These seem to be the most popular results for a search of "what is the most important thing in the world". There's a bit of grouping (I throw family in with love most notably), but that's a pretty good breakdown of the results online.
If I were to really work at it, I could probably get some form of a pentagon of equivalence of these (God is Love and the like). But that would be too clever by half. The more interesting ordering is linearly looking at God Love Football Money Sex, where we go from the heavy to the trivial, the permanent to the ephemeral, the communal to the individual, but also from the painful to the pleasurable or the immaterial to the concrete.
It's probably most peculiar having Football being listed as more weighty than Money. But football and similar contests are by necessity about "us v. them", while money is "me v. the world". Money may bring power, but football can bring glory. And conversely, it's a lot easier to get pleasure out of money than it is football.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Webrings and Blogrolls
Is the web at large too big and impersonal to support community?
Not a community of people, a community of web sites. The sense of implicit camaraderie that caused the development of one of the popular features of 1990s Geocities pages, the Web Ring. For those that choose not to remember, a web ring was a collection of sites that had a banner on them "This site is part of the Terry Pratchett Web Ring", with a link to the "previous" and "next" sites, and a link to the web ring home page (which had a link to all of the sites). You don't see this type of thing any more (except possibly for irony) and for good reason: It was pretty much a terrible idea all around.
1) Most of the sites were lousy even by 1990s web standards.
2) Because most of the sites were lousy, the good sites wouldn't join, causing the quality to get even worse.
3) Who really wants to look at 57 different Terry Pratchett Fan sites?
4) Not only were the sites lousy, a bunch of them were almost certainly going to be broken links or unrelated pages by the time you looked at it.
With all those caveats (and I could have listed more), the question remains: Did they support community on the web? Did "Joe's world of Klatch" belonging to the prestigious "Top Pratchett Fan Sites" web ring make Joe feel like he was a part of the Pratchett fan site community?
In a scientific sense, it would be hard to tell, since Joe probably has tried to forget about the site for the past 10 years, and now that Geocities is dead it is probably offline entirely. And since there may not have been more than 4 or 5 people that cared about the web ring at any one time, it's hard to say that there ever existed a community in the first place. Maybe Joe felt he was now part of the world of the internet with a real web page , who knows.
Anyhow, we now have something that we didn't have in the 90s, blogs. (Dave Winer aside, blogging didn't really take off until the 00's.) And the thing about blogs is that it's immediately obvious whether they are completely out of date or not, since each pot has a nice timestamp at the top. Blogs can try to be topical, but they generally meander from their ostensible topic somewhat. And blogs can have the aforementioned blog roll. The list of 20 to 500 "blogs we like". Arguably a relic of an earlier era, thse are still present on virtually every major blog-like site, be it Kos or Huffington Post or Matt Drudge or the New York Times' blogs. And while many of these have the soft personal touch that only a faceless corporation can provide, there's definitely some sense of association associated with those.
Not a community of people, a community of web sites. The sense of implicit camaraderie that caused the development of one of the popular features of 1990s Geocities pages, the Web Ring. For those that choose not to remember, a web ring was a collection of sites that had a banner on them "This site is part of the Terry Pratchett Web Ring", with a link to the "previous" and "next" sites, and a link to the web ring home page (which had a link to all of the sites). You don't see this type of thing any more (except possibly for irony) and for good reason: It was pretty much a terrible idea all around.
1) Most of the sites were lousy even by 1990s web standards.
2) Because most of the sites were lousy, the good sites wouldn't join, causing the quality to get even worse.
3) Who really wants to look at 57 different Terry Pratchett Fan sites?
4) Not only were the sites lousy, a bunch of them were almost certainly going to be broken links or unrelated pages by the time you looked at it.
With all those caveats (and I could have listed more), the question remains: Did they support community on the web? Did "Joe's world of Klatch" belonging to the prestigious "Top Pratchett Fan Sites" web ring make Joe feel like he was a part of the Pratchett fan site community?
In a scientific sense, it would be hard to tell, since Joe probably has tried to forget about the site for the past 10 years, and now that Geocities is dead it is probably offline entirely. And since there may not have been more than 4 or 5 people that cared about the web ring at any one time, it's hard to say that there ever existed a community in the first place. Maybe Joe felt he was now part of the world of the internet with a real web page , who knows.
