You know that feeling you get when there's something in your eye? Your body shuts down and you pull strange faces as you frantically scrape your eyes to dislodge whatever it is that is causing great discomfort. Your breathing becomes erratic, and your eyes water as the piece of foreign matter scratches against your eye. That is what ABBA does to my brain. It's like there's something in my eye, in my brain.
Dancing Queen, Waterloo, Mama Mia - they're all the same. My brain is freaking out just thinking about them. The sound is muddy, the vacant swaying back and forth is hypnotising (in a bad way) and the musical backing is so... old fashioned. Sure, the songs were produced nearly 40 years ago, but that doesn't matter a jot - alot of songs were made 40 years ago or more and they sound fantastic (Beatles? Led Zeppelin? Most things that aren't ABBA?). Hell, I know alot of people that were made 40 years ago or more, and they still sound alright, unless they're singing ABBA tracks.
The music makes me so damn rabid. I can't even think when it plays. Yes, I'm aware that a bunch of you are probably going to send me ABBA links, but I can be happy in the knowledge that you too will have to put yourself through some sort of pain to find 'the right song' to send me. Pre-emptive karma is sweet.
This got me thinking: if I hate ABBA, then surely a heap of other people do too! Then I thought: 'Hey, if I like watermelon, surely a heap of other people do too!'. I went a step further and thought 'Hey! What this blog needs is a list of some sort. Lists aren't ever done on websites.'
I had a few more trains of thought, but the only one they didn't get derailed was 'Hey! If alot of stuff makes MY brain hurt, there might be a ton of other people out there with sore heads as well! That almost makes me normal!'
Almost.
1. People who don't think before making important decisions
The title isn't as snappy as the titles at, say, Cracked.com (ahem, if you're hiring...) but I don't have an army of lemmings to do my bidding, so it'll have to suffice.
It's called the 'Knee-Jerk Reaction', or my personal favourite, 'Jumping on the Crazy Train'. It's when people are so damn fixed in their ways that logical argument cannot make them change direction, or at the very least re-evaluate their position. It's when you say 'Did you know that this previously held belief is now wrong? How about that? Turns out you DON'T need to flick the lights on and off three times before you leave the house, just doing it once still works!' Only to have them respond 'I don't know about that, I still think that flicking it three times is the best way to approach the problem.'
Whut? No! No no n... OH GOD THERE'S SOMETHING IN MY EYE-BRAIN AGAIN. We all have our opinions and knowledge bases, and we are all guilty of staying aboard the Crazy Train every now and then, but flying in the face of irrefutable proof with alarming consistency just staggers me. Shit, I'd be satisfied if someone said, 'Really? Not three times? I might check it out' because they've at least listened to the new suggestion. South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is the only AG in Australia to deny an R18+ rating for computer games, even though 90% of respondents (both gamers and non-gamers) to their study said that they wanted such ratings. He also vetoed any chance of the report being made public and open to discussion. Whut? That's... whut? That's crazy talk. And it's censorship and I won't go there right now...
The other variant is 'Look, I know what I'm saying is crazy, but I can't control it, that's who I am.'
Whut? If you know that you're... surely you can... OH GOD IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN. It's scary because these Fun Police usually think They Know Best and they actually make decisions that impact other people.
I know, they're insane. ON TO NUMBER TWO!
2. Idiotic Petrol Station Customers
Really, how hard is it to drive an extra 3 metres to the next bowser so the people behind you can take full advantage of the other pumps? No really, how hard? 'I'm in a hurry?' You're also a fucking idiot.
I get that you might have been at bowser 2 to start with because bowser 1 was currently in use. And I get the fact that the bowser 1 user might have driven off, making it look like you're a selfish arsehole. I get that, I'm cool with that. You can't control when other people drive off. That's fine. Deep breath, continue.
What I don't get is the people who only think of themselves at these damn things and stop right *there* because that's 'as far as I really need to go'. Whut? That's fucked. I also don't get the people who line up on ONE SIDE ONLY because that's the side that their petrol cap is, only to block entry into the station, thus rendering the SIX OTHER PUMPS COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS. Jesus Christ! Seriously. I was completely unaware that the hoses at petrol pumps are incapable of bending. I didn't know that it is impossible to use a right-side pump on a left-side cap. Use your fucking brains people. 'I don't want to scratch my car'. The hose is made of rubber, it can't scratch your car unless you lay it across the boot and move it back and forward whilst applying pressure. Harden the fuck up, seriously. Also, don't spend a full minute arranging your purse/doing your makeup/talking on the phone before driving off.
I'm not a road rage kind of guy, but a part of me does die a little bit inside when I see people dicking around like this.
3. Driving at erratic speeds
Choose a speed. Please, I beg you. Don't drive at 60km/h on an 80km/h straight, only to accelerate through turns. Don't change between 80km/h and 100km/h on a long stretch of road every 10 seconds, just because you can. If you can't maintain even pressure on the accelerator, maybe you, I don't know, shouldn't drive? Maybe your children should have put you in a home already? Thought about that? The constant speed up, slow down pattern is outright dangerous and demands more concentration from the following driver than should be necessary on a dead straight road in the middle of nowhere. Also, part of me cries quietly when I see this happening.
Another fun fact, 'Did you know that driving like a raging dickhead increases your chance of crashing?' True story. If you're a rabid speed-changer, then you fit this category which, I guess, makes you a raging dickhead.
4. People who think everything MUST be done THEIR way
It doesn't. Deal with it. Move on. In this case, your opinion is wrong. Take it on board, take a deep breath, make yourself a cup of tea, go out in the garden, walk the dog, drive to the beach, stroll through a forest, talk to your neighbours, tidy the house, read a book, browse the internet, knit, do some thai chi, do some thai bo, do a thai bloke, scratch that itch, do ANYTHING which makes you realise that the world will still work (and has worked rather well for thousands of years) without doing things YOUR way. Do whatever you want in your own life (going about raping and murdering doesn't count), live your life how you see fit, just don't MAKE others live how you see fit.
Other things people could try: Go for a run, take up weight lifting, learn to sing, write a book, learn an instrument, mow the lawn, buy a cat, work at a zoo, injure yourself, take up a sport, dance for no reason, rub your bare feet on the carpet for 5 full minutes like Bruce Willis does in Die Hard because it feels really good and makes you feel alot better, roll around on the floor for no reason, have an epiphany, pick your nose, stretch, bounce.
5. ABBA
Did I mention ABBA already? I think I did.
6. People who take sport WAY too seriously
I like sports. I like playing different sports. I take sport and winning seriously, because it makes me play better. Having said that, I don't take it so seriously that a loss is the end of the world, that a conceded goal demands seppuku of the goal keeper, that a mistake requires a reddening of the face and a bursting of the blood vessels. Some people freak out way too much. Game over, you lost, ah well, that is disappointing, life goes on, yeah?
Being a professional athelete is a different story - but as far as amateurs go, lighten up. Try your very best, get fitter, have a laugh, sweat alot, improve.
If you're the person in the heading then wow, ease up turbo. Shrieking at your own players doesn't do squat (ok, so I did it once, we all make mistakes), it just makes the other team laugh alot and place bets on how long it'll take before Player One assaults Player Two with a referee. It's a fun game to play, you should try it once the red haze has died down. In a social league you're there to have some fun and have a laugh (at least that's what my soccer team's purpose is). Having said that, winning IS fun, we don't play to lose. Why would anyone play to lose?
7. People who play to lose
WHY? I don't get it. You put time and energy into something, then you just throw the game or walk off or quit just before the end? That's just weird, no analysis needed.
8. More flakes than clusters in boxes of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes Nut Clusters
They are delicious. Really delicious. Delicious to the point that I start sweating and rocking back and forth when I find that a shake of the box yields no clustery goodness. More flakes? Are you serious? It's the clusters we want! If I wanted flakes I'd just buy plain old Flakes-in-a-Box or whatever the kids call them these days. I demand clusters. I DEMAND MORE.
Excuse me, I have a flake in my eye in my brain.
9. Getting something in my eye
Because it feels like there's something in my eye. What, you LIKE having something in your eye? I bet you like ABBA as well, and taking up bowser space, and driving too slow or too fast, and telling everyone how they HAVE to live, and not listening to rational argument. I bet you LIVE on the Crazy Train. No! Wait! Even better! You DRIVE the Crazy Train and spruik for passengers! You probably take sport and games too seriously as well, I bet you think nothing of quitting a computer game or walking off the pitch just as you're about to lose. I BET YOU HATE CRUNCHY NUT CORNFLAKES NUT CLUSTERS AS WELL. Christ! I bet you... hang on, I need a new number.
10. Religious Fanatics
You think that The Bible, The Quran, The Dungeons and Dragons Codex (revision 73) are as real as real as real can be. You think that not following these texts to the letter means that you will burn in Hell / Always roll a 1 on a 20-sided dice. You think that you're *better* than everyone because 'You've "found" [Deity of Choice]'. You think you are the keeper of the most wonderous secret and that everyone else is a heathen/heretic/fails save vs death rolls. You think that unless the world is governed according to strict religious principles then it'll turn to shit.
