- Love. OK, a good start. Being able to love, and doing so wherever possible, is great. I also agree that this love can be for family or close friends, as well as romantic love.
- Get outside. Again, broadly speaking a good idea. Nature is good, and balancing one's indoor time with outdoor time is a good thing, by and large. I'd wait until it's nice, though. Rain, sleet etc. suck and do not engender an appreciation for the outdoors.
- Savor food. Food is great, but I've always taken offense to the idea that it must be consumed slowly and with excessive deliberation to be enjoyed. A fine dark chocolate truffle should be, yes. But a plate full of chicken wings deserves to be devoured as the velociraptors of yore devoured their hot-and-spicy chicken wings: quickly and messily. That is a pleasure in and of itself.
- Create a morning ritual. Morning sucks. It's tiring and mean. Coffee also sucks, but I understand that's a minority view. Either way, talking to myself and meditating will never make morning suck any less. It's to be gotten over with. Period. (mom, please stop reading this point NOW). Morning sex is good though, and can improve an otherwise-crappy time.
- Take chances. Spot on, something I've written about before.
- Follow excitement. OK, this is the first one that's nice in principle, but simply not realistic. Eventually, you have to actually get stuff done. Excitement is great but mundane tasks exist for a reason. You can't live your entire life on safari. It just doesn't happen.
- Find your passion. Yeah, this one's good too. It's on my to-do list.
- Get out of your cubicle. Good God, I hope I don't spend my career in a cubicle. But if I do, so be it. There's more to life than work, and if working in a cubicle gives me access to the things I want in life, that's a reasonable trade-off.
- Turn off the TV. There is some good stuff on TV, there really is. There is eye-opening, informative programming, there is uplifting, entertaining programming, and there is quality programming that's great for just turning your brain off for a limited period of time. There is, of course, a giant mountain of crap as well, and too much TV is bad. But to paint all of television with the same brush is simplistic and disingenuous.
- Pull away from the internet. First off, this guy really thinks his article is the only good thing on the 'net? Second of all, kiss my ass. There's a lot of good stuff on the net, too, and you only learn to sift the good from the bad through patience and experience.
- Travel. Travel is great, and most people love doing it and should do so to the extent they can. But become a freelancer, checking your email weekly? FANTASY LAND! Some jobs require physical presence, and they often pay enough for you to be able to afford to, you know, travel. Airplanes aren't free. Also, if you do travel, I'd highly recommend straying outside the most-touristy areas. The Eiffel Tower is fun and all, but there's more to France than that.
- Rediscover what's important. If you can reduce your life to a list of 4 or 5 keys things, you're a cloistered Buddhist monk and aren't reading this blog posting.
- Eliminate everything else. See above.
- Exercise. Yes, but do it because being a lard-ass is nasty. I was too fat for too much of my life. I've exercised extensively and regularly for two years now and I still hate just about every minute of it. So exercise, but do it to be healthier-up to 95% of American adults are overweight or obese. Be in the good 5%.
- Be positive. Yeah, because bottling up your negativity never has consequences! Look, life isn't always great-sometimes a little negativity is warranted. Just don't let it rule you.
- Open your heart. Tough thing to do, but worth it.
- Kiss in the rain. Passion is good, but anything can become routine. The key is to let the inner romantic have his moment when it's spontaneous and natural, not all the time. Also, don't pick wildflowers, pick a potato!
- Face your fears. Yup, good advice, and again, something I've written about before.
- When you suffer, suffer. This kind of contradicts his #15, but aligns nicely with my critique thereof.
- Slow down. No. The slower you go, the less you can do. And don't give me that "you enjoy it more" or "take time to stop and smell the roses" garbage. There's stuff to be done. Lots of it. The world, it turns out, is quite large. You want to travel? Hang out with friends? Watch the good TV shows? You gotta cram that into the 16 hours a day you're awake. And anyone who walks slowly on a sidewalk, obstructing those of us with better places to be deserves being pushed in front of a bus.
- Touch humanity. I don't need to talk to a smelly homeless dude to know his life sucks, I get it. Getting out of your comfort zone is a great experience, but to blithely say that everyone needs to experiences destitution first-hand is trite. Furthermore, you can cram your simplistic Buddhism-101 anti-materialism up your ass; how dare you tell me how to enjoy my life? I should feel guilty because I actually like the idea of watching movies (a pastime I do enjoy) on a 72" screen with 7.2 digital surround sound? Just because you can find enjoyment without material things doesn't mean there's anything intrinsically wrong with enjoying pastimes predicated on material possessions. Everyone likes different things and no one person can be the arbiter of what anyone else should like.
- Volunteer. Volunteering is good, but there are many ways to do it. The sick and dying are depressing and often icky. Not my cup of tea.
- Play with children. Yeah, just hang outside playgrounds and ask the wee kiddies to come play with you, I don't see how that could go wrong. Also, kids might be entertaining in small doses, but they're frustrating and draining on an ongoing basis.
- Talk to old people. Again, a broad statement. Some old people are interesting and have great stories. But many are senile, forgetful and incontinent. Either way, most of the elderly are at least a little bit creepy.