Anyhow, we now have something that we didn't have in the 90s, blogs. (Dave Winer aside, blogging didn't really take off until the 00's.) And the thing about blogs is that it's immediately obvious whether they are completely out of date or not, since each pot has a nice timestamp at the top. Blogs can try to be topical, but they generally meander from their ostensible topic somewhat. And blogs can have the aforementioned blog roll. The list of 20 to 500 "blogs we like". Arguably a relic of an earlier era, thse are still present on virtually every major blog-like site, be it Kos or Huffington Post or Matt Drudge or the New York Times' blogs. And while many of these have the soft personal touch that only a faceless corporation can provide, there's definitely some sense of association associated with those.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Trying to Essay
( with inspiration from http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html )
The astute reader may note that this follows a long period of silence here. This derives less from a lack of time compared to a lack of topics to write about. There's nothing happening in my life so thrilling that I feel it obligatory to expound in long form; 140 characters is generally more than plenty for daily occurrences. It avoids the forced literary diarrhea of excessively long and descriptive sentences, filled with a multitude of adjectives and words of more than 8 letters. It is an avoidance of technical exercises in tempo and rhyme and 14-line poems.
But if clear thinking begets clear writing, and clear writing conveys meaning, then unclear, meandering writing is certainly the sign of a mind trying less to be clear as it is looking for a therapeutic release of thought. The goal is less to present a coherent thought, but a picture of sorts, with sentences providing brush strokes towards the final result, a mosaic that portrays a general sense of feeling. And if art can exist for art's sake, then so too can there be writing for writing's sake, writing that strives to convey emotion or confusion, writing that is deliberately obtuse.
I say this in the context of a recent century where many of the literary greats prided themselves on such obtuseness. Joyce's later works are notorious for such, and later authors such as Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace are even more in such a line. Henry Miller may be less difficult, but is just as meandering, and makes up for it in obscenity.
Anyhow, maybe I should work random anecdotes from my life into 500-word treatises; maybe I should spend that doing circumlocution of interesting work happenstance; maybe I should just post more book reviews and constrained poems. None of those sound terribly exciting, but they might be better than the alternative.
The astute reader may note that this follows a long period of silence here. This derives less from a lack of time compared to a lack of topics to write about. There's nothing happening in my life so thrilling that I feel it obligatory to expound in long form; 140 characters is generally more than plenty for daily occurrences. It avoids the forced literary diarrhea of excessively long and descriptive sentences, filled with a multitude of adjectives and words of more than 8 letters. It is an avoidance of technical exercises in tempo and rhyme and 14-line poems.
But if clear thinking begets clear writing, and clear writing conveys meaning, then unclear, meandering writing is certainly the sign of a mind trying less to be clear as it is looking for a therapeutic release of thought. The goal is less to present a coherent thought, but a picture of sorts, with sentences providing brush strokes towards the final result, a mosaic that portrays a general sense of feeling. And if art can exist for art's sake, then so too can there be writing for writing's sake, writing that strives to convey emotion or confusion, writing that is deliberately obtuse.
I say this in the context of a recent century where many of the literary greats prided themselves on such obtuseness. Joyce's later works are notorious for such, and later authors such as Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace are even more in such a line. Henry Miller may be less difficult, but is just as meandering, and makes up for it in obscenity.
Anyhow, maybe I should work random anecdotes from my life into 500-word treatises; maybe I should spend that doing circumlocution of interesting work happenstance; maybe I should just post more book reviews and constrained poems. None of those sound terribly exciting, but they might be better than the alternative.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Pore Jade is Daid
Pore Jade is daid
Pore Jade Goody is daid
All gather 'round her cawfin now and cry
She had a heart of gold
And she wasn't very old
Oh why did such a feller have to die?
Two things:
1) I'm apparently the first person to make that pun on the internet.
2) I guess it's fitting that someone who was a celebrity because of being a celebrity and always went for television coverage has the same coverage in death as she did in life.
Pore Jade Goody is daid
All gather 'round her cawfin now and cry
She had a heart of gold
And she wasn't very old
Oh why did such a feller have to die?
Two things:
1) I'm apparently the first person to make that pun on the internet.