I have news for you - it turns out, that when a nation IS governed by strict religious principles, bad things happen. Women are punished if they don't cover up (what kind of fucked up rule is that? Women are beautiful creatures. You'd think that the Patriarchal Religious Right would demand that they DON'T cover up. Weird.). Women are killed for talking to a random bloke, men and women alike are punished for drinking certain drinks, eating certain foods, discussing certain topics, listening to certain music (or ANY music for that matter). What kind of fucked up system is that?
Sure, I can identify with a few of the 'rules'. Don't murder? I can deal with that. Don't steal shit? I can deal with that. Respect your parents? Sure, as long as they respect me in turn (which they do). Most things are a two-way street. Yes, oppression is a terrible thing, but yes, there are some boundaries a society should operate within - fairly wide boundaries one would hope.
I have no problem (contrary to popular belief) with people having a belief system. No problem at all. If someone wants to avoid eating pork/drinking nice wine/wearing nice clothes/discovering new information, they can, and more power to them (figure of speech, I don't mean ACTUAL power, that's just silly). If they want to believe that a guy lived 2000 years ago and turned water to wine and walked on water and came back from the dead and was the son of an invisible sky wizard, then they should be allowed to do so. My problem comes from them saying 'So and so told me to do it' or 'I should do this because [Insert Here] says so' or, my favourite, 'You must do this because this book tells you to'. Free Will, people. There might be some lessons to be learned from these stories (like all stories, really. I learned alot from Roald Dahl's stories... for better or worse). Just take them with a grain of salt, and don't feel guilty for doing so. I'll leave this picture as food for thought.
Cheers guys
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Australian Government Censors the Internet
At least they will if this plan get puts into effect.
Like any intelligent Australian, I have a problem with this. I have a problem with the fact that the government thinks they know what is 'appropriate' for me, as an adult, to view. I have a problem with the fact that they think they have a clear-cut definition of 'morality'. I have a problem with the fact that the government that was elected by the majority of Australians has an innate distrust of its constituents. I have a problem with the fact that Australia will become the next China, North Korea or Russia.
The minister, Stephen Conroy, is using 'child pornography' as his war cry. In this article he associates 'free speech' with 'the desire to access and watch child pornography'. Who in their right mind makes that association? Paedophiles is who. If the government was serious, they would target child porn sites one by one and take them down. No one is advocating a need to watch child porn, so that argument is moot.
'Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.'
What will be deemed 'inappropriate'? Who decides this anyway? Conroy? Rudd? Their mothers? I understand the need to educate our children and protect them from potentially scarring incidents (2girls1cup, anyone?) but that does not require a blanket censorship of the internet. If anything, they should spend part of the proposed $128m on parent-education packs which would be sent out upon request. This is a positive step that doesn't involve turning Australia into a technological and global laughing stock. Some may argue that those in opposition to this plan are all pornography addicts, child molesters, terrorists, traitors, morally corrupt individuals and hardened criminals.
I'm in opposition to this proposal, and I'm none of the above. My problem with this plan is that the government thinks they need to 'protect' the population from the big scary internet. The first filter blocks out 'pornography and violent images' according to Senator Conroy. The second filter, the one that wasn't publicised, and was only learned about via insiders, is the one which blocks 'illegal content'. Tell me, what constitutes 'illegal content'? Torrent sites? Terribly sorry, but they host a wealth of 'legal' content. Porn sites? Pornography is legal and doesn't claim to be aimed at a young audience. Sites which speak out against the government? I would certainly hope not, although preliminary trials suggest that a couple of sites which speak ill of the government were blocked - which begs the question 'Where will it stop?' Will internet sites be blocked if they disagree with government policies? Will people be prosecuted for visiting such websites after circumventing the filters? Will the website blacklist be compiled using an arbitrary method of judging what is 'moral' or 'immoral'?
It certainly will be. This cannot be argued against. What is considered 'moral' differs between people. I think this blanket censoring is immoral on the government's part. Others may disagree. I cannot imagine why.
Here's some fun facts about this proposed filter:
'Between 1% and 6% of websites deemed 'safe' will still be blocked.' Even if you pick 1%, that's still 10,000 websites out of every million, and since Google recently counted over a trillion unique websites, that means 10 billion websites will be incorrectly blocked. This site might even be blocked because of it. A YouTube site containing offensive language (which, let's face it, means all of them, if the Comments section is any indication) may be blocked. This is not right.
'Internet access will slow by up to 78%' according to a government report. 78% is HUGE. My 1.5mbit connection would be reduced to 330kps. It would go from being 26x faster than 56k dialup to 5.8x faster than dialup. That is definitely not good enough. Couple this with the fact that the Rudd government is pushing for a faster internet network and you end up with a heap of contradictory bullshit.
'The cost of internet access to Australian users would increase' because ISPs would have to pass on the cost of filtering to customers. Think your internet plans cost too much already? Just wait until the filters get put in place!
'The internet will lose its status as one of the last true neutral zones of communication'. I don't have a reference for that one, because it's so blatantly obvious I shouldn't have to provide one. It's the last bastion of true free speech. I can say what I want over MSN/Facebook/IRC/Forums without 'fear' of retribution from the government because they don't agree with what I have to say. Hell, this blog, small as it is, might be banned under the new filters because I have the keywords 'dissent, child pornography, censor, bullshit, terrorist' on it. This means that any other post I make would be inaccessible too. I don't pretend that this site is Reuters or Google, but the fact remains that it's MINE, and there is alot of info on here which doesn't Contradict Or Question The Australian Federal Government's Plan To Censor Internet Access.
Yes, there are some unpleasant things on the internet. There's violence, there's racism, there's unconventional sex, there's a manual for making bombs/committing suicide/developing anorexia/child porn whatever else you can think of. If you don't want to visit these sites, then don't. There, problem solved. If you do, then you need to consider why you're doing it. If you are concerned that your children are accessing this stuff, then obtain the free filtering software that the government is currently offering, or better yet, buy some software that works better. If you're concerned that your friends or people you know are unstable enough to pursue anorexia or suicide, then you need to actively discourage them from doing so and point them in a helpful direction. If you're after child pornography, then you're a sick fuck who deserves to rot in prison.
Censoring the internet is impossible, impractical, immoral (one person making a blanket decision for everyone IS immoral, you have no right to tell someone else how to live), inconvenient, terrifying and ridiculous. I do NOT want Australia to become the next China, North Korea or Russia, despite what Conroy naively thinks.
If you are as incensed by this as I am, I encourage you to go to http://nocleanfeed.com for more information, and here to find out how you can make a difference. I usually hate this 'together we can make a difference' stuff, but when it comes to the internet, it's all we have - we don't have trucks to blockade roads with, or placards to clog Wall Street with - all we have is our voice.
If you do choose to contact any government minister or news outlet, please keep your correspondence rational, mature and devoid of name-calling - we're all adults here.
Cheers guys.
Like any intelligent Australian, I have a problem with this. I have a problem with the fact that the government thinks they know what is 'appropriate' for me, as an adult, to view. I have a problem with the fact that they think they have a clear-cut definition of 'morality'. I have a problem with the fact that the government that was elected by the majority of Australians has an innate distrust of its constituents. I have a problem with the fact that Australia will become the next China, North Korea or Russia.
The minister, Stephen Conroy, is using 'child pornography' as his war cry. In this article he associates 'free speech' with 'the desire to access and watch child pornography'. Who in their right mind makes that association? Paedophiles is who. If the government was serious, they would target child porn sites one by one and take them down. No one is advocating a need to watch child porn, so that argument is moot.
'Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.'
What will be deemed 'inappropriate'? Who decides this anyway? Conroy? Rudd? Their mothers? I understand the need to educate our children and protect them from potentially scarring incidents (2girls1cup, anyone?) but that does not require a blanket censorship of the internet. If anything, they should spend part of the proposed $128m on parent-education packs which would be sent out upon request. This is a positive step that doesn't involve turning Australia into a technological and global laughing stock. Some may argue that those in opposition to this plan are all pornography addicts, child molesters, terrorists, traitors, morally corrupt individuals and hardened criminals.
I'm in opposition to this proposal, and I'm none of the above. My problem with this plan is that the government thinks they need to 'protect' the population from the big scary internet. The first filter blocks out 'pornography and violent images' according to Senator Conroy. The second filter, the one that wasn't publicised, and was only learned about via insiders, is the one which blocks 'illegal content'. Tell me, what constitutes 'illegal content'? Torrent sites? Terribly sorry, but they host a wealth of 'legal' content. Porn sites? Pornography is legal and doesn't claim to be aimed at a young audience. Sites which speak out against the government? I would certainly hope not, although preliminary trials suggest that a couple of sites which speak ill of the government were blocked - which begs the question 'Where will it stop?' Will internet sites be blocked if they disagree with government policies? Will people be prosecuted for visiting such websites after circumventing the filters? Will the website blacklist be compiled using an arbitrary method of judging what is 'moral' or 'immoral'?