- Learn new skills. I agree with this one, but try not to lose the old skills, eh?
- Find spirituality. This, to me, is another classic example of assuming everyone is the same. Spirituality can be a great thing for some, but it's not for everyone. Some of us actually prefer proof and demonstrable, tangible credibility in the things in which we choose to believe.
- Take mini-retirements. Another fantasy-land invention. Every year you take off of work sets your career back by 18-24 months. Therefore, if you take your "mini-retirements" regularly, you'll just stall your career and once again, be unable to afford travel. And that whole "sell your house, live simply" crap? Yeah, selling a house takes like 2-12 months easily, depending on the market. And having shelter is a good thing. Living in tents 7 days a week gets old after awhile.
- Do nothing. Good advice, doing absolutely nothing every once and awhile is great for recharging the batteries. Although, again, he's contradicting his anti-TV statements here, he's agreeing with my opinion, so good for him.
- Stop playing video games. Again, the arrogance of telling me what I should and should not enjoy! I personally find moderated video game play to be an intellectual stimulant and a relaxing experience. I guess that makes me a slovenly wastrel. Oh no, wait, it makes him a dick for judging me.
- Watch sunsets, daily. First of all, overly-sappy and romantic. Second of all, some of us live in Manchester, where the "sun" is a myth at most. Finally, while I do love a good sunset, daily is a little overkill-it becomes a waste of time, and ruins the romance by converting it into standard routine.
- Stop reading magazines. Again, not all magazines are bad. Certainly, very few are as bad as the trashy romance novels he suggests as an alternative. Magazines run the gamut from vacuous celebrity-gossip to insightful political analysis, and to blacklist them as a hole is to cut yourself off from one of the most astute views of the society in which you live.
- Break out from ruts. I agree with this one, though he once again contradicts himself (by saying you should change the morning routine he suggested you establish way back in #4).
- Stop watching the news. Just because something is depressing, doesn't mean you have the right to be ignorant. The knowledge of the world around you can be vital in defining your place in the world, and knowing the day's events can lend you a depth and breadth of understanding that solely getting tidbits from your mother can never bring.
- Laugh until you cry. Laughing is great, and releases endorphins. But rolling on the ground laughing just makes me want to kick you in the ribs to see how funny you find that. I'm guessing, not very.
- Lose control. I'd modify this slightly and say exhibit control, but accept the limits. You can never control anyone else completely, and your self-control will forever be tested. Further, I agree that it's good to let go sometimes (beer helps with this).
- Cry. In Deep Thoughts By Jack Handey, he says "It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man." I think that speaks for itself.
- Make an awesome dessert. Amend that statement to "Make or buy an awesome dessert" and you've got my vote. Personally, I like to go for the most chocolatey substance I can lay hands on, but to each their own.
- Try something new, every week. Good advice, albeit a little impractical.
- Be in the moment. Don't overplan, but a failure to plan simply results in you getting blindsided by something you should be able to deal with adequately. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. People often make the mistake of assuming that planning for something makes you inflexible; this is wrong-it simply gives you a framework in which to operate. Furthermore, while unanticipated problems will always surface, so will concerns you should be able to anticipate for, and these can (and should) be mitigated.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
39 ways to live your life in an airy-fairy fantasy world
I just read an article called "39 Ways to Live, and Not Merely Exist" by someone named Leo Babauta, and while it seems on the surface to be life-affirming and generally good, it bothered me more and more as I read it. Not because some of the suggestions aren't good, but because many of them are airy-fairy, hippie nonsense that is great, unless you live in the real world. Furthermore, they assert a single ideal when it comes to what one "should do"; an ideal I feel is clichéd and lacking in both flexibility and understanding. So, consider this a point-by-point rebuttal and critique.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Update: Manchester, Poland and beyond
When I last brought everyone up to date on my status, I had just spent my first Christmas away from home, and my second New Years Eve. Since then, not a heck of a lot has gone on, but enough to warrant an update. (note: click on any of the pictures in this post to see a larger version)
I spent the first few months of 2007 as I spend most of my months-going to debate tournaments and slacking off from doing any real work. The debate season is much less intense after the Christmas break, so there were only a few IVs (tournaments) to go to, though we did quite well by and large (I generally went with DanB). We went to Glasgow twice, Edinburgh, and London and made it to the final or semi-final in each. Many escapades occurred at some of these, though I won't get into that, even if I could remember all the details.
The most interesting one was Tilbury House. Tilbury House is the debate society for the University of Cologne, Germany, and is legendary amongst Manchester debaters for being the most fun IV of the year. Aside from the fact that the Tilbury guys are some of the coolest, nicest and easiest-going debaters, it's also a chance to see a really nice city in Germany, and they provide all sort of entertainment and spectacle.
As is traditional with foreign IVs, we spent a few days just exploring Cologne itself.