2) I guess it's fitting that someone who was a celebrity because of being a celebrity and always went for television coverage has the same coverage in death as she did in life.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Garden Weasel
Or, how you know the economy is in trouble:
I saw a live commercial for Maytag on Jay Leno, and for Samsung on Jimmy Kimmel. Letterman's on re-runs, so it doesn't count.
I don't believe I've ever seen a live commercial in my life on a show of this sort, excluding Intel's sponsorship of Conan in San Francisco (which was always counterbalanced by a larger sign for Sam Wo Noodles as a joke). Of course, I've seen them on re-runs of old-timey (think 1950s Flintstones tobacco ads) TV. The first episode of the Larry Sanders Show was also about the host's reticence to do such an ad for the "Garden Weasel".
Seriously, watch it.
I saw a live commercial for Maytag on Jay Leno, and for Samsung on Jimmy Kimmel. Letterman's on re-runs, so it doesn't count.
I don't believe I've ever seen a live commercial in my life on a show of this sort, excluding Intel's sponsorship of Conan in San Francisco (which was always counterbalanced by a larger sign for Sam Wo Noodles as a joke). Of course, I've seen them on re-runs of old-timey (think 1950s Flintstones tobacco ads) TV. The first episode of the Larry Sanders Show was also about the host's reticence to do such an ad for the "Garden Weasel".
Seriously, watch it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
One of these ads is not like the other
One of these ads is not like the other. Can you figure out which one?
Bob Shamansky: ad 1
Dave Loebsack: ad 1
Alice Kryzan: ad 1 and ad 2
Give up? The difference is that Bob Shamansky lost 57%-43%, while Dave Loebsack won in a major upset over Jim Leach in 2006, and Alice Kryzan won her primary in a moderate upset against Jon Powers and Jack Davis yesterday.
While most of the time, ads aren't necessarily that effective, the right ad can in fact be devastating. However, no matter how snappy or funny it is, you have to have the right opening. Apparently, a humorous ad tying Pat Tiberi to George Bush didn't cut for Shamansky.
While most of the political pundits dismissed Loebsack's ad as "A race so civil the challenger's ad calls the incumbent a good man", as someone living in IA-02 in 2006 I thought it was a brutally effective ad. Jim Leach was an incredibly well-liked incumbent, and George Bush was incredibly unliked. It tied the two together in a way that would be nearly impossible to rebut. For other context, Jim Leach threatened to bolt the GOP if they came in with 3rd party ads, said "This is the happiest day of my life" in his concession speech, and endorsed Obama at the DNC.
And in a race as horribly nasty as NY-26 this year, it's very effective to push through with one or two showings of an ad to get people to do something else. When you're running against someone as horrible as Jack Davis, and Jack is determined to destroy your other opponent, it's pretty easy to get through this way.
Bob Shamansky: ad 1
Dave Loebsack: ad 1
Alice Kryzan: ad 1 and ad 2
Give up? The difference is that Bob Shamansky lost 57%-43%, while Dave Loebsack won in a major upset over Jim Leach in 2006, and Alice Kryzan won her primary in a moderate upset against Jon Powers and Jack Davis yesterday.
While most of the time, ads aren't necessarily that effective, the right ad can in fact be devastating. However, no matter how snappy or funny it is, you have to have the right opening. Apparently, a humorous ad tying Pat Tiberi to George Bush didn't cut for Shamansky.
While most of the political pundits dismissed Loebsack's ad as "A race so civil the challenger's ad calls the incumbent a good man", as someone living in IA-02 in 2006 I thought it was a brutally effective ad. Jim Leach was an incredibly well-liked incumbent, and George Bush was incredibly unliked. It tied the two together in a way that would be nearly impossible to rebut. For other context, Jim Leach threatened to bolt the GOP if they came in with 3rd party ads, said "This is the happiest day of my life" in his concession speech, and endorsed Obama at the DNC.
And in a race as horribly nasty as NY-26 this year, it's very effective to push through with one or two showings of an ad to get people to do something else. When you're running against someone as horrible as Jack Davis, and Jack is determined to destroy your other opponent, it's pretty easy to get through this way.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Stock Market is Not News
A sizable fraction of the news coverage in the United States is focused on the day to day fluctuations of stock prices. Most major newspapers have at least a full page of stock quotes, and many have 4 or 5 pages of coverage. The nightly news on TV gives a summary of the days action, with the change in the Dow being "a summary of the day in the financial markets". The radio updates "In moderate volume, the Dow is up 21, while the NASDAQ is down 6". However, this is in opposition to the fact that none of the aforementioned should be considered news on a day-to-day basis.