It certainly will be. This cannot be argued against. What is considered 'moral' differs between people. I think this blanket censoring is immoral on the government's part. Others may disagree. I cannot imagine why.
Here's some fun facts about this proposed filter:
'Between 1% and 6% of websites deemed 'safe' will still be blocked.' Even if you pick 1%, that's still 10,000 websites out of every million, and since Google recently counted over a trillion unique websites, that means 10 billion websites will be incorrectly blocked. This site might even be blocked because of it. A YouTube site containing offensive language (which, let's face it, means all of them, if the Comments section is any indication) may be blocked. This is not right.
'Internet access will slow by up to 78%' according to a government report. 78% is HUGE. My 1.5mbit connection would be reduced to 330kps. It would go from being 26x faster than 56k dialup to 5.8x faster than dialup. That is definitely not good enough. Couple this with the fact that the Rudd government is pushing for a faster internet network and you end up with a heap of contradictory bullshit.
'The cost of internet access to Australian users would increase' because ISPs would have to pass on the cost of filtering to customers. Think your internet plans cost too much already? Just wait until the filters get put in place!
'The internet will lose its status as one of the last true neutral zones of communication'. I don't have a reference for that one, because it's so blatantly obvious I shouldn't have to provide one. It's the last bastion of true free speech. I can say what I want over MSN/Facebook/IRC/Forums without 'fear' of retribution from the government because they don't agree with what I have to say. Hell, this blog, small as it is, might be banned under the new filters because I have the keywords 'dissent, child pornography, censor, bullshit, terrorist' on it. This means that any other post I make would be inaccessible too. I don't pretend that this site is Reuters or Google, but the fact remains that it's MINE, and there is alot of info on here which doesn't Contradict Or Question The Australian Federal Government's Plan To Censor Internet Access.
Yes, there are some unpleasant things on the internet. There's violence, there's racism, there's unconventional sex, there's a manual for making bombs/committing suicide/developing anorexia/child porn whatever else you can think of. If you don't want to visit these sites, then don't. There, problem solved. If you do, then you need to consider why you're doing it. If you are concerned that your children are accessing this stuff, then obtain the free filtering software that the government is currently offering, or better yet, buy some software that works better. If you're concerned that your friends or people you know are unstable enough to pursue anorexia or suicide, then you need to actively discourage them from doing so and point them in a helpful direction. If you're after child pornography, then you're a sick fuck who deserves to rot in prison.
Censoring the internet is impossible, impractical, immoral (one person making a blanket decision for everyone IS immoral, you have no right to tell someone else how to live), inconvenient, terrifying and ridiculous. I do NOT want Australia to become the next China, North Korea or Russia, despite what Conroy naively thinks.
If you are as incensed by this as I am, I encourage you to go to http://nocleanfeed.com for more information, and here to find out how you can make a difference. I usually hate this 'together we can make a difference' stuff, but when it comes to the internet, it's all we have - we don't have trucks to blockade roads with, or placards to clog Wall Street with - all we have is our voice.
If you do choose to contact any government minister or news outlet, please keep your correspondence rational, mature and devoid of name-calling - we're all adults here.
Cheers guys.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Importance of Exploration
About two weeks ago, give or take, scientists at CERN fired up the Large Hadron Collider for the first time. They shot a beam of protons at close to the speed of light around a ring 27km in circumference. Such was the speed that the protons flicked around this ring 11,000 times every second. That alone is mind-boggling, but couple it with the fact that it was a man-made event, and it becomes truly astounding.
Bear with me, this short scientific spiel is important.
Depending on the sources people cite, or the currencies in which they operate, the LHC cost $6-10bn. It is the largest machine ever built by man, it is the fastest any matter has been made to spin by man, and it operates in an environment as close to Absolute Zero (-273.15 degrees Celsius) as we can get, all while being 100 metres below France and, at times, Switzerland. Is that not one of the most impressive things you have ever heard? Humans have dug a massive tunnel, have constructed an incredibly intricate system of inter-connecting pipes and magnets, and have constructed all of this with a margin of error of mere microns.
This is the pinnacle of human exploration thus far. Scientists are probing the structure of sub-atomic particles, examining the very fabric of reality and, according to some plebian scum, putting the world in grave danger. Why? Because it's there (or in the case of the Higgs Boson which physicists are trying to detect, because it may not be). Humankind is playing with what used to be the sole property of the stars, and it's terribly exciting.
For some, this is a staggeringly momentous occasion; the point where everything we know about physics and reality may depart us, leaving us to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about, well, everything. For other people the experiment at CERN is a symbol of extravagant and wasteful spending. This saddens me greatly.
Where did the joy that filled the hearts of these people as children go? Do they not remember the euphoria they experienced when they reached the top of a previously unclimbable tree?
Exploration is what humans do. We ask questions. We travel over the horizon. We look to the stars, below the waves, beneath the earth, over the hill. And do you know why we do it? Because these things are there. Who knows what benefits will be reaped from the seeds of our effort?
In the olden days, and I use the term because it seems that in the eyes of many, these days are well and truly gone, explorers lived up to their name and trekked the mountains and sailed the seas in search of 'what was over there'. Columbus sailed west, looking for a faster route to the East Indies, but instead ran into the North and South Americas. Whether he actually landed there first or not is moot, because the fact is, he found something that he wasn't expecting, and look how it has improved the world today. New resources, new people, new ideas. I do not care about politics here. The world was made richer for his exploration.
James Cook went looking for Australia, because some jokers thought there might be something down there. The list of explorers and adventurers goes on and on, but the point remains: they changed the way we see the world. Their expeditions were expensive, people called them mad, but they persisted and everyone benefited.
The same goes for the LHC and other expensive scientific and exploratory endeavours. The Hubble Telescope. There, another marvel of engineering. Its original reflecting mirror was out by 4 microns. That is smaller than the gap you get between your fingers when you hold it up to a half-open eye. It is tiny, and yet it rendered the multi-billion dollar telescope useless until they made a new one. Naysayers clamoured for the program to be axed, because they did not appreciate the art of discovery. They were fools, because shortly after Hubble was restarted it gave us pictures like this:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2004010a/
Is that not one of the most beautiful things you've ever seen? That is out there, beyond our world. Had people not persisted, we would have no appreciation of how large our galaxy is, no appreciation of how colossal our universe may be, no concept of how stunning the forces of the cosmos can be. We have benefited from experiments like Hubble. We can track asteroids that may one day smack into us. We can see deep into other solar systems. We may even find signs of life. It's exciting because once upon a time these things, as far as we were concerned, did not exist, and now they do, and that is amazing.
The desire to learn about our world is so strong that we went to the bottom of the ocean 'just to have a look', much like we trekked through jungles to find traces of people who once lived there. To what end? Why, to see what was there of course! It just so happened that along the way we stumbled across the reason for the demise of the Mayans of central American (they literally ate themselves out of house and home and had to move on). With this knowledge we can take steps to avoid repeating these mistakes. Finding a source of renewable geothermal power on the ocean floor would be a pretty massive achievement too.
The Japanese have created an organisation which aims to build a Space elevator (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4799369.ece).
In short, it's a capsule which ascends wires into orbit. It'd be cheaper than rocketry, more environmentally friendly, and will allow the easy transportation of equipment and people into space. Whether they'll get it working or not is another story, but the fact remains that they are dead serious about it and are giving it their all. The price tag they have set is $9bn for the project which, all things considered, is pretty damn cheap. People wax lyrical about the virtues of spending this money on food and attempting to eradicate poverty but this simple fact remains: we don't know what can be gained by doing this, so we must do it to find out.
People are constantly looking for greener grass. They are looking for new jobs, new houses, new cars, new foods, new sources of energy, new ways of conducting business, new ways of improving our blue marble (psst, it's 'Earth'). People are exploring every day, whether they are conscious of it or not, and yet still have the nerve to call expensive forms of exploration a 'waste of time and money'.
Questioning our world and the knowledge and beliefs that govern it is of utmost importance. Without questions we stagnate and find ourselves living in an inferior manner to what is achieveable. The unknown is tantalising and, sometimes, better than the known.
Exploration is magnificent but it's the Discovery that is wondrous.
I started with the LHC because it is the greatest machine ever conceived by man, and it has been built in our lifetime. It is colossal, it is frighteningly cold and it is asking some pretty massive questions. 'How does matter have mass?' for instance. Did you know that physicists don't actually know why stuff has a mass? Based on what the smartest people on our planet know (and this includes Stephen fucking Hawking), stuff should not have mass, and yet it does. Finding out why could have far-reaching benefits which we are completely unaware of. If you didn't click the link to my site and read that line, then you'd still be in the dark. You wouldn't have undertaken the noblest of pursuits. You would not have explored.
