yeah well, what can ya do? Humanity can't seem to get off this ride. Just a continuous cycle of oppression and bloodshed. We don't learn. *sigh*
Listen to movie Gandalf's advice, dammit:
"I would use this ring from a desire to do good! But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine!"
Online Rudeness
Like bazillions of other people I occasionally like watching videos on YouTube. But what strikes me about the site (besides the incredibly poor video and sound quality, but hey you get what you pay for) is the complete and utter rudeness displayed. People's comments are more often than not extremely cruel, vulgar and nasty. I don't want to sound prudish, but the level of intelligence in many of the comments seems to be almost non-existent. My theory is that the degree of rudeness demonstrated in online communication is a result of a complete absorption in the virtual medium. This happens to me all the time too, and it should be something to watch out for. I would have expected less rudeness with YouTube considering there are often actual faces to put with the text, but instead the comments are even nastier than in strictly text based boards.
It is perfectly fine to accurately express one's emotions even if it involves anger and contempt, but in the back of your mind should be the thought, "Would I say these things to the person's face?" I can't imagine some of the youtube idiots being that crass if the communication was in the physical reality. There are better ways to insult and belittle a person that don't involve blatant hostility which often just makes you look bad. Not that genuine hatred and rage should be bottled up or censored, but rather focused in a concise beam.
It is perfectly fine to accurately express one's emotions even if it involves anger and contempt, but in the back of your mind should be the thought, "Would I say these things to the person's face?" I can't imagine some of the youtube idiots being that crass if the communication was in the physical reality. There are better ways to insult and belittle a person that don't involve blatant hostility which often just makes you look bad. Not that genuine hatred and rage should be bottled up or censored, but rather focused in a concise beam.
Comparo
I don't like it when people shorten the word "comparison" to "comparo". I also dislike shortening the word "distribution" to "distro". It's not that I don't understand why people do it, because compari and distri would sound goofy. I just think the full word should be used when the shortened version changes a letter. This menace to society must stop. It is probably the most serious issue facing the human race today.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Campaign For Real Ugliness
More on the campaign for real beauty rant:
And another thing...if you think those chunky gals in the "Plus Size" section of the sunday ad slicks are scoring a victory for regular schlubbos being properly represented you're mistaken. Those women are exceptional looking as well, they've just got extra junk in the trunk. The closest I've ever seen to joe average looking people in print would be the Fleet Farm catalogs I used to work on. Truly, there were indeed regular folk modeling clothing in there. But cripes, this is a catalog that sells toy manure spreaders fer pete's sake. I've never really seen anyone I'd describe as being homely or ugly in any catalog. It just doesn't happen. The truly ugly get weeded out. Nobody wants to see that, there's no demand for it. But don't fret, it's got nothing to do with real life cause ugly people get hooked up all the time.
I say we need a campaign for Real Ugliness instead. I don't watch it myself, but there's some TV show called "Ugly Betty" out there. Well dammit, she ain't ugly. Glasses and braces don't make ya ugly folks. Where the hell are the truly repulsive faces? If you want to make movies with dorky losers then get the real thing, don't insult us with these quasi-homely model types. But who can blame Hollywood for giving us this half-ass ugly? Because we don't really want it, no matter what we say. When truly homely folk are put up on the silver screen we secretly cringe because it hurts too much, it hits too close to home. No, it's probably better to dress a good looking person in ugly camoflage and suspend our disbelief.
And another thing...if you think those chunky gals in the "Plus Size" section of the sunday ad slicks are scoring a victory for regular schlubbos being properly represented you're mistaken. Those women are exceptional looking as well, they've just got extra junk in the trunk. The closest I've ever seen to joe average looking people in print would be the Fleet Farm catalogs I used to work on. Truly, there were indeed regular folk modeling clothing in there. But cripes, this is a catalog that sells toy manure spreaders fer pete's sake. I've never really seen anyone I'd describe as being homely or ugly in any catalog. It just doesn't happen. The truly ugly get weeded out. Nobody wants to see that, there's no demand for it. But don't fret, it's got nothing to do with real life cause ugly people get hooked up all the time.
I say we need a campaign for Real Ugliness instead. I don't watch it myself, but there's some TV show called "Ugly Betty" out there. Well dammit, she ain't ugly. Glasses and braces don't make ya ugly folks. Where the hell are the truly repulsive faces? If you want to make movies with dorky losers then get the real thing, don't insult us with these quasi-homely model types. But who can blame Hollywood for giving us this half-ass ugly? Because we don't really want it, no matter what we say. When truly homely folk are put up on the silver screen we secretly cringe because it hurts too much, it hits too close to home. No, it's probably better to dress a good looking person in ugly camoflage and suspend our disbelief.
Sometimes Look On The Bright Side of Life
Both places I've lived in within the past few years have had an empty field, a small cluster of trees and a water tower directly across from my bedroom window. I like empty fields, but I also like trees. But forests can be boring if left to their own devices. What seems ideal is a mix of raw Nature and Man's meddling chainsaws. Trees are more aesthetically pleasing when they are scattered about with empty space in between them. The lone tree on the farmer's field I like, as they often grow very large and gnarled. Still, many farmers have not observed Bob Ross' rule that everybody needs a friend. I say instead of one tree, a group of three would be better.
A water tower in itself is not terribly pleasing, but it is odd that they have "followed" me like they have. I would rather look at a distant water tower than into a neighbor's window. Neighbors are also something I could do without, but this post is supposed to be about the bright side so let's leave that to one side for now.
I'm grateful for the Time Warner corporation for allowing people to turn off their television service. To be able to choose what services you want and those you don't want is good. By doing so my monthly bill was cut in two. Choice rules.
