Xopher,
Male Answer Syndrome cartoon? where?
Male Answer Syndrome is a pretty good test case for why "sex" and "gender" refer to two different properties. MAS, Man's Disease, Geek Answer Syndrome (its a gas!), etc. Whatever you want to call it. It "looks" gendered the same way pants look gendered - it is suggestive of male traits without requiring identity. Now if only capes were a litte more masculine...
offtopic, spotted on Fanthropology:
"My answer is that insanity is communicable, especially over the internet." - wanderingwidget
"Ah, so it's a textually transmitted disease, then?" -rhi_silverflame
Carrie S.
What's getting to me is that he seems to think I could solve all this if I just tried a little harder. This makes me unhappy (and was the reason for the angry email).
Boy does it burn me up when people tell me that! I'm not sure if thats a guy thing, or stubborn WASP-culture thing. Its the whole "work harder, not smarter" thing. Burns me up wether its people blaming poor people for being lazy or blaming mothers for not breastfeeding. (Reasons why "trying harder" doesn't always work in the two cases cited left up to the imagination of the reader, note however, that they have been covered on ML before.)
BTW, thanks for the chicken/egg joke. I hadn't heard that one in years! I can't remember if it was Lewis or Tolkien who hypothesized a that you can't have Norse legends about Thor's thunder and lightning without simultaneously having short-tempered young viking farmers for context, but there you go, another cultural chicken/egg.
Clifton Royston said the following:
The other thing to try to remember is that listening sympathetically often feels to men like me as though they are not doing anything useful or helpful. On an emotional level all the "try this" is often an attempt to express sympathy in some concrete form, however oblique. It doesn't always have to be taken literally; sometimes it's just an expression of "I wish I could help." (Not meaning to put the burden of communication on you, but if it makes it easier to hear the suggestions, maybe that's useful to you.)
Which is precisely what I wanted to say, and I endorse it wholly as truth, es la verdad. This is what goes on in my head and heart. Boys* want to show their affection through action, or at least, action simulated in their minds by imagining the outcome of their advice. (Thus things like rash vows, also.)
I'm just spitballing here, but I'm guessing that we were brought up to deal with pretty much any situation with actions, particularly symbolic actions, instead of words or named feelings. (We're not so good with identifying feelings, let alone discussing them.) We use symbolic conflicts as a way of dealing with interpersonal stuff. This might be a reasonable way to explain the amount of cartoon violence men like in their genre fiction, video games, board games, movies, manga, or sports and why we don't see violence in fiction/fictional activities as a social problem.
--tangent--
I've seen violence in media critiqued in feminist circles as being negative in and of itself, which has always puzzled me, since "fake" violence in symbolic combats is one way otherwise unequal men negotiate an equal relationship. Of course it is a way for some men to dominate others, but those who are really truly interested in doing that are trolls, pundits, and the worst kinds of salesmen, lawyers, politicians, middle management beaurocrats. In other words, abusers tend to be abusive wherever they can, which should surprise no one.
The significant thing about symbolic combat in games of all kinds is the amount of effort poured into rulemaking so that abusers can't abuse through cheating - in other words, so you can pound the crap out of your evil boss at fusball on the company retreat and he can't do a damn thing about it. That's kind of what I mean about "unequal men" gaining equality through symbolic violence - in the real world few of us have really equal power footings, so we have elaborate social structures for creating equality.
--additional disclaimers--
*The terms "we", "men", and "boys" are not meant to be universal, exclusive, or Truth, they were just convenient for how I percieve things from in my limited worldview, from my own, narrow cultural perspective. I would love to hear from women who share the traits I describe or men who do not, to cure my ignorance, please.
Random request:
Does anyone have a link to a really classic "I'm quitting teh internets" post? Preferably with one of those rare, fully formed "the lurkers support me in email" lines? I recall that there was a bit about lurkers in part of the AW dustup, but I don't recall anything in the "I'm quitting you" genre.
I'm planning on reducing the amount of time I spend on the 'net a great deal, and I want to make sure I get the bombast and rehtorical flourishes right. I was thinking, perhaps making a madlib out of a really good one might be a fun way to start.
Found things.