You learn something every day.
Cheers.
Edit:
For more information on the Large Hadron Collider I highly recommend watching 'The Big Bang Machine'. It's floating around the net, and may even be on Youtube. It puts the whole thing in the simplest of terms, which is brilliant, because I'm certainly no particle physicist. I just think large-scale exploration is wonderful.
Bear with me, this short scientific spiel is important.
Depending on the sources people cite, or the currencies in which they operate, the LHC cost $6-10bn. It is the largest machine ever built by man, it is the fastest any matter has been made to spin by man, and it operates in an environment as close to Absolute Zero (-273.15 degrees Celsius) as we can get, all while being 100 metres below France and, at times, Switzerland. Is that not one of the most impressive things you have ever heard? Humans have dug a massive tunnel, have constructed an incredibly intricate system of inter-connecting pipes and magnets, and have constructed all of this with a margin of error of mere microns.
This is the pinnacle of human exploration thus far. Scientists are probing the structure of sub-atomic particles, examining the very fabric of reality and, according to some plebian scum, putting the world in grave danger. Why? Because it's there (or in the case of the Higgs Boson which physicists are trying to detect, because it may not be). Humankind is playing with what used to be the sole property of the stars, and it's terribly exciting.
For some, this is a staggeringly momentous occasion; the point where everything we know about physics and reality may depart us, leaving us to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about, well, everything. For other people the experiment at CERN is a symbol of extravagant and wasteful spending. This saddens me greatly.
Where did the joy that filled the hearts of these people as children go? Do they not remember the euphoria they experienced when they reached the top of a previously unclimbable tree?
Exploration is what humans do. We ask questions. We travel over the horizon. We look to the stars, below the waves, beneath the earth, over the hill. And do you know why we do it? Because these things are there. Who knows what benefits will be reaped from the seeds of our effort?
In the olden days, and I use the term because it seems that in the eyes of many, these days are well and truly gone, explorers lived up to their name and trekked the mountains and sailed the seas in search of 'what was over there'. Columbus sailed west, looking for a faster route to the East Indies, but instead ran into the North and South Americas. Whether he actually landed there first or not is moot, because the fact is, he found something that he wasn't expecting, and look how it has improved the world today. New resources, new people, new ideas. I do not care about politics here. The world was made richer for his exploration.
James Cook went looking for Australia, because some jokers thought there might be something down there. The list of explorers and adventurers goes on and on, but the point remains: they changed the way we see the world. Their expeditions were expensive, people called them mad, but they persisted and everyone benefited.
The same goes for the LHC and other expensive scientific and exploratory endeavours. The Hubble Telescope. There, another marvel of engineering. Its original reflecting mirror was out by 4 microns. That is smaller than the gap you get between your fingers when you hold it up to a half-open eye. It is tiny, and yet it rendered the multi-billion dollar telescope useless until they made a new one. Naysayers clamoured for the program to be axed, because they did not appreciate the art of discovery. They were fools, because shortly after Hubble was restarted it gave us pictures like this:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2004010a/
Is that not one of the most beautiful things you've ever seen? That is out there, beyond our world. Had people not persisted, we would have no appreciation of how large our galaxy is, no appreciation of how colossal our universe may be, no concept of how stunning the forces of the cosmos can be. We have benefited from experiments like Hubble. We can track asteroids that may one day smack into us. We can see deep into other solar systems. We may even find signs of life. It's exciting because once upon a time these things, as far as we were concerned, did not exist, and now they do, and that is amazing.
The desire to learn about our world is so strong that we went to the bottom of the ocean 'just to have a look', much like we trekked through jungles to find traces of people who once lived there. To what end? Why, to see what was there of course! It just so happened that along the way we stumbled across the reason for the demise of the Mayans of central American (they literally ate themselves out of house and home and had to move on). With this knowledge we can take steps to avoid repeating these mistakes. Finding a source of renewable geothermal power on the ocean floor would be a pretty massive achievement too.
The Japanese have created an organisation which aims to build a Space elevator (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4799369.ece).
In short, it's a capsule which ascends wires into orbit. It'd be cheaper than rocketry, more environmentally friendly, and will allow the easy transportation of equipment and people into space. Whether they'll get it working or not is another story, but the fact remains that they are dead serious about it and are giving it their all. The price tag they have set is $9bn for the project which, all things considered, is pretty damn cheap. People wax lyrical about the virtues of spending this money on food and attempting to eradicate poverty but this simple fact remains: we don't know what can be gained by doing this, so we must do it to find out.
People are constantly looking for greener grass. They are looking for new jobs, new houses, new cars, new foods, new sources of energy, new ways of conducting business, new ways of improving our blue marble (psst, it's 'Earth'). People are exploring every day, whether they are conscious of it or not, and yet still have the nerve to call expensive forms of exploration a 'waste of time and money'.
Questioning our world and the knowledge and beliefs that govern it is of utmost importance. Without questions we stagnate and find ourselves living in an inferior manner to what is achieveable. The unknown is tantalising and, sometimes, better than the known.
Exploration is magnificent but it's the Discovery that is wondrous.
I started with the LHC because it is the greatest machine ever conceived by man, and it has been built in our lifetime. It is colossal, it is frighteningly cold and it is asking some pretty massive questions. 'How does matter have mass?' for instance. Did you know that physicists don't actually know why stuff has a mass? Based on what the smartest people on our planet know (and this includes Stephen fucking Hawking), stuff should not have mass, and yet it does. Finding out why could have far-reaching benefits which we are completely unaware of. If you didn't click the link to my site and read that line, then you'd still be in the dark. You wouldn't have undertaken the noblest of pursuits. You would not have explored.
You learn something every day.
Cheers.
Edit:
For more information on the Large Hadron Collider I highly recommend watching 'The Big Bang Machine'. It's floating around the net, and may even be on Youtube. It puts the whole thing in the simplest of terms, which is brilliant, because I'm certainly no particle physicist. I just think large-scale exploration is wonderful.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Choose your Rapper name carefully
'Eminem' is a reference to his real name, Marshall Mathers (the 3rd for anyone playing at home). 'M and M'. It makes sense, it's catchy, you can slur it, and you can turn the letters backwards to make it look 1337. In short, and as far as names in the music biz go, it's a clever and memorable one.
I discovered another name this morning and it's memorable for all the wrong reasons. This guy's name is Rodney Jerkins.
Yep, Rodney Jerkins. Let me say it again, 'Rodney Jerkins'.
I'm not lying either:
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/jacksons-reunite-at-bmi-urban-awards/12744
'Other BMI Urban Award winners included Soulja Boy, Polow Da Don, Rodney Jerkins and DJ Montay'
You can't tell me that Rodney Jerkins doesn't evoke images of a polite, yet rather stiff (dick joke number one) English butler. 'Would sir like some tea with his scones?'
'Yes Rodney, that would be delightful.'
'Excellent, sir. I shall have it served in the conservatory.'
'There's one more thing, Rodney.'
'Yes, sir?'
'Your full name is Rodney Jerkins, is it not?'
'Sir is correct.'
'That is a smashing name for a butler.'
'Thank you, sir.'
That's how I imagine every conversation involving anyone called Rodney to go. He has a stiff (number two) upper lip, a neatly-pressed shirt, and an impeccable, if somewhat sober taste, in suits.
At the same time, this is how I imagine the conversation went when Rodney-fucking-Jerkins parents told him his name for the first time.
'Yo dawg, I chose your name, wanna hear it?'
'Shoot'
'Rodney Jerkins'
'I fucking hate you'.
Feel free to insert more 'yo's', 'dawgs' and 'sups' in there where you feel appropriate.
Now, I'm fully aware that Rodney Jerkins is his real name, and I'm fully aware that he's a producer and not a rapper. But... really? If he changed his name when he was younger, I think everyone could understand (unless he came from an illustrious butling family). Jenkins I get - it's an old name, but Jerkins? Sure, it means 'Leather vest', but it isn't exactly hard-hitting is it? Wikipedia.org indicates that his nickname is 'Darkchild'. So at least he's on the right track, insofar as much that his badass nickname rated a mention.
Here's the clincher though. In the world of Eminems, Soulja boy (LOL, come off it man, learn to spell or get the fuck out), could it be that Rodney Jerkins has hit on the perfect marketing ploy? Could it be that by using his real name he shows that he doesn't care what people think and can use this to produce honest, quality music? Could it be that using his real and definitely giggle-inducing name has meant that he has become a standout in the industry? The latter, yes, the former, no. He produced Britney's 'I Love Rock and Roll' J.Lo's 'If You Had My Love', so I wouldn't call it honest or quality music. His name does stand out though.
Rodney Jerkins... really?
I discovered another name this morning and it's memorable for all the wrong reasons. This guy's name is Rodney Jerkins.
Yep, Rodney Jerkins. Let me say it again, 'Rodney Jerkins'.