The highlights of this are the gorgeous cathedral and the Lindt chocolate musem. The Cathedral is a massive testament to the Catholic church's penchant from dramatic architecture and the spires affords some amazing view of the city (in addition to a cardio workout that is non-pareil, given the number of steps one must climb to get there. Massive, vaulted ceilings, beautiful stained glass and works of art, and a series of enormous 
bells give testament to what you can achieve with nearly limitless untaxed financial resources, and a dedication to a higher power. Simply put, if you want to inspire a sense of awe in the almighty in people, a building like this is a great way to do it.
Interestingly, though, I found the interior of the cathedral to be somewhat... austere... compared to others I've seen. Notre Dame and Le Sacre Coeur in Paris, for example, absolutely drip with ostentatious opulence and grandeur. The Cologne cathedral, on the other hand-while grand and well-ornamented to be sure-had an interior largely devoid of excessive decoration. The massive walls up to the vaulted ceiling, for example, were largely bare, and presented an almost ascetic view of the church. Don't misunderstand-paintings and stained glass still abound, but they are more confined to specific areas than I've noted in other such grandiose churches.
The Lindt chocolate museum, on the other hand, was sugar-sweet fun.
It showed a history of both the origins of the cocoa bean and its cultivation, and the Lindt company itself. A wander-at-your-own-pace experience, I was able to see everything from the earliest tools and canoe used to harvest and transport the pods of cocoa beans, up to currently-operational chocolate-making machinery. Quite an interesting process to get from giant palm-frond-bearing trees with nearly tasteless, bitter beans up to chocolate so yummy it borders on being a controlled substance. Plus, the entire place smells of chocolate, which is always nice. There's also a gift shop, which is just mean, because after spending an hour and a half learning about chocolate, how am I supposed to resist spending way too much on cool varieties of chocolate (including my favourite-dark chocolate with a hint of chili powder).
The tournament itself was fun, though I did disappointingly poorly. In general, I'm not too fussed about doing well or poorly, but in this case, I felt my team (Hannah and I)
were clearly robbed in one round, which I do find frustrating. Still, one of the advantages of being thoroughly non-competitive is that you can still enjoy yourself even if you don't win. And we did that in droves. From a "bar crawl" that covered all of two bars (the latter of which I almost immediately fell asleep in despite being only tipsy) to a basement club buffet and party, to Kenny and I fake-smoking rolled-up vanilla wafers (while wearing a ridiculous shamrock Guinness hat I'd brought because it was St. Patrick's Day), it was a good time all around, and I eagerly await going back next year for more. And, in fairness, Manchester was represented in the final, as Tom and Kenny defended the right of people to gauge in incestual relationships (note: the sides of a debate are chosen randomly, and debaters' views do no necessarily represent what they argue in the round).
The next big event was my trip to Krakow, Poland. This was a fairly spur-of-the-moment trip, organised all of ten days before we left. Mo and his MBA compatriots were set to finish their
course near the middle of April, and Mo wanted to take some time off to travel before starting work. Therefore, he recruited myself and his friend Sam into a trip to Eastern Europe. We settled on Krakow fairly arbitrarily, insofar as it was cheap, none of us had ever been there, and I'd heard it was great (I have several friends who had spent some time in Krakow, and all raved about the experience). And I have to say, I'm glad we went.
I had misconceptions about Eastern Europe, largely based on the dated stereotypes of a run-down, desolate wasteland, held over from the days of the USSR and its iron curtain (see Eurotrip for the classic view of this stereotype). In fact, it's quite the contrary. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall and Soviet-era communism, and aided by the EU, the former Eastern Bloc countries have pushed for greater integration and prosperity, and it shows. Yes, there are still pre-fab construction apartment blocks, but there's also a wealth of old and exquisite architecture. Honestly, it's one of the favourite trips I've taken, and I cannot wait to go back.
Partly, we got lucky. The entire time we were there, it was 22C and sunny, which makes any trip nicer (just wish I'd brought shorts). But it's more than that. Krakow, especially in April, when we went, isn't too touristy, so you don't get a throng of camera-wielding people wherever you go. Everything is cheap-food, beer, consumer products, all cost about 1/3 of what they do in the UK. The women are beautiful and plentiful, a wonderful-if rare-combination. The nightlife was thriving and featured a lack of cover charges in addition to the aforementioned cheap drinks. And there's tons of history, which I will describe below (since the nightlife stories don't exactly require a lot of explanation). There are three historic sites of note which I visited while there: Kamierz, Auschwitz, Wawel Castle and the Wieliczka salt mine.
Kazimierz is the Jewish district, which at one point was the largest Jewish community in all of Europe. Though many of the Jews fled during the Nazi occupation, the area still maintains its distinctive feel and atmosphere, and provided a nice walk on a sunny day. I also ate, with Sam, one of the best meals I had in Poland at a small restaurant called "Noah's Ark", which featured live traditional Jewish music, played by a three-piece band (bass, clarinet and accordion).
Auschwitz, of course, lies at the other end of the spectrum of Jewish significance.
The site of the largest concentration camps of the Nazi regime, Auschwitz and Birkenau, the location is steeped in morbid infamy. I unfortunately arrived late in the day, only about an hour and a half before the close of the camp (now a museum), so I didn't get to explore to the extent that I would have liked.