I will now say something positive about a government worker. Rare, I know. Awhile back a nice lady at the water department was very kind to me when she could have very easily ignored it and left me with a huge bill. Well, I did get a huge bill but I was able to stop the damage. I had a super-duper-slowly leaking toilet in an unused 2nd bathroom and the sucker was slowly gobbling up water. The nice lady alerted me about the unusually high consumption even though it was in the water department's best interest to wish everyone had a leaking toilet. This shows that personal ethics can override bureaucracy at times.
I'm grateful for the internet. A decentralized, more or less anarchic system which totally works. How great to be free from the mind-numbing crap they feed you at the big media outlets. Now I can watch clips from those big media outlets at my leisure just to confirm the existence of the dark side of sound-byte ridden, emotionally-charged, shouting matches that pose as talk shows. The seemingly cruel view that the masses are stupid is painfully obvious if one assumes these shows are people's sole source of news. To watch CNN or Fox is like having your brain injected with a long needle filled with novacaine. What's that I was saying about the bright side? Crap! Well the bright side is that you don't have to rely on this garbage. It can also be pushed aside if you wish. That's bright.
If you're ever feeling bummed out with environmental hysteria and guilt over mankind's pollutive nature a good glance at Google Earth's satellite images are a wonderful elixir. Maybe I am a complete fool, maybe they are goosing the data to make it look better than it really is...I dunno. But what I see is an unfathomably BEAUTIFUL earth full of the most rich colors and textures. It also makes me glad to see large swaths of the planet seemingly not covered by humans and their little grid system. (We do love the grids) And how cool are the salt flats in Utah? Just look at that, a huge blob of white just sitting there amongst the browns and greens. I might not have a jet car, but I wonder if it is interesting to visit the salt flats or if the attraction wears off? Can you reach a point where there is nothing but white in all directions or are there always distant mountains visible? Hmmm.
A water tower in itself is not terribly pleasing, but it is odd that they have "followed" me like they have. I would rather look at a distant water tower than into a neighbor's window. Neighbors are also something I could do without, but this post is supposed to be about the bright side so let's leave that to one side for now.
I'm grateful for the Time Warner corporation for allowing people to turn off their television service. To be able to choose what services you want and those you don't want is good. By doing so my monthly bill was cut in two. Choice rules.
I will now say something positive about a government worker. Rare, I know. Awhile back a nice lady at the water department was very kind to me when she could have very easily ignored it and left me with a huge bill. Well, I did get a huge bill but I was able to stop the damage. I had a super-duper-slowly leaking toilet in an unused 2nd bathroom and the sucker was slowly gobbling up water. The nice lady alerted me about the unusually high consumption even though it was in the water department's best interest to wish everyone had a leaking toilet. This shows that personal ethics can override bureaucracy at times.
I'm grateful for the internet. A decentralized, more or less anarchic system which totally works. How great to be free from the mind-numbing crap they feed you at the big media outlets. Now I can watch clips from those big media outlets at my leisure just to confirm the existence of the dark side of sound-byte ridden, emotionally-charged, shouting matches that pose as talk shows. The seemingly cruel view that the masses are stupid is painfully obvious if one assumes these shows are people's sole source of news. To watch CNN or Fox is like having your brain injected with a long needle filled with novacaine. What's that I was saying about the bright side? Crap! Well the bright side is that you don't have to rely on this garbage. It can also be pushed aside if you wish. That's bright.
If you're ever feeling bummed out with environmental hysteria and guilt over mankind's pollutive nature a good glance at Google Earth's satellite images are a wonderful elixir. Maybe I am a complete fool, maybe they are goosing the data to make it look better than it really is...I dunno. But what I see is an unfathomably BEAUTIFUL earth full of the most rich colors and textures. It also makes me glad to see large swaths of the planet seemingly not covered by humans and their little grid system. (We do love the grids) And how cool are the salt flats in Utah? Just look at that, a huge blob of white just sitting there amongst the browns and greens. I might not have a jet car, but I wonder if it is interesting to visit the salt flats or if the attraction wears off? Can you reach a point where there is nothing but white in all directions or are there always distant mountains visible? Hmmm.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Can People Ask Each Other Questions Anymore?
Has asking a simple question to a person been rendered pointless now than we have Google and Wikipedia? It seems like no matter what you want to know in life, the answer is 2 seconds away as long as you have a computer and internet connection. Often I feel like just asking a question of someone even though I know I could find out myself with a search. Wanting to ask a basic question from a living human is followed immediately by the thought of "Geez I'm lazy, I could find out in 2 seconds with Google..."
What do you think? Look it up on Google and keep the answer to yourself. Thanks!
What do you think? Look it up on Google and keep the answer to yourself. Thanks!
*ist D Is A Stupid Name For A Camera
*ist D is a stupid name for a camera. What exactly were they thinking? I finally found a site that gave the pronunciation which is apparently:
IST DEE
So the asterisk has NOTHING to do with it. It's not "asterist", "star-ist" or "asteriskist" or something as I originally guessed. You just flat out ignore the * and say "ist dee". But what the fuck does Ist Dee mean? The artist formerly known as prince is behind this isn't he? I knew it! I guess I have to give them credit, the name is weird and annoying which is better than boring I guess. The vast majority of articles about this damn thing don't bother to explain the glaring question of, what the fuck is this thing called?
But now, thanks to Steve's Digicams all is right with the universe. Ahhh.
IST DEE
So the asterisk has NOTHING to do with it. It's not "asterist", "star-ist" or "asteriskist" or something as I originally guessed. You just flat out ignore the * and say "ist dee". But what the fuck does Ist Dee mean? The artist formerly known as prince is behind this isn't he? I knew it! I guess I have to give them credit, the name is weird and annoying which is better than boring I guess. The vast majority of articles about this damn thing don't bother to explain the glaring question of, what the fuck is this thing called?