I'm not lying either:
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/jacksons-reunite-at-bmi-urban-awards/12744
'Other BMI Urban Award winners included Soulja Boy, Polow Da Don, Rodney Jerkins and DJ Montay'
You can't tell me that Rodney Jerkins doesn't evoke images of a polite, yet rather stiff (dick joke number one) English butler. 'Would sir like some tea with his scones?'
'Yes Rodney, that would be delightful.'
'Excellent, sir. I shall have it served in the conservatory.'
'There's one more thing, Rodney.'
'Yes, sir?'
'Your full name is Rodney Jerkins, is it not?'
'Sir is correct.'
'That is a smashing name for a butler.'
'Thank you, sir.'
That's how I imagine every conversation involving anyone called Rodney to go. He has a stiff (number two) upper lip, a neatly-pressed shirt, and an impeccable, if somewhat sober taste, in suits.
At the same time, this is how I imagine the conversation went when Rodney-fucking-Jerkins parents told him his name for the first time.
'Yo dawg, I chose your name, wanna hear it?'
'Shoot'
'Rodney Jerkins'
'I fucking hate you'.
Feel free to insert more 'yo's', 'dawgs' and 'sups' in there where you feel appropriate.
Now, I'm fully aware that Rodney Jerkins is his real name, and I'm fully aware that he's a producer and not a rapper. But... really? If he changed his name when he was younger, I think everyone could understand (unless he came from an illustrious butling family). Jenkins I get - it's an old name, but Jerkins? Sure, it means 'Leather vest', but it isn't exactly hard-hitting is it? Wikipedia.org indicates that his nickname is 'Darkchild'. So at least he's on the right track, insofar as much that his badass nickname rated a mention.
Here's the clincher though. In the world of Eminems, Soulja boy (LOL, come off it man, learn to spell or get the fuck out), could it be that Rodney Jerkins has hit on the perfect marketing ploy? Could it be that by using his real name he shows that he doesn't care what people think and can use this to produce honest, quality music? Could it be that using his real and definitely giggle-inducing name has meant that he has become a standout in the industry? The latter, yes, the former, no. He produced Britney's 'I Love Rock and Roll' J.Lo's 'If You Had My Love', so I wouldn't call it honest or quality music. His name does stand out though.
Rodney Jerkins... really?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Synchronised Swimming is an Abomination
'Abomination' is a word that everyone should use more often - I know I try and do my bit for this word on a weekly basis.
The topic which deserves this new tag is Synchronised Swimming. I know it was in the Sydney Olympics, I know it was in Athens, and I sure as hell realise that it's in Beijing because I just turned the television off in disgust. The question is, 'Why was this 'sport' even allowed in in the first place?'
Synchronised Swimming is a complete and utter Abomination.
Why is this sport deserving of an Olympic spot? It's like watching a group of sequined epileptics trying to swim 50m - it's a pointless exercise which is sure to end in a drowning.
The Synchronised Swimming pairs event is completely ridiculous. Two women (because buggered if any bloke is going to do it) smile forcefully, swing their arms a bit, then jump headlong into the water in what the commentators describe as 'elegant'. One even went as far as to say 'Oh isn't that beautiful?'
No. It's not, and I'll tell you why. It's not beautiful because it's dumb. That's all there is to it. It's dumb. That is the only argument one will ever need when arguing the case AGAINST this glorified (and yet still bullshit) dance event. If someone challenges you with 'But WHY is it dumb?' you can merely reply with 'Because it is.' Anyone who tries to take the argument further has not watched the event for an extended period of time like I have (1 minute of the team event, and 40 seconds of the pairs). Before anyone dares try and challenge me on that, I will say this: 'Nobody needs to see any more than 1 minute of this event because it's horribly boring , terrifyingly stupid and nobody should encourage them'.
Yes, the 'athletes' are fit. And yes, they can hold their breath for a long time. You know what else can do these things? Elephant Seals and Sperm Whales, but you don't see THEM in the Olympics.
Sperm Whales exist to fight giant squid and pose for 19th century maritime artists and Elephant seals exist to hump cars in New Zealand, whereas Synchronised Swimmers exist purely to piss me off. Car Humping is definitely more worthy of my time and energy
Why is this idiotic and ultimately pointless sport featured in the Olympics - an event which celebrates the pinnacle of un-assisted human athletic achievement? Because there are far too many idiots in the world today is why. Cracked.com did a feature on sports which could be added to the Olympics, and I'm sure as hell not going to try and steal THEIR thunder, so instead I'm going to mention 1 sport which should be included over synchronised swimming.
Kendo.
Yes, that's right, Kendo. Japanese fencing. The 'sport' samurai used to practice before going out and cutting off a stranger's head. If you still need a visual cue, look at The Last Samurai - Tom cruise gets his arse handed to him by Hiroyuki Sanada. I might be biased since I used to practice Kendo until I ruptured a pretty important part of my shoulder doing it, but my point still stands; a violent and tradition-steeped sport is far more worthy of an Olympic spot than an event which celebrates the art of flailing your arms around in deep water.
Here are some reasons why Kendo should be in the Olympics instead of Synchronised Swimming (SS):
Kendo is violent, SS is not.
Kendo uses bamboo swords, SS does not.
Kendo involves two combatants putting on kick-arse armour and belting each other on some pretty precise points of the body.
Kendo has a definitive scoring system, SS does not, unless you count a few self-important judges sitting atop their high horses in their ivory tower subjectively deciding whether or not what they just witnessed was 'beautiful' and 'technically accurate'. If they judged purely on a third criteria I like to call 'Useful', then all SS teams would get zero, but I digress.
Kendo is loud, SS isn't.
You can't drown in Kendo, you can in SS.
Kendo is more entertaining than Fencing, SS is not.
Kendo is a sport, SS is certainly NOT.
I think it's a pretty well-crafted argument.
If any Olympic officials read this (because I'm sure you guys are keyed in to my thought processes...) then consider the following friendly tips:
Any event which requires people to wear makeup under water can go and get fucked.
Any event which is graded on artistic execution (gymnastics is exempt because 'not landing on one's head' is considered pretty damn skillful) can go and get fucked.
Any proposed event that involves dance and music and isn't Women's Gymnastics can go and get fucked.
A gymnastic floor routine could at least be used to flip backwards over a charging Grizzly Bear if it came down to it. All Synchronised Swimmers can do is attract large sharks.
Having said that, if 3 large Tiger Sharks were put into the synchronised swimming pool before the event started, then I would support keeping this event in the Olympics.
See how useful your arm flailing and splashing is now, you stupid people.
Cheers
The topic which deserves this new tag is Synchronised Swimming. I know it was in the Sydney Olympics, I know it was in Athens, and I sure as hell realise that it's in Beijing because I just turned the television off in disgust. The question is, 'Why was this 'sport' even allowed in in the first place?'
Synchronised Swimming is a complete and utter Abomination.
Why is this sport deserving of an Olympic spot? It's like watching a group of sequined epileptics trying to swim 50m - it's a pointless exercise which is sure to end in a drowning.
The Synchronised Swimming pairs event is completely ridiculous. Two women (because buggered if any bloke is going to do it) smile forcefully, swing their arms a bit, then jump headlong into the water in what the commentators describe as 'elegant'. One even went as far as to say 'Oh isn't that beautiful?'
No. It's not, and I'll tell you why. It's not beautiful because it's dumb. That's all there is to it. It's dumb. That is the only argument one will ever need when arguing the case AGAINST this glorified (and yet still bullshit) dance event. If someone challenges you with 'But WHY is it dumb?' you can merely reply with 'Because it is.' Anyone who tries to take the argument further has not watched the event for an extended period of time like I have (1 minute of the team event, and 40 seconds of the pairs). Before anyone dares try and challenge me on that, I will say this: 'Nobody needs to see any more than 1 minute of this event because it's horribly boring , terrifyingly stupid and nobody should encourage them'.
Yes, the 'athletes' are fit. And yes, they can hold their breath for a long time. You know what else can do these things? Elephant Seals and Sperm Whales, but you don't see THEM in the Olympics.
Sperm Whales exist to fight giant squid and pose for 19th century maritime artists and Elephant seals exist to hump cars in New Zealand, whereas Synchronised Swimmers exist purely to piss me off. Car Humping is definitely more worthy of my time and energy
Why is this idiotic and ultimately pointless sport featured in the Olympics - an event which celebrates the pinnacle of un-assisted human athletic achievement? Because there are far too many idiots in the world today is why. Cracked.com did a feature on sports which could be added to the Olympics, and I'm sure as hell not going to try and steal THEIR thunder, so instead I'm going to mention 1 sport which should be included over synchronised swimming.
Kendo.