The front gates of Auschwitz are marked with the infamous slogan Arbeit Macht Frei. This translates to "work will set you free". Which, as it turns out, was a lie. Auschwitz, and more specifically Birkenau (which I ran out of time for, and didn't get to see) were home to the worst parts of the Nazi "Final Solution". This is where people were herded onto cattle cars and gassed by the thousands. Needless to say, it's a sobering experience. However, what I found interesting is that the camp itself didn't seem as ominous as I'd expected; though obviously people were crammed in well beyond any reasonable capacity, the barracks looked like standard barracks, not the bastions of torture they really were. What really drove the point home, though, was the little things. It was seeing a display of the hundreds of thousands of eye glasses, shoes or combs that were unearthed. Even though it doesn't seem like this should carry the same weight as the pictures and descriptions of the place, these displays of so many commonplace objects, combined with the obvious reason behind their being discarded, really drove home the magnitude of the atrocities.
It also created an interesting dilemma for me, as a visitor to the camp. After being chastised many times by my mother for taking pictures of places and things as opposed to myself in those places, I have made sure I get photos of myself whenever I travel. But, it brought up an interesting question: is it right to smile in a photo taken at Auschwitz? It seems very disrespectful to be smiling in photos of a place where one of the worst crimes in human history was perpetrated, where untold millions lost their lives. In the end, I chose to appear in the photos, but to not smile.
Wieliczka, on the other hand, is a much cheerier place.
It's a salt mine first opened in the 13th century, though surface salt had been discovered as much as 200 years prior. It's also, by far, the biggest salt mine in the world, extending down over 300m and featuring over 200km of internal tunnels and over 2000 caverns. This alone would make it an interesting site to see. What's truly fascinating, however, is the carvings. You see, as the miners (who were not professional sculptors) dug further into the earth, they created massive carvings along their way, of amazing intricacy. But these carvings and statues were not hewn from stone or wood; instead they were carved directly into the salt walls themselves. The big giant head you see Mo and I standing besides (and old king of Poland), for example, was carved directly from the salt itself as the cavern was excavated. Futhermore, the plaque behind the head, the walls and 
even the floor and ceiling were similarly carved out of the salt walls. They even carved mosaics, including the last supper and other frescos. The work was amazing intricate and I verified that it was made out of salt (I licked the Copernicus statue). The amount of time and effort required for such a thing is truly mind-boggling.
Perhaps most impressive, though, was the main hall.
The picture you see to the left is a view from the balcony (also carved out of salt). What must be noted about this view is that everything is made out of salt. The stairs, the floor "tiles", even the chandeliers! At one point, this entire hall (about 125m underground, by the way) was nothing more than a solid wall of rock salt. It was only as the salt was removed for sale and processing that the hall as you now see it emerged. And once more, you wouldn't know it, unless you you were told (or licked the walls and floor), because the floor looks like marble tiles, as do the stairs and walls; the chandeliers look like any other crystal chandeliers, and the wall carvings look like stone carvings. At the far end of the hall is an entire Catholic altar for church proceedings (most of the miners were very religious). It truly was a marvel to see.
Needless to say, I loved Poland. while there I ran into a random Canadian who was spending a year teaching English. I have to see, it's an idea whose appeal seems instantly obvious to me. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and cannot wait to go back; the idea of being able to spend a year really getting to know the city is one with great magnetism. No matter what, I know I will return, as soon as I am able.
And that brings us pretty much up to speed. My work is progressing, slowly. I have made up my first batch of samples, and have sent them off to the lab with which collaborate (in Marseilles, France). In the meantime, I'm back to doing more boring journal-reading and online research. Which is why I get bored and write in my blog instead of doing work. That being said, I'm hoping to get some real results soon, which is both encouraging and something I hope will spur further excitement-it's easy to feel the drag of long projects like this one. I hope all is well with any who read this, and look forward to hearing from you soon.
I spent the first few months of 2007 as I spend most of my months-going to debate tournaments and slacking off from doing any real work. The debate season is much less intense after the Christmas break, so there were only a few IVs (tournaments) to go to, though we did quite well by and large (I generally went with DanB). We went to Glasgow twice, Edinburgh, and London and made it to the final or semi-final in each. Many escapades occurred at some of these, though I won't get into that, even if I could remember all the details.
The most interesting one was Tilbury House. Tilbury House is the debate society for the University of Cologne, Germany, and is legendary amongst Manchester debaters for being the most fun IV of the year. Aside from the fact that the Tilbury guys are some of the coolest, nicest and easiest-going debaters, it's also a chance to see a really nice city in Germany, and they provide all sort of entertainment and spectacle.As is traditional with foreign IVs, we spent a few days just exploring Cologne itself.