But now, thanks to Steve's Digicams all is right with the universe. Ahhh.
One Size Fits None
The whole problem with politics and government (besides being crushingly dull and maddening) is that it is based on the idea that there can be a single system that satisfies all people within a geographic area. We accept the fact that humans come from all different walks of life and yet we want to be all the same.
It seems the only political office that people care about is the president. I guess if you just focus on the one guy at the top then it becomes much easier. That's probably why cultures have endured kings throughout history, because it was such a simple system. One asshole out of the bunch declares himself to be the greatest human alive and somehow manages to convince other morons to follow along with the game. It's simple and easy to understand even though it's completely absurd. Not only did humans invent imaginary gods to rule over their "spiritual lives" but they also invented fellow humans to act as gods to rule over their physical lives. What are ya gonna do, we're a flawed race. We'll figure it out eventually, but just not now. Like the Acid Orangutan song goes, "I've got no choice, but to fuck shit up"
So I happened to catch some of the presidential debate stuff on YouTube and was pleased to learn that Ron Paul was running for president. Like Michael Badnarik before him (although to a somewhat lesser extent) I saw an intelligent man telling the truth (which is usually unheard of in politics) who was the only guy I could possibly vote for. But then again, here's the problem - this is all about which ONE guy is gonna get the top seat. Why does it have to be that way? Why can't I have Ron Paul be my president and your guy can be yours? This is a comedic statement because we all know that it ain't like that, we have to FIGHT over which guy wins. It's a fight over whose choices trumps all other choices. It is inherently competetive like sports, but on a grand scale. You can't leave the stadium unless you want to live under water in the middle of the ocean. I figure the ocean is the only place on earth a person can go to be truly free from retarded laws. Once you set foot on land you've become someone elses' slave in some form or another.
It seems that as long as we're married to the idea of borders I think we need more of them to accomodate the array of political opinion. I'd be all for abolishing the United States and thinking of each of the 50 states as independent countries. Just nip off the federal part of it. The less centralized power is the easier it is to manage. People should probably be more concerned about their local government than the federal government. I figure a lot of little tiny governments is favorable to a single monster government.
Why shouldn't people be able to choose the laws they are bound by just as they can with any other decision? We have so much freedom in some areas of life but none in others. If you hate Wal-Mart you don't have to shop there. If you hate the idea of killing animals for food and clothing you can become a vegan. You can choose what job you want and what car you drive to get there. Or you can walk. But you cannot choose to keep the money you earn at that job. That is not one of your choices. So sorry, but this group of people is going to steal part of your income. Why? Oh, Essential Services! Like what, I don't use any of those! Oh well too bad you're paying for them anyway. We should look at taxation as being equally ridiculous as if we said that you must buy $10,000 worth of goods from Wal-Mart per year, or go to jail. Does it make sense to pay for something you don't use? If you need to call upon the police shouldn't you have to pay for it? Why should it be any different than hiring a plumber or carpenter to do some work for you? Last year I spent nearly 10 grand on a bunch of shit I don't even know about. If I worked for a year, saved up my money and then burned it on the compost heap in the backyard people would think I was insane. But that is exactly what I'm forced to do every day of my life with all the numerous taxes. If you WANT to burn your money on the compost heap you should be free to do so, but why threaten me to do the same?
The human race is not made of coral, it is not like a school of fish. We're not all the same. It is pointless to think that one person can act as the avatar for millions. Nevertheless, I heartily endorse Ron Paul for president. I don't agree with all of his issues, but that's okay. The guy at least wants to stick to the government's rules. I don't know if there's any logic in the idea of electing good people to fix a bad system, but it seems that's the best we can do. And wouldn't it be nice to have a president who can actually speak, unlike the knuckle-dragging hillbilly that's in there now?
It seems the only political office that people care about is the president. I guess if you just focus on the one guy at the top then it becomes much easier. That's probably why cultures have endured kings throughout history, because it was such a simple system. One asshole out of the bunch declares himself to be the greatest human alive and somehow manages to convince other morons to follow along with the game. It's simple and easy to understand even though it's completely absurd. Not only did humans invent imaginary gods to rule over their "spiritual lives" but they also invented fellow humans to act as gods to rule over their physical lives. What are ya gonna do, we're a flawed race. We'll figure it out eventually, but just not now. Like the Acid Orangutan song goes, "I've got no choice, but to fuck shit up"
So I happened to catch some of the presidential debate stuff on YouTube and was pleased to learn that Ron Paul was running for president. Like Michael Badnarik before him (although to a somewhat lesser extent) I saw an intelligent man telling the truth (which is usually unheard of in politics) who was the only guy I could possibly vote for. But then again, here's the problem - this is all about which ONE guy is gonna get the top seat. Why does it have to be that way? Why can't I have Ron Paul be my president and your guy can be yours? This is a comedic statement because we all know that it ain't like that, we have to FIGHT over which guy wins. It's a fight over whose choices trumps all other choices. It is inherently competetive like sports, but on a grand scale. You can't leave the stadium unless you want to live under water in the middle of the ocean. I figure the ocean is the only place on earth a person can go to be truly free from retarded laws. Once you set foot on land you've become someone elses' slave in some form or another.
It seems that as long as we're married to the idea of borders I think we need more of them to accomodate the array of political opinion. I'd be all for abolishing the United States and thinking of each of the 50 states as independent countries. Just nip off the federal part of it. The less centralized power is the easier it is to manage. People should probably be more concerned about their local government than the federal government. I figure a lot of little tiny governments is favorable to a single monster government.