Yes, that's right, Kendo. Japanese fencing. The 'sport' samurai used to practice before going out and cutting off a stranger's head. If you still need a visual cue, look at The Last Samurai - Tom cruise gets his arse handed to him by Hiroyuki Sanada. I might be biased since I used to practice Kendo until I ruptured a pretty important part of my shoulder doing it, but my point still stands; a violent and tradition-steeped sport is far more worthy of an Olympic spot than an event which celebrates the art of flailing your arms around in deep water.
Here are some reasons why Kendo should be in the Olympics instead of Synchronised Swimming (SS):
Kendo is violent, SS is not.
Kendo uses bamboo swords, SS does not.
Kendo involves two combatants putting on kick-arse armour and belting each other on some pretty precise points of the body.
Kendo has a definitive scoring system, SS does not, unless you count a few self-important judges sitting atop their high horses in their ivory tower subjectively deciding whether or not what they just witnessed was 'beautiful' and 'technically accurate'. If they judged purely on a third criteria I like to call 'Useful', then all SS teams would get zero, but I digress.
Kendo is loud, SS isn't.
You can't drown in Kendo, you can in SS.
Kendo is more entertaining than Fencing, SS is not.
Kendo is a sport, SS is certainly NOT.
I think it's a pretty well-crafted argument.
If any Olympic officials read this (because I'm sure you guys are keyed in to my thought processes...) then consider the following friendly tips:
Any event which requires people to wear makeup under water can go and get fucked.
Any event which is graded on artistic execution (gymnastics is exempt because 'not landing on one's head' is considered pretty damn skillful) can go and get fucked.
Any proposed event that involves dance and music and isn't Women's Gymnastics can go and get fucked.
A gymnastic floor routine could at least be used to flip backwards over a charging Grizzly Bear if it came down to it. All Synchronised Swimmers can do is attract large sharks.
Having said that, if 3 large Tiger Sharks were put into the synchronised swimming pool before the event started, then I would support keeping this event in the Olympics.
See how useful your arm flailing and splashing is now, you stupid people.
Cheers
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Truth and Honesty
Fie on me for not posting for a month. I'd say I have been busy but, truthfully, I have not.
A month ago I was made redundant, and I have been quite optimistically searching for jobs both near and far. A couple of positions interstate have been applied for, as as one overseas job, but neither have been responded to yet. Which brings me to today's topic, 'Truth and Honesty'. My last employer was talking about business dealings one day and stated that it is always best to be truthful and honest with your business dealings. This flies in the face of how he acted at some points during my time there, but there is a kernel of wisdom there (no, you can't compile it. Freakin' nerds.)
His point was that if you do not conduct business in a truthful and honest manner, then word will get out and people will view you as a duplicitous bastard who isn't worth their weight in lies. He was referring to a friend who screwed him over, 'He's still my friend, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.' Now, if his experience is anything to judge by, then it is only fair that a few institutions cop some flak from me.
Firstly: UniSA. You were good to me, all things considered. You have some wonderful lecturers and program co-ordinators, and I think they should be paid more. However, and this is a pretty fucking monumental 'however', you lied to me and about three hundred other students in 2002.
Like Hollywood's Oscar season, the first half of the year is what I like to call 'University Season'. It's the time when all the universities in the land send out promotional material to high schools which wax lyrical about the virtues of their various programs. Props to the guys who wrote that shit, because it fools thousands of students every year. He should be paid more.
Most of the brochures have 'High demand', 'Valuable skillsets', 'Valuable Commodity' written all over them in bold and above all funky text. If you want to be an engineer, this is the truth. If you want to be an IT guy, this is the truth. If you want to be an engineer, this is the... I already said engineer didn't I? For everyone else, it is a lie. If you want to be a teacher don't get your hopes up. Likewise for Public Relations Guy/Girl/Hybrid, Copywriter, Illustrator, Archaeologist (LOL, I know, right?), Early Childhood Educator and Communications something-or-other.
Students, like my good self, went to seminars and were told that our interests were viable commodities and that we would shape the world of tomorrow blah blah ad nauseum. The woman with bad hair and scary glasses stood at the podium in the suspiciously dark lecture theatre and spoke for a great length of time about how their graduates are picked up at companies straight out of uni.
Wow! That sounds exciting. You mean that since I have some talent and interest in writing, that I could be paid to do what I like doing? Fantastic! I'll go sign up now, hey? Don't want to miss my chance of getting in!
So you sign up and go through the motions and complete school and get that letter in the mail which says 'Congratulations, you got in'. You will note that there is no fine print on the bottom of the back page which reads 'Can you actually believe that these guys are taking the bait? This is fantastic - more money for us to conduct research into things no one cares about. Copyright 2002'
No one, and I mean NO ONE is as irrationally exuberant as first-year uni students (except for maybe teenage Christians with large smiles and bright eyes and a punch bowl full of suspicious cordial...). They walk around in huddles talking about how excited they are and how proud their trailer-trash parents are that they made it into uni. If they had half a brain or four years of uni experience to back them up, then they'd realised that they should have seen the lies through the smoke and mirrors of PR material and taken up Engineering or IT, if only they were good at maths and chemistry.
(NOTE: I was good at both until about year eleven when the teachers became arseholes and the course work turned out to be ALOT harder than previous years. I answered most of my year 11 Chemistry exam's questions with funny answers and smartarse comments. It came back with 'Fail. 22% No Smart-Aleck answers next time'. The joke's on her, my name isn't Aleck.)
After a year, the students are none-the-wiser, and it's only when they complete their final year that they realise 'Hey wait, we aren't in high demand'. An astute observer will notice that there are jobs going for these people, but they expect a minimum of 2 years experience, anyone that asks for a fresh-off-the-boat graduate are few and far between.
What I learned from university is that experience is what matters above all else. Granted, I improved some skills there and got some of my work published in a couple of books, but as a whole, the piece of paper I received at the end has not been as valuable as I expected it to be.
So, UniSA, and any University reading this, I'm not telling you that you're a bunch of fools, because frankly, some of the brightest people I have ever met work at that uni, and my hat goes off to them. What I do request is that you lock the marketing department in a lavatory for the duration of your planning meetings and that you take a leaf out of Google's book and refuse the urge to be Evil.
When bright-eyed students come up to you at the expos take away their suspicious cordial and crucifix around their neck, ask them what they want to be, and be TRUTHFUL about what you're offering. If you are offering an excellent education with publishing opportunities, then tell them that. Don't tell them that they are in high demand. If the private sector demanded the skills so much, why are you still working in admin for the uni, hmm?
Secondly: Recruitment agencies.
I haven't had quite as long to stew on this one, so this'll be shorter than the university section. One thing recruitment agencies need to do is keep track of the people under their 'care' (for lack of a better word), and to not hire idiots to represent them. My handler was an idiot. She didn't read things properly, didn't understand what I regard as the simplest of formatting protocols (the heading goes at the top. It's why it's called a heading), and repeatedly lost the folio which I sent her. To top it off, she spoke in a singsong voice, treated me like I was five years old and had a body so freckled you could have played 'Sheep paddocks' or 'Squares' or 'Lines' or whatever it is the kids are calling it these days (Fig. 1-4). Not that freckles are a bad thing of course, they just distracted me - some looked like they were forming a coalition to start a melanoma rebellion.
Figure 1:
.----.
. .
Figure 2:
.----.
.----.
Figure 3:
.----.
|
.----.
Figure 4:
.----.
| I win|
.----.
How are you supposed to entrust your career to someone like that? It's why I don't like relying on other people - in my experience, they'll screw ya, but in a bad way.
My problem with both of these influences is that it entailed untruths and blatant lies. Lying about whether you took a cookie from the cookie jar is hardly an earth-shattering lie, and in that circumstance isn't such a bad thing... unless it's my cookie that's been stolen. In the case of something impacting on a career, it's poor form to lie about the strengths of your product - people will stop buying it - known fact right there. I've certainly stopped buying it.
So here's a few tips to avoid being screwed:
1. Research your degree. I don't just mean look at their curriculum. Look at where graduates have gone. Independent studies are worthwhile here - I still don't trust internal studies, they tend to bolster their own numbers a bit.
2. Look in the paper or at job sites like www.careerone.com.au or www.seek.com.au (obviously for Aussie readers). Does anyone actually want someone with your qualifications? If not, does anyone want you overseas? They do? Great! Just resign yourself to the fact that you'll be leaving Australia to find work. Do this early. I took a while to reach this conclusion, and while it was a good thing to come to terms with, I regret not doing it a 6 years ago.
3. Don't rely on your degree. Alot of professions require a degree - engineering and teaching for example, but for those of you with a more shotgun-approach degree like mine (Bachelor of Professional and Creative Communication - used to have a BA in front... actually I think my piece of paper has the BA in front), then you need workplace experience to make an impact. That's what I'm working on at this point in time. Half the time your degree will be what gives you the edge over a plebian opponent, it won't be the thing that grabs their attention in the first place.
4. Don't rely on recruitment agencies. If you do, make sure you have a good reason to ie. Your handler doesn't look like she should work in a home for retarded four-year-olds. You have to scope stuff out yourself. It's boring, it's tiring, it's demoralising (Sam ticks all boxes) but I'm told it's worth it. It's helps if you're not a bitter cynic too.