The highlights of this are the gorgeous cathedral and the Lindt chocolate musem. The Cathedral is a massive testament to the Catholic church's penchant from dramatic architecture and the spires affords some amazing view of the city (in addition to a cardio workout that is non-pareil, given the number of steps one must climb to get there. Massive, vaulted ceilings, beautiful stained glass and works of art, and a series of enormous 
bells give testament to what you can achieve with nearly limitless untaxed financial resources, and a dedication to a higher power. Simply put, if you want to inspire a sense of awe in the almighty in people, a building like this is a great way to do it.Interestingly, though, I found the interior of the cathedral to be somewhat... austere... compared to others I've seen. Notre Dame and Le Sacre Coeur in Paris, for example, absolutely drip with ostentatious opulence and grandeur. The Cologne cathedral, on the other hand-while grand and well-ornamented to be sure-had an interior largely devoid of excessive decoration. The massive walls up to the vaulted ceiling, for example, were largely bare, and presented an almost ascetic view of the church. Don't misunderstand-paintings and stained glass still abound, but they are more confined to specific areas than I've noted in other such grandiose churches.
The Lindt chocolate museum, on the other hand, was sugar-sweet fun.
It showed a history of both the origins of the cocoa bean and its cultivation, and the Lindt company itself. A wander-at-your-own-pace experience, I was able to see everything from the earliest tools and canoe used to harvest and transport the pods of cocoa beans, up to currently-operational chocolate-making machinery. Quite an interesting process to get from giant palm-frond-bearing trees with nearly tasteless, bitter beans up to chocolate so yummy it borders on being a controlled substance. Plus, the entire place smells of chocolate, which is always nice. There's also a gift shop, which is just mean, because after spending an hour and a half learning about chocolate, how am I supposed to resist spending way too much on cool varieties of chocolate (including my favourite-dark chocolate with a hint of chili powder).The tournament itself was fun, though I did disappointingly poorly. In general, I'm not too fussed about doing well or poorly, but in this case, I felt my team (Hannah and I)
were clearly robbed in one round, which I do find frustrating. Still, one of the advantages of being thoroughly non-competitive is that you can still enjoy yourself even if you don't win. And we did that in droves. From a "bar crawl" that covered all of two bars (the latter of which I almost immediately fell asleep in despite being only tipsy) to a basement club buffet and party, to Kenny and I fake-smoking rolled-up vanilla wafers (while wearing a ridiculous shamrock Guinness hat I'd brought because it was St. Patrick's Day), it was a good time all around, and I eagerly await going back next year for more. And, in fairness, Manchester was represented in the final, as Tom and Kenny defended the right of people to gauge in incestual relationships (note: the sides of a debate are chosen randomly, and debaters' views do no necessarily represent what they argue in the round).The next big event was my trip to Krakow, Poland. This was a fairly spur-of-the-moment trip, organised all of ten days before we left. Mo and his MBA compatriots were set to finish their
course near the middle of April, and Mo wanted to take some time off to travel before starting work. Therefore, he recruited myself and his friend Sam into a trip to Eastern Europe. We settled on Krakow fairly arbitrarily, insofar as it was cheap, none of us had ever been there, and I'd heard it was great (I have several friends who had spent some time in Krakow, and all raved about the experience). And I have to say, I'm glad we went.I had misconceptions about Eastern Europe, largely based on the dated stereotypes of a run-down, desolate wasteland, held over from the days of the USSR and its iron curtain (see Eurotrip for the classic view of this stereotype). In fact, it's quite the contrary. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall and Soviet-era communism, and aided by the EU, the former Eastern Bloc countries have pushed for greater integration and prosperity, and it shows. Yes, there are still pre-fab construction apartment blocks, but there's also a wealth of old and exquisite architecture. Honestly, it's one of the favourite trips I've taken, and I cannot wait to go back.
Partly, we got lucky. The entire time we were there, it was 22C and sunny, which makes any trip nicer (just wish I'd brought shorts). But it's more than that. Krakow, especially in April, when we went, isn't too touristy, so you don't get a throng of camera-wielding people wherever you go. Everything is cheap-food, beer, consumer products, all cost about 1/3 of what they do in the UK. The women are beautiful and plentiful, a wonderful-if rare-combination. The nightlife was thriving and featured a lack of cover charges in addition to the aforementioned cheap drinks. And there's tons of history, which I will describe below (since the nightlife stories don't exactly require a lot of explanation). There are three historic sites of note which I visited while there: Kamierz, Auschwitz, Wawel Castle and the Wieliczka salt mine.
Kazimierz is the Jewish district, which at one point was the largest Jewish community in all of Europe. Though many of the Jews fled during the Nazi occupation, the area still maintains its distinctive feel and atmosphere, and provided a nice walk on a sunny day. I also ate, with Sam, one of the best meals I had in Poland at a small restaurant called "Noah's Ark", which featured live traditional Jewish music, played by a three-piece band (bass, clarinet and accordion).
Auschwitz, of course, lies at the other end of the spectrum of Jewish significance.