Why shouldn't people be able to choose the laws they are bound by just as they can with any other decision? We have so much freedom in some areas of life but none in others. If you hate Wal-Mart you don't have to shop there. If you hate the idea of killing animals for food and clothing you can become a vegan. You can choose what job you want and what car you drive to get there. Or you can walk. But you cannot choose to keep the money you earn at that job. That is not one of your choices. So sorry, but this group of people is going to steal part of your income. Why? Oh, Essential Services! Like what, I don't use any of those! Oh well too bad you're paying for them anyway. We should look at taxation as being equally ridiculous as if we said that you must buy $10,000 worth of goods from Wal-Mart per year, or go to jail. Does it make sense to pay for something you don't use? If you need to call upon the police shouldn't you have to pay for it? Why should it be any different than hiring a plumber or carpenter to do some work for you? Last year I spent nearly 10 grand on a bunch of shit I don't even know about. If I worked for a year, saved up my money and then burned it on the compost heap in the backyard people would think I was insane. But that is exactly what I'm forced to do every day of my life with all the numerous taxes. If you WANT to burn your money on the compost heap you should be free to do so, but why threaten me to do the same?
The human race is not made of coral, it is not like a school of fish. We're not all the same. It is pointless to think that one person can act as the avatar for millions. Nevertheless, I heartily endorse Ron Paul for president. I don't agree with all of his issues, but that's okay. The guy at least wants to stick to the government's rules. I don't know if there's any logic in the idea of electing good people to fix a bad system, but it seems that's the best we can do. And wouldn't it be nice to have a president who can actually speak, unlike the knuckle-dragging hillbilly that's in there now?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Smoking
For many years I have been somewhat of an asshole non-smoker. Although I didn't go the extra step of actively nagging smokers to their faces nor whining about any second hand smoke I might be breathing, I did still have an elitist internal attitude about smoking. But for the most part it was a genuine empirical judgement. The fact was that I thought cigarettes smelled bad, I observed that they made the smoker's surroundings yellowed and dirty, and observed that many smokers looked older and more grizzled than their non-smoking brethren. But I tried to restrain my distaste for smoking in a reasonable manner because after all people in my own family are smokers and I can't really get on a soapbox and condemn them. The general cultural notion that smoking is a terrible evil is of course unavoidable and informs one's opinion of it as well.
I began a new philosophical and political journey within the last few years, discovering that there were definitions for the ideas I had always felt. Part of that journey was starting to see different groups of folks who are socially persecuted. Certainly smokers have got to be on the top of that heap. Whereas I usually felt a sense of schadenfreude whenever tales of anti-smoking crackdowns came up, I began to see that they were getting the shaft for no good reason. The contempt for smoking seems to be an almost universal truth in American society. Therein lies the problem; how can an activity which (like it or not) really only affects the person choosing to do it be grounds for such aggression? Smokers as a group have been banished from most indoor places and forced to engage in their "filthy habit" outside in designated areas. Signs are put up to isolate them from non-smokers. For the most part they have shouldered this ostracism with total acceptance. On its surface it makes sense, smoke floats through the air and if you get a bunch of people smoking in a confined space without enough ventilation then yes, it's gonna be very smoky air. Probably not a place a non-smoker would want to be.
So even though for years my asshole non-smoker mind was quietly sneering at these ghastly people who were ruining their lives with yucky tobacco, I was more bothered by the persistent societal manifestation of that same attitude. I began to feel sorry for the underdog. It seemed cruel that these smokers were shouldering all this ostracism with such acceptance. I decided that I ought to switch teams and see how the other half lived. I decided I would try smoking, and one of the reasons would be spite.
Then somehow I got to reading about pipes on the web. I always had a soft spot for pipes. Some of my uncles smoked pipes and when I was at a family gathering with them in my youth I always liked the smell. It was a very rich and woody scent, for whatever reason they didn't remind me of cigarettes which seemed to make me cough and sneeze. Perhaps I had the same view of cigars, I can't remember. Actually I do recall one unpleasant second hand smoke experience at a baseball game where a man a few rows up from us was puffing away at a very smelly stogie. But pipes seemed to be even more rare. I had a picture in my mind of pipe smoking being this activity of kindly old men with long grey beards. It seemed like a quaint thing to do, a relic of a forgotten time or something.
The attraction to pipes really grew once I saw what kinds of beautiful craftsmanship was out there for these things. I am a gear junkie when it comes to hobbies. So pipe smoking seemed cool because there was an instrument involved. Cigarettes and cigars are just rolled up leaves that burn almost entirely to ash. But with pipes there was a collector aspect. There was woodworking and art involved. So I decided I would buy a pipe and try it out. Only I was still completely spooked by the idea of getting ADDICTED to tobacco. You know, that horrific EVIL thing which takes over your life and you can't STOP! So then I came across this whole herbal smoke thing. To make a long story short, it's overpriced. Trying to fight tradition turned out to be kinda futile, so I went ahead and bought a few bags of bulk tobacco. I figure there's gotta be a reason why this particular plant is the one of choice for smoking. The tobacco was more moist than the herbal stuff and seemed to burn better. There's a whole connoisseur aspect to tobacco as well with different flavors and types and whatnot. I can't pretend to know all of that of course.
I was able to get a bit of that old world smell that I remembered from my uncles, but to be honest the smell is much more noticeable when you aren't smoking it. It seems to be more of an external thing. It is noticeable when I first walk into my apartment. I could be wrong, but it does not seem to have as offensive an odor as that of a cigarette smoker's room. Maybe I am completely crackers on this, but I think it has a more pleasant scent. I haven't studied what difference, if any, exists between cigarette tobacco and pipe tobacco.