5. Above all, be honest in your dealings with people. Don't give people the illusion that your actions mean something different to what they are. Doesn't mean you have to be nice, just be truthful. If you're a success then people say that 'you call a spade a spade' or that you're 'forthright' or that you 'tell it like it is'. If you're dishonest then you'll be regarded as a charlatan who shouldn't be trusted as far as you can be thrown - and you'd be surprised at how far someone can throw you.
Cheers.
A month ago I was made redundant, and I have been quite optimistically searching for jobs both near and far. A couple of positions interstate have been applied for, as as one overseas job, but neither have been responded to yet. Which brings me to today's topic, 'Truth and Honesty'. My last employer was talking about business dealings one day and stated that it is always best to be truthful and honest with your business dealings. This flies in the face of how he acted at some points during my time there, but there is a kernel of wisdom there (no, you can't compile it. Freakin' nerds.)
His point was that if you do not conduct business in a truthful and honest manner, then word will get out and people will view you as a duplicitous bastard who isn't worth their weight in lies. He was referring to a friend who screwed him over, 'He's still my friend, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.' Now, if his experience is anything to judge by, then it is only fair that a few institutions cop some flak from me.
Firstly: UniSA. You were good to me, all things considered. You have some wonderful lecturers and program co-ordinators, and I think they should be paid more. However, and this is a pretty fucking monumental 'however', you lied to me and about three hundred other students in 2002.
Like Hollywood's Oscar season, the first half of the year is what I like to call 'University Season'. It's the time when all the universities in the land send out promotional material to high schools which wax lyrical about the virtues of their various programs. Props to the guys who wrote that shit, because it fools thousands of students every year. He should be paid more.
Most of the brochures have 'High demand', 'Valuable skillsets', 'Valuable Commodity' written all over them in bold and above all funky text. If you want to be an engineer, this is the truth. If you want to be an IT guy, this is the truth. If you want to be an engineer, this is the... I already said engineer didn't I? For everyone else, it is a lie. If you want to be a teacher don't get your hopes up. Likewise for Public Relations Guy/Girl/Hybrid, Copywriter, Illustrator, Archaeologist (LOL, I know, right?), Early Childhood Educator and Communications something-or-other.
Students, like my good self, went to seminars and were told that our interests were viable commodities and that we would shape the world of tomorrow blah blah ad nauseum. The woman with bad hair and scary glasses stood at the podium in the suspiciously dark lecture theatre and spoke for a great length of time about how their graduates are picked up at companies straight out of uni.
Wow! That sounds exciting. You mean that since I have some talent and interest in writing, that I could be paid to do what I like doing? Fantastic! I'll go sign up now, hey? Don't want to miss my chance of getting in!
So you sign up and go through the motions and complete school and get that letter in the mail which says 'Congratulations, you got in'. You will note that there is no fine print on the bottom of the back page which reads 'Can you actually believe that these guys are taking the bait? This is fantastic - more money for us to conduct research into things no one cares about. Copyright 2002'
No one, and I mean NO ONE is as irrationally exuberant as first-year uni students (except for maybe teenage Christians with large smiles and bright eyes and a punch bowl full of suspicious cordial...). They walk around in huddles talking about how excited they are and how proud their trailer-trash parents are that they made it into uni. If they had half a brain or four years of uni experience to back them up, then they'd realised that they should have seen the lies through the smoke and mirrors of PR material and taken up Engineering or IT, if only they were good at maths and chemistry.
(NOTE: I was good at both until about year eleven when the teachers became arseholes and the course work turned out to be ALOT harder than previous years. I answered most of my year 11 Chemistry exam's questions with funny answers and smartarse comments. It came back with 'Fail. 22% No Smart-Aleck answers next time'. The joke's on her, my name isn't Aleck.)
After a year, the students are none-the-wiser, and it's only when they complete their final year that they realise 'Hey wait, we aren't in high demand'. An astute observer will notice that there are jobs going for these people, but they expect a minimum of 2 years experience, anyone that asks for a fresh-off-the-boat graduate are few and far between.
What I learned from university is that experience is what matters above all else. Granted, I improved some skills there and got some of my work published in a couple of books, but as a whole, the piece of paper I received at the end has not been as valuable as I expected it to be.
So, UniSA, and any University reading this, I'm not telling you that you're a bunch of fools, because frankly, some of the brightest people I have ever met work at that uni, and my hat goes off to them. What I do request is that you lock the marketing department in a lavatory for the duration of your planning meetings and that you take a leaf out of Google's book and refuse the urge to be Evil.
When bright-eyed students come up to you at the expos take away their suspicious cordial and crucifix around their neck, ask them what they want to be, and be TRUTHFUL about what you're offering. If you are offering an excellent education with publishing opportunities, then tell them that. Don't tell them that they are in high demand. If the private sector demanded the skills so much, why are you still working in admin for the uni, hmm?
Secondly: Recruitment agencies.
I haven't had quite as long to stew on this one, so this'll be shorter than the university section. One thing recruitment agencies need to do is keep track of the people under their 'care' (for lack of a better word), and to not hire idiots to represent them. My handler was an idiot. She didn't read things properly, didn't understand what I regard as the simplest of formatting protocols (the heading goes at the top. It's why it's called a heading), and repeatedly lost the folio which I sent her. To top it off, she spoke in a singsong voice, treated me like I was five years old and had a body so freckled you could have played 'Sheep paddocks' or 'Squares' or 'Lines' or whatever it is the kids are calling it these days (Fig. 1-4). Not that freckles are a bad thing of course, they just distracted me - some looked like they were forming a coalition to start a melanoma rebellion.
Figure 1:
.----.
. .
Figure 2:
.----.
.----.
Figure 3:
.----.
|
.----.
Figure 4:
.----.
| I win|
.----.
How are you supposed to entrust your career to someone like that? It's why I don't like relying on other people - in my experience, they'll screw ya, but in a bad way.
My problem with both of these influences is that it entailed untruths and blatant lies. Lying about whether you took a cookie from the cookie jar is hardly an earth-shattering lie, and in that circumstance isn't such a bad thing... unless it's my cookie that's been stolen. In the case of something impacting on a career, it's poor form to lie about the strengths of your product - people will stop buying it - known fact right there. I've certainly stopped buying it.
So here's a few tips to avoid being screwed:
1. Research your degree. I don't just mean look at their curriculum. Look at where graduates have gone. Independent studies are worthwhile here - I still don't trust internal studies, they tend to bolster their own numbers a bit.
2. Look in the paper or at job sites like www.careerone.com.au or www.seek.com.au (obviously for Aussie readers). Does anyone actually want someone with your qualifications? If not, does anyone want you overseas? They do? Great! Just resign yourself to the fact that you'll be leaving Australia to find work. Do this early. I took a while to reach this conclusion, and while it was a good thing to come to terms with, I regret not doing it a 6 years ago.
3. Don't rely on your degree. Alot of professions require a degree - engineering and teaching for example, but for those of you with a more shotgun-approach degree like mine (Bachelor of Professional and Creative Communication - used to have a BA in front... actually I think my piece of paper has the BA in front), then you need workplace experience to make an impact. That's what I'm working on at this point in time. Half the time your degree will be what gives you the edge over a plebian opponent, it won't be the thing that grabs their attention in the first place.
4. Don't rely on recruitment agencies. If you do, make sure you have a good reason to ie. Your handler doesn't look like she should work in a home for retarded four-year-olds. You have to scope stuff out yourself. It's boring, it's tiring, it's demoralising (Sam ticks all boxes) but I'm told it's worth it. It's helps if you're not a bitter cynic too.
5. Above all, be honest in your dealings with people. Don't give people the illusion that your actions mean something different to what they are. Doesn't mean you have to be nice, just be truthful. If you're a success then people say that 'you call a spade a spade' or that you're 'forthright' or that you 'tell it like it is'. If you're dishonest then you'll be regarded as a charlatan who shouldn't be trusted as far as you can be thrown - and you'd be surprised at how far someone can throw you.
Cheers.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
How to advertise a job (and where to stick the applications)
So, at the end of last week I was made redundant. Whoopee.
Granted, it was from a job that I disliked, that caused parts of my body to fail and, apparently, was paying lower than minimum wage. It was, however, a job. It was a place of familiarity where I could do something constructive for a financial end and meet new people along the way.
With the Ship of Unemployment sailing through the Fog of Depression towards the Shores of Destitution, I thought it was high-time someone told the writers of job ads how to do their jobs properly (feel free to point them to this site). Since I'll be reading alot of employment ads in the near future, I figure I may as well read good ones.
1. If you are writing an ad, know what you're advertising
Job hunters do not want to see an ad which says 'Are you interested in ducks? If so, call 555-1122' They want details. For many people changing vocations is an important step in their lives, and they want to make the right decision. They don't want a catchy line only to find there is no substance. It's the same as an attractive young lady giving you their number, only to turn around and say 'Oh, it was silly to give you my number like that'. So much promise, so little payoff.
