Monthly Archives: January 2004
A Question of Age
I am always astonished when i go into the SAQ and they ask me for my identification to prove that i am not 17! Yesterday, out running my morning errands, decide to pick up something for dinner (was having company..) anyways, the store is relatively empty and i have bags from all the local stores (fruiterie, saucissier etc..) After plopping the bottle on the counter and digging through my pockets for money, the cashier asked to see some identification..
I know that to some people, this might be a compliment.. but dammit, im going to be 31 years old!! I tried to smile and fish out my ID, pretending i was complimented, but quite honestly, it happens too often for my liking, and i truely believe that if you actually look at my face, see the lines, you can tell im not 17!
I dont mean to complain
but what am i supposed to do to ‘look my age’??
Wear sequined sweaters and ‘slacks’??
Oh well….guess the lesson here is to always make sure i carry my identification and pray that when im 45 they still think i’m 17 (cause maybe by then i;ll take it as a compliment!)
Long Live Procrastination!
When your sitting at your desk, bored from your work… check this out, its good for a laugh or 10!
(p.s. my high score is 302 atm!)
RE: Die Newsletter Die
It begs the question as to why use a creative new medium if it will only mimic what already exists? Dont get me wrong, there is alot out there on the web that takes the creativity too far and the readability is lost in the aesthetic… but for the most part, this medium allows for continuity in text and design, i agree with sashay in the sense that why should one bother to simply replicate whats already been done (and could be done better with the new mediums available?
:: Die newsletter, die! ::
I don’t get it. Call me a total webhead perhaps, but I just don’t get it.
If you have an intranet site or a big-I website, and you have an easy publishing tool so you don’t have to fiddle with HTML code, AND you know that getting people to read information is crucial, why? oh why? would you ever put up a page that looks like the old fashioned cheezy newsletter of yesteryear?
Now – if you still want to publish on paper that old-fashioned thingie, go right ahead. I won’t say that I will read it…but then I’m probably not your target audience anyway.
But…in a new medium like the net….why try to force me to follow a sentence break over a column across a FOUR COLUMN newspaper format – complete with silly sidebars and an HTML enabled table of contents that refers to the newsletter pages further down by PAGE NUMBER? And use stupid ugly amateur clipart like that friggin’ “champagne bottle with cork popping out” graphic that I’ve seen on every god-awful newsletter in the universe?
And, as if that weren’t bad enough, then send me an email asking me to go to a web page to read something that needs actually to be printed first anyway in order to be read properly??!?!?!
ARGH! My head’s gonna explode.
You know what? People in corporations who don’t get the web shouldn’t be allowed to publish on the web, internal corporate web or otherwise.
“Psst! Yeah..you…hey!!! You may not have noticed but we’re in the 21st century here! Newsletters are a dead format, people! Get with it!”
Im taking an ethno-linguistics class and we have been talking alot about the evolution of human beings in conjunction with the development of language (and its importance in defining human beings etc.)
Ive been thinking about evolution alot lately. I remember a book i read by Tom Robbins – Half asleep in frog pyjamas – (great book!) one thing he mentions is the arrogance of human beings to believe that we are the end of evolution.. that the last 2 million years was all leading towards who we are today as an end product. He offers an alternate explanation, that in the spirit of evolution, the only logical evolutional path for humans is to move towards amphibians. His explanation is something like this: We are destroying our ozone, and human beings cannot survive (in the form we currently hold) if the damage continues. The only logical place for humans to live will be the water, amphibians are [relatively] immune to the changes in hemispheric conditions – and so, Robbins sees our evolution towards amphibian[ism] to be practical and logical given this explanation (the book goes into greater detail as per the explanation)
Ive been reading a collection of critical esssays called “the end of everything: postmodernism and the vanishing of the human”. Very interesting btw. The first article deals with Lyotards view of humanism and where we are heading in terms of evolution of a species – culturally speaking.
It talks about evolution, humans and technology. I had a chance to flesh some of the ideas out with Kathleen yesterday, and she got me thinking about it….the article talks about human’s marriage with technology to enhance (or aid) human health etc. In terms of a natural evolution of human form over time, where does technological enhancement fit in? A question raised in the article, is what is the ratio of technology to human flesh to constitute remaining a human? Cyborg rights anyone??
Is this the next evolutional split since Homo Habilis/Erectus/Sapiens? Are we diverging towards a split of Sapien?Cyborg? To be fair, Lyotard (and the critical author Will Self) discusses the boundaries for cyborgs – if the technology cant “think” for itself, then it is purely enhancement which, no matter how bound we are with technology, we still control it – regardless of concepts of technological malfunctions.
Where does artificial organs fit into this picture? Between the ‘natural’ and the ‘cyborg’? Where does artificial organs fit in the evolutional stage of human reproduction? At least with pure technology (in forms of metal etc) when reproduced still creates a non “cyborg” body (since the technology is added to the surface – inside or out) .. But artificial body parts…hmm..although rationally i would say that it makes no difference – but regardless, i think this whole concept of human intervention to this extreme is sticking one big stick in the spokes of the wheel of natural evolution (if you believe in that stuff hehe)
Went to my first university organized social event, the Sociology and Anthropology Student Union had an all you can drink for $10 soiree. It was great to be in a social environment with other students and friends and still be in the school mindset. The opportunity to get drunk and [try] to talk about theory and whatnot was alot of fun. Would be nice to do it on a semi-regular basis actually…
Had some really good conversations, and once the hazzy fog that is the hangover i have today lifts, i will post some of them.
Insult to Injury
And in the mail this morning, the AFE were kind enough to inform me that not only did i make too much money in 2003, i also owe them, payable immediately, $ 2,132.00 … blood from a stone i suppose.
Who Would’ve Thought
A friend of mine found this and sent it to me this morning: http://mtl3p.ilesansfil.org/blog/archives/2003/11/22/game_research_at_concordia.html
I was both embarassed and flattered at the same time.
I think of all the conversations i’ve had with people [face to face], once ive walked away, the conversation and its contents fade with time.. online conversations, unless deleted afterwards, are set in virtual stone to be stumbled upon somewhere down the road… something to think about when I utter my voice in cyberspace.
Drink and be Merry
Its always fun to mix drinks based on whats in your liquor cabinet… made this for a friend, was great!
1 part Tia Maria
1 part Chocolate Liqueur
2 parts Milk
Shake with ice till frothy
Pour and Enjoy!
/Turn Rant On:
Does mass media have any obligation to the general public regardless of where their funds come from?
Could we ever really expect an unbiased view in any reporting?
I always say there’s three sides to every story: My version, your version and what really happened.
The only true way to report anything (in my opinion) is to allow every side to have an equal voice (at all times) and let the readers decide the facts for themselves. To make it fair, i suppose all sides would have to pay some sort of fee that would allow each “side” to have a voice… that would get rid of the question of financial backing giving the right to filter the news.. or would it?
Guess i still need some time to mull this over. In a way, [grrr devil's advocate!] i believe that the reason these financial backers and governments support mass media is exactly to further along their agendas. If they pay for it, what makes it wrong? If i paid for adspace to sell fur, shouldnt i have the right to do so behyond any other “side’s” opinion of fur? But then, perhaps by not professing my agenda as “unbiased news” is what makes the difference.
I do have to say that I agree with Elly on her comment that they should at least have the guts to admit that the information is skewed to their benefit…would allow readers to read it with the proverbial grain of salt. At least we would know that its “their” facts…