Is smoking bad for you? Well, you're sucking combustible material into your body, so naturally your body is going to react. I find that there's a lot of phlegm produced in the lungs after smoking. These are just my empirical observations. I quickly learned to take former president Clinton's advice and NOT inhale, though. (joke) No seriously, if you just suck in enough so that the smoke fills your mouth and then blow it out right away you'll do better than if you let a large puff of smoke hit your lungs. I do mean hit, because if you really inhale that stuff it's like getting hit in the chest with a hammer. You can really feel it. But if you just puff on it gently it's a very relaxing and fun leisure activity. I was worried that I would develop an addiction to it, but as of yet I have no cravings. I am actually more concerned that I would not even continue smoking and the beautiful pipes I've got would just sit unused. I bought 6oz. of tobacco in March and there's still about 2/3rds left. I don't smoke at work and I'll have one, maybe two bowls per day but there might be a day or two that I'll not smoke at all. Wikipedia has this to say about pipes:
"Pipes can range from the very simple machine-made briar pipe to handmade and artful implements created by pipe makers which can be very expensive collector's items. The popularity of pipe smoking in Western countries has declined in recent years. However, it has also enjoyed a resurgence of late among younger and middle aged smokers who find its contemplative nature and age-transcendent status as "hobby not habit" to be both thoroughly enjoyable and stress-relieving."
I'd have to strongly agree. Maybe one way of looking at it is that cigarettes seem like McDonalds whereas the pipe is more like a fine meal at a nice restaurant. Yes, I know it will kill you. We're heard every argument. But hey, so does food. Eventually everybody dies. We have yet to find the magical chemical which promises eternal life. Clearly if smoking was as evil as many people would have us believe nobody would be doing it. For all the health problems it causes they still come on slowly enough to as to not defeat the benefits.
The point is you've gotta do these things in moderation. Obviously if you chain smoke one after another there's going to be a price to pay. So don't chain smoke. Take it easy, take it slow. And most importantly of all, get off your high horses and stop sticking your nose into other people's business. I keep feeling that America has this eternal life fantasy and that if you do A, B and C then you'll live long and happy. But what use is eternal life if you can't enjoy it the way you want? We all need to lighten up on those who are lighting up. All this hysteria is just going to give the nanny state more power which will force our individual choices to weigh upon other people's choices and the whole of society will become more bitter and disgruntled. No thanks!
I began a new philosophical and political journey within the last few years, discovering that there were definitions for the ideas I had always felt. Part of that journey was starting to see different groups of folks who are socially persecuted. Certainly smokers have got to be on the top of that heap. Whereas I usually felt a sense of schadenfreude whenever tales of anti-smoking crackdowns came up, I began to see that they were getting the shaft for no good reason. The contempt for smoking seems to be an almost universal truth in American society. Therein lies the problem; how can an activity which (like it or not) really only affects the person choosing to do it be grounds for such aggression? Smokers as a group have been banished from most indoor places and forced to engage in their "filthy habit" outside in designated areas. Signs are put up to isolate them from non-smokers. For the most part they have shouldered this ostracism with total acceptance. On its surface it makes sense, smoke floats through the air and if you get a bunch of people smoking in a confined space without enough ventilation then yes, it's gonna be very smoky air. Probably not a place a non-smoker would want to be.
So even though for years my asshole non-smoker mind was quietly sneering at these ghastly people who were ruining their lives with yucky tobacco, I was more bothered by the persistent societal manifestation of that same attitude. I began to feel sorry for the underdog. It seemed cruel that these smokers were shouldering all this ostracism with such acceptance. I decided that I ought to switch teams and see how the other half lived. I decided I would try smoking, and one of the reasons would be spite.
Then somehow I got to reading about pipes on the web. I always had a soft spot for pipes. Some of my uncles smoked pipes and when I was at a family gathering with them in my youth I always liked the smell. It was a very rich and woody scent, for whatever reason they didn't remind me of cigarettes which seemed to make me cough and sneeze. Perhaps I had the same view of cigars, I can't remember. Actually I do recall one unpleasant second hand smoke experience at a baseball game where a man a few rows up from us was puffing away at a very smelly stogie. But pipes seemed to be even more rare. I had a picture in my mind of pipe smoking being this activity of kindly old men with long grey beards. It seemed like a quaint thing to do, a relic of a forgotten time or something.
The attraction to pipes really grew once I saw what kinds of beautiful craftsmanship was out there for these things. I am a gear junkie when it comes to hobbies. So pipe smoking seemed cool because there was an instrument involved. Cigarettes and cigars are just rolled up leaves that burn almost entirely to ash. But with pipes there was a collector aspect. There was woodworking and art involved. So I decided I would buy a pipe and try it out. Only I was still completely spooked by the idea of getting ADDICTED to tobacco. You know, that horrific EVIL thing which takes over your life and you can't STOP! So then I came across this whole herbal smoke thing. To make a long story short, it's overpriced. Trying to fight tradition turned out to be kinda futile, so I went ahead and bought a few bags of bulk tobacco. I figure there's gotta be a reason why this particular plant is the one of choice for smoking. The tobacco was more moist than the herbal stuff and seemed to burn better. There's a whole connoisseur aspect to tobacco as well with different flavors and types and whatnot. I can't pretend to know all of that of course.
I was able to get a bit of that old world smell that I remembered from my uncles, but to be honest the smell is much more noticeable when you aren't smoking it. It seems to be more of an external thing. It is noticeable when I first walk into my apartment. I could be wrong, but it does not seem to have as offensive an odor as that of a cigarette smoker's room. Maybe I am completely crackers on this, but I think it has a more pleasant scent. I haven't studied what difference, if any, exists between cigarette tobacco and pipe tobacco.