The site of the largest concentration camps of the Nazi regime, Auschwitz and Birkenau, the location is steeped in morbid infamy. I unfortunately arrived late in the day, only about an hour and a half before the close of the camp (now a museum), so I didn't get to explore to the extent that I would have liked.The front gates of Auschwitz are marked with the infamous slogan Arbeit Macht Frei. This translates to "work will set you free". Which, as it turns out, was a lie. Auschwitz, and more specifically Birkenau (which I ran out of time for, and didn't get to see) were home to the worst parts of the Nazi "Final Solution". This is where people were herded onto cattle cars and gassed by the thousands. Needless to say, it's a sobering experience. However, what I found interesting is that the camp itself didn't seem as ominous as I'd expected; though obviously people were crammed in well beyond any reasonable capacity, the barracks looked like standard barracks, not the bastions of torture they really were. What really drove the point home, though, was the little things. It was seeing a display of the hundreds of thousands of eye glasses, shoes or combs that were unearthed. Even though it doesn't seem like this should carry the same weight as the pictures and descriptions of the place, these displays of so many commonplace objects, combined with the obvious reason behind their being discarded, really drove home the magnitude of the atrocities.
It also created an interesting dilemma for me, as a visitor to the camp. After being chastised many times by my mother for taking pictures of places and things as opposed to myself in those places, I have made sure I get photos of myself whenever I travel. But, it brought up an interesting question: is it right to smile in a photo taken at Auschwitz? It seems very disrespectful to be smiling in photos of a place where one of the worst crimes in human history was perpetrated, where untold millions lost their lives. In the end, I chose to appear in the photos, but to not smile.
Wieliczka, on the other hand, is a much cheerier place.
It's a salt mine first opened in the 13th century, though surface salt had been discovered as much as 200 years prior. It's also, by far, the biggest salt mine in the world, extending down over 300m and featuring over 200km of internal tunnels and over 2000 caverns. This alone would make it an interesting site to see. What's truly fascinating, however, is the carvings. You see, as the miners (who were not professional sculptors) dug further into the earth, they created massive carvings along their way, of amazing intricacy. But these carvings and statues were not hewn from stone or wood; instead they were carved directly into the salt walls themselves. The big giant head you see Mo and I standing besides (and old king of Poland), for example, was carved directly from the salt itself as the cavern was excavated. Futhermore, the plaque behind the head, the walls and 
even the floor and ceiling were similarly carved out of the salt walls. They even carved mosaics, including the last supper and other frescos. The work was amazing intricate and I verified that it was made out of salt (I licked the Copernicus statue). The amount of time and effort required for such a thing is truly mind-boggling.Perhaps most impressive, though, was the main hall.
The picture you see to the left is a view from the balcony (also carved out of salt). What must be noted about this view is that everything is made out of salt. The stairs, the floor "tiles", even the chandeliers! At one point, this entire hall (about 125m underground, by the way) was nothing more than a solid wall of rock salt. It was only as the salt was removed for sale and processing that the hall as you now see it emerged. And once more, you wouldn't know it, unless you you were told (or licked the walls and floor), because the floor looks like marble tiles, as do the stairs and walls; the chandeliers look like any other crystal chandeliers, and the wall carvings look like stone carvings. At the far end of the hall is an entire Catholic altar for church proceedings (most of the miners were very religious). It truly was a marvel to see.Needless to say, I loved Poland. while there I ran into a random Canadian who was spending a year teaching English. I have to see, it's an idea whose appeal seems instantly obvious to me. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and cannot wait to go back; the idea of being able to spend a year really getting to know the city is one with great magnetism. No matter what, I know I will return, as soon as I am able.
And that brings us pretty much up to speed. My work is progressing, slowly. I have made up my first batch of samples, and have sent them off to the lab with which collaborate (in Marseilles, France). In the meantime, I'm back to doing more boring journal-reading and online research. Which is why I get bored and write in my blog instead of doing work. That being said, I'm hoping to get some real results soon, which is both encouraging and something I hope will spur further excitement-it's easy to feel the drag of long projects like this one. I hope all is well with any who read this, and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The MacOS as a command economy, the PC as a free market
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Working men of all countries, unite!"- Karl Marx
As a note of disclosure, I have been using Macs exclusively at home, starting 20 years ago with a Mac 512K, up to my current system-a PowerMac G5 tower. I have used a variety of Windows-based systems at school and work, and have dabbled very slightly in Linux/Unix, but cannot claim significant knowledge. In addition, I read Slashdot and similar nerdy sites, thus keeping abreast of tech news to whatever extent I can (often to the detriment of my general world knowledge and my Ph.D.). My undergrad degree was also computer related, specifically it was in Engineering Systems and Computing. So, while I'm by no means a professional tech pundit, neither am I a babe in the woods.