A better way to advertise a job (and yes, there ARE ads like this out there) is to do it like this:
Catchy line to pique interest
We're looking for someone with the following skills...
... to do the following tasks...
... for this amount of money...
... at this location.
For more information contact X or go to the website @ www.website.com
It's the perfect job ad.
Stop wasting my time with stupid ads and, for the record, spell the damn things correctly. I saw an ad on www.seek.com.au a couple of weeks ago for a Copywriter. The ad was full of spelling errors and the grammar was appalling.
'Yer, I want 2 rite. Can U hir me plz? I are good at stuf. lol thx. '
2. If you want to hire people, how about advertising the position?
Apparently, 70% of available jobs are unadvertised. That sure makes sense. Have a vacant desk in your office? Just sit there and hope that the right person comes along. No wait, pray for the right person to come along. Then jam your genitals in a stapler, because that is going to be as effective, if not more so. The person who hears you screaming might just be the ideal candidate.
Job seminars and community centres and recruitment agencies always tell people to 'Network network network'. This means 'Tell people you are looking for jobs, make enquiries, make use of word of mouth.' Word of mouth is what has got me every job I have ever had, I have not had to apply for one. I even turned down a job on Tuesday because it was in the opposite direction of what I wanted (and of what my body could tolerate). I'm all for putting yourself out there. It's incredibly important for people to know that you are looking for work, because any number of people you know could know a guy who knows a guy.
At the same time, employers need to let people know the jobs are out there. One hand washes the other. I tell people I'm looking for a job as a Creative, one of those people sees an ad in a place I missed, and BAM! I land a new job.
Advertising is the key. Networking and 'word of mouth' go both ways.
3. So you've received 25 job applications. Now what?
Read them. This takes time, I know, but I get the feeling that people sometimes throw a pile of paper in the air and only read the applications that land text-side-up. It's more fun that way. It's also really inefficient, ineffective, and downright rude.
Cover letters are an excellent way of gauging the worthiness of an applicant and yet alot of places do not accept or request them when the job applications are done online. This is poor company policy and/or a lazy human resources department.
Once you've read every cover letter, skim all the résumés`. It could be that the résumé attached to a poor cover letter reveals an admirable applicant. Granted, their cover letter should have been better, but not everyone can think of a catchy line to grab attention; after all, the world does need accountants.
I took the initiative to write a cover letter and put it on the first page of my résumé before forwarding it. It was a gamble. I got an interview, but didn't get the job. I did learn however that it was the letter (in addition to the résumé) that got me the interview. The gamble paid off to some extent, and I learned something from the experience.
Okay, so out of the 25 applicants you have found 8 that suit your needs. The cover letters were outstanding, and maybe even entertaining, the résumés ticked all the applicable boxes, and each applicant would be well-suited to the position, except you can only pick 1. So what are you to do with the 17 other applications? You know, the ones that didn't make the grade? Bin them all (yes/no/maybe?) and assume that they will forget they ever applied?
NO!
No, no, no, no, no!
Get your head out of your 'I'm too busy' arse. Manners are too-often overlooked. You MUST notify failed applicants that they have not made it to the interview stage. If you do not, they sit with their thumbs up their arse for days and weeks on end wondering whether they'll hear from you or not. (Weeks is a reasonable comment - some places take months to tell you that you are the lucky winner of an interview.)
An automated email from the company which informs you that you haven't made it is sufficient. I do not require a gushing email telling me how great I am whilst all the while implying that I am shit at everything I do. All I require is a 'Dear Applicant, We're sorry to inform you that your application has not reached the next level of the application process. Thank you for applying, and best of luck in future endeavours. - Signed, I.M Faceless'
That's IT. That's all you have to do. If applications are emailed to a specific address, then it makes life even easier. You move the 'approved' applicants to a different email folder, then hit 'reply to all' in the main directory and send out your pre-packaged condolances. It takes bugger-all time (that's Australian for 'none') and the applicant can move on to the next poorly-written job ad.
Cheers
Granted, it was from a job that I disliked, that caused parts of my body to fail and, apparently, was paying lower than minimum wage. It was, however, a job. It was a place of familiarity where I could do something constructive for a financial end and meet new people along the way.
With the Ship of Unemployment sailing through the Fog of Depression towards the Shores of Destitution, I thought it was high-time someone told the writers of job ads how to do their jobs properly (feel free to point them to this site). Since I'll be reading alot of employment ads in the near future, I figure I may as well read good ones.
1. If you are writing an ad, know what you're advertising
Job hunters do not want to see an ad which says 'Are you interested in ducks? If so, call 555-1122' They want details. For many people changing vocations is an important step in their lives, and they want to make the right decision. They don't want a catchy line only to find there is no substance. It's the same as an attractive young lady giving you their number, only to turn around and say 'Oh, it was silly to give you my number like that'. So much promise, so little payoff.
A better way to advertise a job (and yes, there ARE ads like this out there) is to do it like this:
Catchy line to pique interest
We're looking for someone with the following skills...
... to do the following tasks...
... for this amount of money...
... at this location.
For more information contact X or go to the website @ www.website.com
It's the perfect job ad.
Stop wasting my time with stupid ads and, for the record, spell the damn things correctly. I saw an ad on www.seek.com.au a couple of weeks ago for a Copywriter. The ad was full of spelling errors and the grammar was appalling.
'Yer, I want 2 rite. Can U hir me plz? I are good at stuf. lol thx. '
2. If you want to hire people, how about advertising the position?
Apparently, 70% of available jobs are unadvertised. That sure makes sense. Have a vacant desk in your office? Just sit there and hope that the right person comes along. No wait, pray for the right person to come along. Then jam your genitals in a stapler, because that is going to be as effective, if not more so. The person who hears you screaming might just be the ideal candidate.
Job seminars and community centres and recruitment agencies always tell people to 'Network network network'. This means 'Tell people you are looking for jobs, make enquiries, make use of word of mouth.' Word of mouth is what has got me every job I have ever had, I have not had to apply for one. I even turned down a job on Tuesday because it was in the opposite direction of what I wanted (and of what my body could tolerate). I'm all for putting yourself out there. It's incredibly important for people to know that you are looking for work, because any number of people you know could know a guy who knows a guy.
At the same time, employers need to let people know the jobs are out there. One hand washes the other. I tell people I'm looking for a job as a Creative, one of those people sees an ad in a place I missed, and BAM! I land a new job.
Advertising is the key. Networking and 'word of mouth' go both ways.
3. So you've received 25 job applications. Now what?
Read them. This takes time, I know, but I get the feeling that people sometimes throw a pile of paper in the air and only read the applications that land text-side-up. It's more fun that way. It's also really inefficient, ineffective, and downright rude.
Cover letters are an excellent way of gauging the worthiness of an applicant and yet alot of places do not accept or request them when the job applications are done online. This is poor company policy and/or a lazy human resources department.
Once you've read every cover letter, skim all the résumés`. It could be that the résumé attached to a poor cover letter reveals an admirable applicant. Granted, their cover letter should have been better, but not everyone can think of a catchy line to grab attention; after all, the world does need accountants.
I took the initiative to write a cover letter and put it on the first page of my résumé before forwarding it. It was a gamble. I got an interview, but didn't get the job. I did learn however that it was the letter (in addition to the résumé) that got me the interview. The gamble paid off to some extent, and I learned something from the experience.
Okay, so out of the 25 applicants you have found 8 that suit your needs. The cover letters were outstanding, and maybe even entertaining, the résumés ticked all the applicable boxes, and each applicant would be well-suited to the position, except you can only pick 1. So what are you to do with the 17 other applications? You know, the ones that didn't make the grade? Bin them all (yes/no/maybe?) and assume that they will forget they ever applied?
NO!
No, no, no, no, no!
Get your head out of your 'I'm too busy' arse. Manners are too-often overlooked. You MUST notify failed applicants that they have not made it to the interview stage. If you do not, they sit with their thumbs up their arse for days and weeks on end wondering whether they'll hear from you or not. (Weeks is a reasonable comment - some places take months to tell you that you are the lucky winner of an interview.)
An automated email from the company which informs you that you haven't made it is sufficient. I do not require a gushing email telling me how great I am whilst all the while implying that I am shit at everything I do. All I require is a 'Dear Applicant, We're sorry to inform you that your application has not reached the next level of the application process. Thank you for applying, and best of luck in future endeavours. - Signed, I.M Faceless'
That's IT. That's all you have to do. If applications are emailed to a specific address, then it makes life even easier. You move the 'approved' applicants to a different email folder, then hit 'reply to all' in the main directory and send out your pre-packaged condolances. It takes bugger-all time (that's Australian for 'none') and the applicant can move on to the next poorly-written job ad.
Cheers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