Is smoking bad for you? Well, you're sucking combustible material into your body, so naturally your body is going to react. I find that there's a lot of phlegm produced in the lungs after smoking. These are just my empirical observations. I quickly learned to take former president Clinton's advice and NOT inhale, though. (joke) No seriously, if you just suck in enough so that the smoke fills your mouth and then blow it out right away you'll do better than if you let a large puff of smoke hit your lungs. I do mean hit, because if you really inhale that stuff it's like getting hit in the chest with a hammer. You can really feel it. But if you just puff on it gently it's a very relaxing and fun leisure activity. I was worried that I would develop an addiction to it, but as of yet I have no cravings. I am actually more concerned that I would not even continue smoking and the beautiful pipes I've got would just sit unused. I bought 6oz. of tobacco in March and there's still about 2/3rds left. I don't smoke at work and I'll have one, maybe two bowls per day but there might be a day or two that I'll not smoke at all. Wikipedia has this to say about pipes:
"Pipes can range from the very simple machine-made briar pipe to handmade and artful implements created by pipe makers which can be very expensive collector's items. The popularity of pipe smoking in Western countries has declined in recent years. However, it has also enjoyed a resurgence of late among younger and middle aged smokers who find its contemplative nature and age-transcendent status as "hobby not habit" to be both thoroughly enjoyable and stress-relieving."
I'd have to strongly agree. Maybe one way of looking at it is that cigarettes seem like McDonalds whereas the pipe is more like a fine meal at a nice restaurant. Yes, I know it will kill you. We're heard every argument. But hey, so does food. Eventually everybody dies. We have yet to find the magical chemical which promises eternal life. Clearly if smoking was as evil as many people would have us believe nobody would be doing it. For all the health problems it causes they still come on slowly enough to as to not defeat the benefits.
The point is you've gotta do these things in moderation. Obviously if you chain smoke one after another there's going to be a price to pay. So don't chain smoke. Take it easy, take it slow. And most importantly of all, get off your high horses and stop sticking your nose into other people's business. I keep feeling that America has this eternal life fantasy and that if you do A, B and C then you'll live long and happy. But what use is eternal life if you can't enjoy it the way you want? We all need to lighten up on those who are lighting up. All this hysteria is just going to give the nanny state more power which will force our individual choices to weigh upon other people's choices and the whole of society will become more bitter and disgruntled. No thanks!
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Distortion Of Beauty?
Today I wanna talk about beauty and photography and people's perceptions. First check out the video on this website. I came across it on YouTube.com during a search for photography-related videos.
Campaign For Real Beauty
Also, check out this one:
Extreme Photoshop Makeover Video
First off, let me be clear I'm all for the idea that little girls should have positive self esteem and all that. Of course that's a good thing. I don't have any real quarrel with whatever it is that Dove's doing. What I want to address here are some of the youtube comments and moreover just the general knee jerk reaction people have when presented with the realities of digital imaging. This whole "boo hoo fashion photography is a lie" pretense I find extremely smug and condescending. I resent the idea that somehow showing great looking photos in magazines is deceiving or somehow ripping off the public. Yes, I know nobody made that exact claim, but that is the vibe I get. Dude these photos are bullshit, that chick isn't hot! or something like that. Photoshop can make anyone into a supermodel, man! Utter nonsense!
The fact is, people who are models are indeed more attractive than the average person. THAT'S WHY THEY GET THE JOB. That's why THEY are in magazines and YOU aren't. They're beautiful because they've got the right geometry going on. They've got symmetry and proportions most likely fitting within the golden ratio. They are exceptions to the norm. It doesn't mean that everyone else is ugly by comparison. It's just nature at work. Check out BBC's "The Human Face" hosted by John Cleese for more of this. It's a fascinating show!
Did anyone really think that girl was a hideous hag when she first sat down? No, she IS a good looking woman, they simply did the things you do when you want to make a striking looking billboard. Yes it's very extensive, but they're selling an image here, they're not doing a science project where person X is photographed and documented. I also have a feeling that Dove's video intentionally made sure that the model looked a little extra schlubby in order to drive their point home more. Okay, we need a model who's having a minor skin breakout... But that's just speculation.
I will never forget the time I was on vaction with my folks as a young lad. We were at some outdoor museum thing. There was a photo crew amongst the tourists doing what appeared to be a fashion shoot of some kind. There were a couple female models there and I was awestruck by their beauty. They looked so unlike normal people that I couldn't take my eyes off them. My parents were moving on down the exhibits but I wanted to stay and look at these girls because they were so surreal to look at. No Photoshop there, just exceptionally good looking people. One of the girls' sweater was pinned back in the rear so it better hugged her figure. This was a little "behind the scenes" trickery that I remembered. But does any of the preparation that goes into a photo shoot mean these were dull looking people faked into being gorgeous by deceptive artists? Hardly!
The ONLY thing I can agree on as being disingenuous about what they did in the Dove video this are the very final edits where the actual geometry of the model's body is altered. Same thing with the other person's video. I think they went too far. I wouldn't especially feel right doing that extensive work myself. But hey, I don't work with people photos usually. That's just my own personal "photoshop ethics" if you will. There's certain lines I wouldn't want to cross myself.
But look, this is art and advertising, not fucking journalism! Do you want magazines full of the caliber of photos found in the average joe's family snaps? Good luck selling that. Please go ahead, go and try to market a magazine loaded with schlubby punch-flash photos of people with acne! Maybe our idea of beauty is better served by a rag like the National Enquirer? (who probably retouch photos in the opposite direction, to make celebrities uglier than usual) No glamourous retouching there! How about the GARBAGE photos they take of you at the DMV? How about a magazine full of DMV shots? Those are pure reality, right? No Photoshop magic in sight! It MUST be more true to reality, right?
All photography is a lie. That's why we love it so much, because it distorts reality. That's what makes it interesting. If you want reality don't look at photos. No matter what they are it will be an illusion. A photo can not only make a good looking girl into a fabulous angel but it can take the ugliest, most grizzled old person and turn them into something visually interesting. That's the whole magic of photography. Even you have been made to look better than you really are in your own photos. Were your parents wrong to dress you nice for class photo day in the third grade? Was the teacher wrong for grabbing a comb and fixing the cowlick at the back of your head? Were they distorting reality and making for photos that would cause other children to have low self esteem?