So, let me first be clear about why I feel each approach is representative of the economic/political strategy with which I have associated it. Apple has traditionally tried to maintain much tighter control over its products. Putting aside the poorly-thought-out cloning program in the mid-90s, Apple has been the only company capable (legally and technically) of making computers that run the MacOS. Furthermore, they have stuck to stringent standards with their computers: whereas a company like Dell will buy network cards (for example) from whichever supplier can give them the best price on a given day, Apple tends to stick to one manufacturer-and one particular model of network cards-for long periods of time. Apple tends to include lots of features right on the motherboard that PC manufacturers typically include as PCI cards (high-quality sound cards, gigabit ethernet, firewire, etc.). As a result, there is a comparatively small market of upgrade cards for Macs. Since Apple includes most features on-board that average users would need, many people will never even upgrade. Therefore, Apple can reasonably predict that the overwhelming majority of its products in use conform to a reasonably small, and definitely finite set of specifications. Furthermore, Apple provides, free of charge on new Macs, a fairly robust set of software-notably iLife (photo management, music creation and playing, video and DVD creation), iWork (a word processor and Powerpoint-like presentation application), Safari (Apple's Web Browser) and Mail.
The PC world, on the other hand, is dominated by a plethora of manufacturers. You want to buy a network card? There are 200 brands at your local PC superstore. USB cards and peripherals, video cards, and of course, software, all come in myriad competing packages. Though Windows is dominant on the operating system front, there is a hardcore contingent of Linux and Unix users. Furthermore, because the basic installation of Windows contains fairly rudimentary software packages compared to iLife and iWork, and because there are so many Windows users, there's a much more burgeoning market for 3rd-party software. As a result of all this, there is a nearly-limitless number of potential configurations of PC machines. Any slightly-different combination of modem/network card/video card/USB card/Operating System/Productivity applications/etc. is an entirely novel setup compared to any other. While I'm sure the number of potential setups is theoretically finite, I pity the poor bastard who'd have to even figure out how many potential combinations there are, much less what they all are. Similarly, non-iPod MP3 players can choose from a variety of online music stores (Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music and the like) whereas the iTunes store is the only store that sells DRM-protected music that will play on the iPod. Note that the iPod will also quite happily play any non-protected MP3s, AACs, WAVs and a few other formats; this is true of most other MP3 players as well, though many will also play WMA, which the iPod will not.
So, what can we glean from these approaches? Well, I feel that it provides insight into the pros and cons of trying to control the delivery of a service, versus letting anyone and everyone take a shot at getting their product into play.
Macs have long been known to be more stable. This has changed with recent versions of Windows XP, but certainly there are still some issues. For example, I have crazy USB issues on my work PC, where certain devices will only work when connected to certain ports. The reason for this is drivers-little bits of software that tell an operating system how to communicate with attached devices. Each device requires its own drivers, and sometimes those drivers conflict. On the Mac side, you can test fairly well for this; on the PC side, there are just too many combinations of hardware, and from too many obscure, fly-by-night manufacturers to be able to do so.
Macs, on the other hand, are engineered from the get-go to run largely on hardware and software produced by Apple; while the choices are often more limited, the coherence tends to be much better. I know many people will dispute this, and it's ultimately a matter of taste, but I think that by-and-large the consistency and stability of Macs has long been considered one of its strongest points. And this is a result of Apple's position as an influential player in the computer market as a whole and their exclusive role within the Mac platform. A secondary effect of this is that Apple is able to dictate, essentially by fiat, what will be included on Macs. They therefore have the ability to push new technologies in a way that no individual PC manufacturer (say, Dell or HP) can. Although USB was designed by Intel and supported by Microsoft, the single biggest push to adoption of the technology was when Apple included it as the sole peripheral interface on the wildly-popular first-generation iMac. Because of the popularity of that machine, and because ever single iMac sold had to use USB to connect printers, mice, keyboards, etc. (Apple dropped legacy technologies such as ADB, serial and SCSI ports), it provided an instant market and is widely considered to be the turning point for the adoption of USB. Similar effects can be found with CD-ROM drives in the late 1980s, Wi-Fi networking and more.
This then leads to the parallels one can draw. When the Soviet Union represented the dominant socialist power on Earth, it provided a unique vantage point for comparative economic theory. And what we saw reflects what I've stated above. Putting political oppression aside for the moment, when it came to thing like consumer choice, Americans had a definite advantage. A free market, by its very nature promotes choice and competition; Americans had choices in consumer goods that Soviets could never dream about. Furthermore, the efficiencies in manufacture and delivery of goods drove costs down (Macs, at least to a superficial inspection, still tend to cost more than bog-standard PCs), and increased speed of delivery (when Intel announces a new CPU, Dell and HP tend to announce computers using that CPU on the same day; Apple does so much later). However, the flip side to this is internal conflict. Standardisation can be difficult (see the money wasted on the needless VHS vs. Beta/BluRay vs. HD-DVD/X2 vs K56Flex vs. 42bis format wars for videos, next-gen DVDs and modems, respectively). Furthermore, the companies vie for what is best for their bottom line, not necessarily what is best for the consumer. We end up with cheap, disposable, environmentally unfriendly products far more often than we should.
A single command point is slower to react, but generally leads to-eventually-greater synchronicity. Apple's near-fanatical devotion to easy-to-use interfaces tends to trickle down to 3rd-party Mac software; one of the most common complaints of Mac versions of Windows software is that it doesn't "feel like a Mac application". Apple is in a unique position to do so, because they control so much of the vertical integration, they can set an example that Microsoft, Adobe, etc. simply cannot. Furthermore, individual components not only work better together, but can do so in a more-intuitive way, because one company-with a visionary leader at the helm, no less-directs how things "should" work. The Soviet Union didn't exactly prise aesthetics in design, but they certainly praised consistency and comprehensibility to a degree that the disparate companies of the West never did.