First, the day-to-day fluctuations generally aren't very large. What does it mean if the Dow is up 50 today? It means that the 30 stocks in the Dow cumulatively have a price around .4% higher. It's the equivalent of saying that gas prices have gone from $4.21 to $4.23 . And if tomorrow, the Dow is down 50, well, now absolutely nothing has happened from two days ago in prices. Hardly news.
Second, even when they do go up or down 5% in a day (which is significant), the price of stock in and of itself isn't really news either. Unless you're day trading, it's hard to see how it will affect you in any way. And if you are day trading, you certainly want more details than you could get in mass media news. Even here, the change in price isn't the news in and of itself; it's supportive evidence for other events. "Financial stocks were down 10% because of another failure in the mortgage industry" is inverted; the correct sense of the news is "Another major failure occurred in the mortgage industry. Investors are concerned that more failures may occur and pushed financial stocks down 10%."
Third, looking at the day to day fluctuations misses the big picture. "GM stock up 10% on improving financial situation" may sound good, but if you don't explain "GM stock is still down 58% on the year", you miss the entire point. "Intel stock was down 5% on the earnings report" would sound better if it was up 20% in the 3 weeks leading up to the announcement.
Finally, the stock market is generally treated as a numbers game. In this respect, it's no better or worse than sports coverage or the lottery, where undue attention is payed to minute details either only somewhat luck-related (were the two home runs last night luck or skill), or completely luck-related (7 hasn't come up for 3 weeks in the Daily Millions; it's due!). But most major newspapers will relegate the lotto and box scores to back pages of separate sections, while the fluctuations in stock prices are given far more prominence and respect.
My advice to struggling newspapers: Cut the stock quotes. Drop the separate "finance" section. Put business news in the same place you'd put any other news, don't emphasize day-to-day stock swings, and put "personal finance" stories in the lifestyles section. If you really feel you have to be in the stock quote business, tell people to go to your website to find quotes. After all, who do you think reads these quotes anymore on news print anyhow? You'll save space, cut costs, and have a more useful and news-filled product.
First, the day-to-day fluctuations generally aren't very large. What does it mean if the Dow is up 50 today? It means that the 30 stocks in the Dow cumulatively have a price around .4% higher. It's the equivalent of saying that gas prices have gone from $4.21 to $4.23 . And if tomorrow, the Dow is down 50, well, now absolutely nothing has happened from two days ago in prices. Hardly news.
Second, even when they do go up or down 5% in a day (which is significant), the price of stock in and of itself isn't really news either. Unless you're day trading, it's hard to see how it will affect you in any way. And if you are day trading, you certainly want more details than you could get in mass media news. Even here, the change in price isn't the news in and of itself; it's supportive evidence for other events. "Financial stocks were down 10% because of another failure in the mortgage industry" is inverted; the correct sense of the news is "Another major failure occurred in the mortgage industry. Investors are concerned that more failures may occur and pushed financial stocks down 10%."
Third, looking at the day to day fluctuations misses the big picture. "GM stock up 10% on improving financial situation" may sound good, but if you don't explain "GM stock is still down 58% on the year", you miss the entire point. "Intel stock was down 5% on the earnings report" would sound better if it was up 20% in the 3 weeks leading up to the announcement.
Finally, the stock market is generally treated as a numbers game. In this respect, it's no better or worse than sports coverage or the lottery, where undue attention is payed to minute details either only somewhat luck-related (were the two home runs last night luck or skill), or completely luck-related (7 hasn't come up for 3 weeks in the Daily Millions; it's due!). But most major newspapers will relegate the lotto and box scores to back pages of separate sections, while the fluctuations in stock prices are given far more prominence and respect.
My advice to struggling newspapers: Cut the stock quotes. Drop the separate "finance" section. Put business news in the same place you'd put any other news, don't emphasize day-to-day stock swings, and put "personal finance" stories in the lifestyles section. If you really feel you have to be in the stock quote business, tell people to go to your website to find quotes. After all, who do you think reads these quotes anymore on news print anyhow? You'll save space, cut costs, and have a more useful and news-filled product.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)