The other basic thing to remember is that we're talking about STILL images. A fixed image doesn't change and thus has to be somehow attractive to us, otherwise we wouldn't bother looking at it. Reality is constantly moving, the light on your face is changing constantly. You are making different expressions and moving your body. Take some of those slices in time and put them in a photograph and you might turn out ugly. Take others and you might look really hot. I have a theory that people look completely ridiculous 50% of the time and that the only reason we can stand ourselves is that our constant motion combines these looks of goofiness with looks of beauty and the result is a tolerable combination. You just have to look at a video of a person talking in frame by frame steps to see that in some cases they look stupid.
Yes, it's not good if your sense of self-worth is hinged upon what you see in a fashion magazine or billboard. DUH! If you really get depressed because beauty greater than yourself exists, well then you really do have a problem. YOU have a problem, not the magazine, not "society", YOU do. Just don't be trashing the talented photographers and digital retouchers who make images that people WANT TO LOOK AT just because you're bitter. As I said, they are creating aesthetically pleasing images. That's good enough for me. Should the great painters of history be similarly scoffed at for portraying reality in a more favorable light? An image can mean something different for each person, this is good. I just think that to interpret the sight of any beautiful imagery as a commandment to compare one's self to the art is a grave miscalculation. We're smarter than that aren't we?
Campaign For Real Beauty
Also, check out this one:
Extreme Photoshop Makeover Video
First off, let me be clear I'm all for the idea that little girls should have positive self esteem and all that. Of course that's a good thing. I don't have any real quarrel with whatever it is that Dove's doing. What I want to address here are some of the youtube comments and moreover just the general knee jerk reaction people have when presented with the realities of digital imaging. This whole "boo hoo fashion photography is a lie" pretense I find extremely smug and condescending. I resent the idea that somehow showing great looking photos in magazines is deceiving or somehow ripping off the public. Yes, I know nobody made that exact claim, but that is the vibe I get. Dude these photos are bullshit, that chick isn't hot! or something like that. Photoshop can make anyone into a supermodel, man! Utter nonsense!
The fact is, people who are models are indeed more attractive than the average person. THAT'S WHY THEY GET THE JOB. That's why THEY are in magazines and YOU aren't. They're beautiful because they've got the right geometry going on. They've got symmetry and proportions most likely fitting within the golden ratio. They are exceptions to the norm. It doesn't mean that everyone else is ugly by comparison. It's just nature at work. Check out BBC's "The Human Face" hosted by John Cleese for more of this. It's a fascinating show!
Did anyone really think that girl was a hideous hag when she first sat down? No, she IS a good looking woman, they simply did the things you do when you want to make a striking looking billboard. Yes it's very extensive, but they're selling an image here, they're not doing a science project where person X is photographed and documented. I also have a feeling that Dove's video intentionally made sure that the model looked a little extra schlubby in order to drive their point home more. Okay, we need a model who's having a minor skin breakout... But that's just speculation.
I will never forget the time I was on vaction with my folks as a young lad. We were at some outdoor museum thing. There was a photo crew amongst the tourists doing what appeared to be a fashion shoot of some kind. There were a couple female models there and I was awestruck by their beauty. They looked so unlike normal people that I couldn't take my eyes off them. My parents were moving on down the exhibits but I wanted to stay and look at these girls because they were so surreal to look at. No Photoshop there, just exceptionally good looking people. One of the girls' sweater was pinned back in the rear so it better hugged her figure. This was a little "behind the scenes" trickery that I remembered. But does any of the preparation that goes into a photo shoot mean these were dull looking people faked into being gorgeous by deceptive artists? Hardly!
The ONLY thing I can agree on as being disingenuous about what they did in the Dove video this are the very final edits where the actual geometry of the model's body is altered. Same thing with the other person's video. I think they went too far. I wouldn't especially feel right doing that extensive work myself. But hey, I don't work with people photos usually. That's just my own personal "photoshop ethics" if you will. There's certain lines I wouldn't want to cross myself.
But look, this is art and advertising, not fucking journalism! Do you want magazines full of the caliber of photos found in the average joe's family snaps? Good luck selling that. Please go ahead, go and try to market a magazine loaded with schlubby punch-flash photos of people with acne! Maybe our idea of beauty is better served by a rag like the National Enquirer? (who probably retouch photos in the opposite direction, to make celebrities uglier than usual) No glamourous retouching there! How about the GARBAGE photos they take of you at the DMV? How about a magazine full of DMV shots? Those are pure reality, right? No Photoshop magic in sight! It MUST be more true to reality, right?
All photography is a lie. That's why we love it so much, because it distorts reality. That's what makes it interesting. If you want reality don't look at photos. No matter what they are it will be an illusion. A photo can not only make a good looking girl into a fabulous angel but it can take the ugliest, most grizzled old person and turn them into something visually interesting. That's the whole magic of photography. Even you have been made to look better than you really are in your own photos. Were your parents wrong to dress you nice for class photo day in the third grade? Was the teacher wrong for grabbing a comb and fixing the cowlick at the back of your head? Were they distorting reality and making for photos that would cause other children to have low self esteem?
The other basic thing to remember is that we're talking about STILL images. A fixed image doesn't change and thus has to be somehow attractive to us, otherwise we wouldn't bother looking at it. Reality is constantly moving, the light on your face is changing constantly. You are making different expressions and moving your body. Take some of those slices in time and put them in a photograph and you might turn out ugly. Take others and you might look really hot. I have a theory that people look completely ridiculous 50% of the time and that the only reason we can stand ourselves is that our constant motion combines these looks of goofiness with looks of beauty and the result is a tolerable combination. You just have to look at a video of a person talking in frame by frame steps to see that in some cases they look stupid.