The reality, of course, is that no rational person preaches either a fully-unregulated free market, nor a micromanagement, top-down command economy. As with so many other things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And of course, with my computing analogy, neither the PC world, nor the Mac world truly represent either extreme: Macs do compete with PCs, as well as Linux distributions that run on Mac hardware; similarly, PCs adhere to standards and practices laid down by the government or standards bodies. When it comes to computing, it ultimately should be a personal choice: which "feels" better to you. For me that's a Mac, for others its Windows or Linux. So be it. Fortunately for us, our system of government allows for enough of a free market to ensure that each one of us can choose the platform we like. However, to assume that there are no downsides is about as foolhardy as blindly choosing Windows just because there are more boxes on the shelf than there are for Macs. Choice is important, but it too comes with a cost.
"Unfortunately, people are not rebelling against Microsoft. They don’t know any better."-Steve
Jobs
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
What I do: Introduction and index
OK, I get a lot of questions (from friends and family) about what it is that I do, specifically in terms of my research. So, I'm going to start posting to this blog with some background and updates about said research. This page will serve as the basic introduction, and I will link to any updates here as well. In addition, I will try and make sure I tag any such post with the "What I Do" tag, so you can search for them all.
The basic introduction is this: I'm a Ph.D. student, studying at the University of Manchester. I'm in the Microelectronics and Nanostructures (M&N) group, which is within the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. I started in September 2005 on a 3-4 year course; I'm hoping to finish in early 2009.
The area, and approximate title of my research is Quantum Dots: Electrical Characterisation and Novel Nanofabrication Methods. Isn't that exciting? In the coming weeks and months, I hope to add posts to the list of "What I Do" explanatory posts, so that anyone who cares what I do will be able to at least understand the gist of that title, and the research it represents.
Stay tuned...
Index of "What I Do" posts:
The basic introduction is this: I'm a Ph.D. student, studying at the University of Manchester. I'm in the Microelectronics and Nanostructures (M&N) group, which is within the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. I started in September 2005 on a 3-4 year course; I'm hoping to finish in early 2009.
The area, and approximate title of my research is Quantum Dots: Electrical Characterisation and Novel Nanofabrication Methods. Isn't that exciting? In the coming weeks and months, I hope to add posts to the list of "What I Do" explanatory posts, so that anyone who cares what I do will be able to at least understand the gist of that title, and the research it represents.
Stay tuned...
Index of "What I Do" posts:
- Coming Soon...
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Why we take risks
"I haven't failed; I've found 10,000 ways that don't work."-Thomas Edison
Growth. It's a hard thing to pin down, how we change, adapt, and grow. It's a process that happens organically; one over which we have no direct control. We develop in ways we never would have predicted and could never have directed. It is a combination of who we are, and the experiences we encounter that change us; while we cannot change how those experiences will alter who we are, we do have some control over which experiences we encounter.
Every day we are presented with choices; every day we are presented with risks. And with every risk comes a gut reaction. Our instincts leads us in one direction. But just as we no longer rely on a purely "fight or flight" instinct to decide on the best course of action in every scenario, neither can we delegate to our gut reactions every daily decision, every risk-taking.
Just like fear, risk is good, but often scary. A lot of the time, we let our fear make our decisions for us; we avoid risk, because we're too scared of the outcome to take chances. But, as with fear, it would often be to our advantage to take more risks. Because we learn from each experience, whether or not it achieves the goals we'd hoped for. To paraphrase Robert Frost, when we take the road less traveled, we are all the better for it. Because we have a width and depth of experiences unparalleled by those who choose safety by default.
Our experiences are a map from who we were to who we are and will be; we are the people that our experiences have made us into. And with a richer mosaic of experiences, we become more-developed, more-diverse people. We cannot learn about ourselves and our world without experiencing many things; more specifically, we cannot grow without experiencing some failure, some disappointment.
We will often shy away from risk for fear of being hurt. This is doubly true with emotional risk, as it is those cuts which go deepest. But the irony is that it is those experiences that most augment ourselves, making us into better, stronger people. It is all too easy to shut out everything new, everything we "think" we don't like; it's much harder to try something we have convinced ourselves we won't like and see what happens. It seems counterintuitive that getting hurt can make you stronger, that failing can make you more likely to succeed in the future; but this is the very nature of personal growth.
I should clarify by saying that not every risk should be taken. Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, while undoubtedly an eye-opening experience, is a risk with very significant downsides and little benefit. But when an opportunity presents itself that we find ourselves greeting with apprehension, it is important to consider that this might just be one of those risks that we need to lead us down the path of enlightenment and improvement. And those are the risks we should always take. Because without it, we will never grow, and will forever live in the shadow of what might have been, had we merely had the force of will to try. When we try new things, we never wonder "what if", because we already know the answer.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream."-Mark Twain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