Yes, it's not good if your sense of self-worth is hinged upon what you see in a fashion magazine or billboard. DUH! If you really get depressed because beauty greater than yourself exists, well then you really do have a problem. YOU have a problem, not the magazine, not "society", YOU do. Just don't be trashing the talented photographers and digital retouchers who make images that people WANT TO LOOK AT just because you're bitter. As I said, they are creating aesthetically pleasing images. That's good enough for me. Should the great painters of history be similarly scoffed at for portraying reality in a more favorable light? An image can mean something different for each person, this is good. I just think that to interpret the sight of any beautiful imagery as a commandment to compare one's self to the art is a grave miscalculation. We're smarter than that aren't we?
Jerry Falwell Dead
Hey, I just heard that Jerry Falwell snuffed it! Now, if only bad ideas died as easily as people do we'd have something to celebrate.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Hard Escape Key
I have to wonder how often people's blogs on Blogger get inadvertently flagged as being "objectionable" when really you just wanted to click on "Next Blog"? What a lousy place to put those two buttons! Which are you going to click more often? And what's more annoying is that when you accidentally mouse over "objectionable" a 'tooltip-like' message pops up that obscures what you really intended to click, the Next Blog button. Making mistakes is fairly easy with a computer, but undoing them should be quick. More often than not software punishes you for your mistakes by slowing you down. Instead of:
DO THIS! (Yes sir!)
OOPS! STOP DOING THAT! (Yes sir!)
DO ANOTHER THING! (Yes sir!)
you get:
DO THIS! (Yes sir!)
OOPS! STOP DOING THAT! (What?)
STOP DOING THAT NOW! (I can't hear you, I'm doing something!)
PLEASE STOP! I MADE A MISTAKE, ALRIGHT!? (I'll just keep doing that thing you asked)
*seconds pass*
(Okay, I'm done)
UNDO! (Yes sir!)
That's why I wish there were a HARD escape key that really really really worked. No matter what, you hit escape the software obeys and stops doing whatever it's doing and awaits your next command. These aren't people, so they can be treated brutally. I will say that Photoshop is generally pretty responsive to the Escape key. You can stop it from opening images you accidentally opened, filters you ran which are taking too long and you wanna give up, and other stuff. Unfortunately there's some things that feel they must run their course no matter what. The hard escape key should be dangerous, you should be able to make potentially data-lethal choices with it. Heck, put it under a flip-up protective cover if you must, but there should be ONE key on the keyboard which the the ultimate cease and desist.
DO THIS! (Yes sir!)
OOPS! STOP DOING THAT! (Yes sir!)
DO ANOTHER THING! (Yes sir!)
you get:
DO THIS! (Yes sir!)
OOPS! STOP DOING THAT! (What?)
STOP DOING THAT NOW! (I can't hear you, I'm doing something!)
PLEASE STOP! I MADE A MISTAKE, ALRIGHT!? (I'll just keep doing that thing you asked)
*seconds pass*
(Okay, I'm done)
UNDO! (Yes sir!)
That's why I wish there were a HARD escape key that really really really worked. No matter what, you hit escape the software obeys and stops doing whatever it's doing and awaits your next command. These aren't people, so they can be treated brutally. I will say that Photoshop is generally pretty responsive to the Escape key. You can stop it from opening images you accidentally opened, filters you ran which are taking too long and you wanna give up, and other stuff. Unfortunately there's some things that feel they must run their course no matter what. The hard escape key should be dangerous, you should be able to make potentially data-lethal choices with it. Heck, put it under a flip-up protective cover if you must, but there should be ONE key on the keyboard which the the ultimate cease and desist.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Farming out WHAT!?
This is the weirdest thing I ever saw...a company which apparently draws Photoshop clipping paths for you! What the hell???
http://www.misterclipping.com/
I think if I had that job my eyeballs would fall out of my head! Can you imagine drawing nothing but paths for eight hours!? Yikes! I'm gonna have to put this up there with nursing home worker as one of the most undesirable jobs I can fathom. Okay no, that's not fair. I can understand the nursing home thing, you know, a love for humanity and all that shit, but cripes drawing paths!? For OTHER PEOPLE no less!? That's almost suicidal! I can tolerate drawing one or two fairly complex images in a row, but beyond that I start questioning the purpose of my existence. Granted, there is a satisfaction that comes when you finally select and blow out that background to perfect edges...but then the eye-watering tedium begins again and the honeymoon's over.
It's true, there is NO substitute for a genuine hand-drawn path; it's unquestionably Full-Ass as opposed to the close-enough-for-government-work Create Work Path from a selection cheat; but wow, to think that people would wanna do this job! Gotta wonder though, do they really do it by hand? Well, you can almost always tell...but still... It's a crazy, crazy world!
http://www.misterclipping.com/
I think if I had that job my eyeballs would fall out of my head! Can you imagine drawing nothing but paths for eight hours!? Yikes! I'm gonna have to put this up there with nursing home worker as one of the most undesirable jobs I can fathom. Okay no, that's not fair. I can understand the nursing home thing, you know, a love for humanity and all that shit, but cripes drawing paths!? For OTHER PEOPLE no less!? That's almost suicidal! I can tolerate drawing one or two fairly complex images in a row, but beyond that I start questioning the purpose of my existence. Granted, there is a satisfaction that comes when you finally select and blow out that background to perfect edges...but then the eye-watering tedium begins again and the honeymoon's over.
It's true, there is NO substitute for a genuine hand-drawn path; it's unquestionably Full-Ass as opposed to the close-enough-for-government-work Create Work Path from a selection cheat; but wow, to think that people would wanna do this job! Gotta wonder though, do they really do it by hand? Well, you can almost always tell...but still... It's a crazy, crazy world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