I found this:
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to misattribute this quote to Voltaire.
here.
I also saw a review of Emma, not by Jane Austen, but a graphic novel I like very much. Unlike most such reviews, it includes enough pictures to get some idea of what it is like.On a typical English afternoon at the turn of the Twentieth century, a gentried young man named William pays a visit to the woman who used to be his governess. He pauses before knocking on the door, only to have it opened in his face by her live-in housemaid, Emma. Apologies are offered, formalities exchanged, tea is served and a quiet little Victorian romance novel begins.
This was also unrelated, but pretty.
Carrie S,
You explain it to him by explaining it to him. "Look dude, you have a problem communicating with women, and here's how to fix it." He won't like it, but it works, and he'll respect you for telling him.
Okay, ideally he'd respect you for telling him. If he doesn't he's an ass, and you can tell him I said so. But you get the idea.
I'm a guy, and my significant other has to tell me - often - that "this is one of those times when I don't want you to fix it." Guys aren't brought up* to be a sympathetic ear, they are brought up to be "handy". Handy in a fight, a repair job, in financial distress, as a reference book, etc. If you can persuade a guy that "being handy" can be operationally defined as "sitting still and listening", that's good. But nurture isn't destiny any more than nature is, and some guys aren't stupid, and can learn new ways of behaving.
That said, when my best friend is moved to tears by something that upsets her, I get a strong feeling that I ought to make rash vows and run off seeking vengeance.** Not very practical, but I love her, so what can you do?
You said that you responded by saying "Yes, I tried that, it didn't work." Sorry, for guys like me, that's just temptation. ooo! shiny! A really hard problem to solve! You get the idea . Notice that I am...trying to solve your problem. eheh heh. Oops.
*in my white, middle-class, suburban, protestant, midwestern etc etc subculture. Results may vary-past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
**which came first, rash vows and rushing off in literature like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight or guys being stupid about that kind of thing? Extra credit, 5 points.
thanks for the description alsafi,
I'll have to look at getting a santoku. I've been using a big chinese cleaver for a number of fiddly trimming procedures, and the fact that it is big helps keep my fingers much further away from the operative end than regular large knives. (The heaviness helps with edge control too, since I'm not actually using it to chop, but to slice instead.)
Lisa @ 60,
Not so much; I usually hang out in fora that have a really high "You're wrong and you're an idiot" content. Now that I think about it, why do I do that? That doesn't make sense. *trundles off to make changes*
in #90 ::: Xopher wrote
Their only serious drawback is that scraping a bunch of chopped whatever from a cutting board into a bowl isn't as effective.
I was taught that the way to go is to flip the knife over and use the dull, flat, edge to move stuff. (Keeps the blade sharp, longer.)
Graydon, do you have a link to a site that tells (or shows) proper sharpening technique? I've never gotten it right. (A specific product name for those 3m sheets would be nice, too. And a pony.)
-r.
that Pharyngula thread is just bizzare. I can't believe that it continued to escalate into a who-insulted-who/who-should-apologize-to-whom* type flamewar. WTH is it with people?
Suzanne,
That was very well said indeed!
Periodically I throw away my online personas and start anew - I know I leave a little too much personal data lying around. I'm beginning to think of doing so annually - it would be kinda fun if there was an online festival of masks where everyone agreed to start over simultaneously. I'm not sure if that sounds like it should be a halloween-y thing to do, or more like a Chinese New Year thing to do. (Paying off of all debts to start the year, starting from scratch rituals, etc.)
-r.
*is there a word for this kind of flamewar?
found over on keromaru,
"If bestselling authors were Transformers, what would they turn into?"
Sample response: (see the link, above for more)
Carl Sagan: Voyager 1
Dan Brown: a weird, floating pyramid that shoots lasers out of its eye.
...
George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan, J.R.R. Tolkien, Terry Pratchett, and Ursula K. Le Guin would all join together to form Fantatron.
The last one cracks me up, but then again, I watched a lot of Voltron* as a kid.
-r.
*Golion, I know, I know.
in #85 ::: Paul A. said:
Not only is the "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" page down, a Google search for alternate sources reveals copyright issues that mean that it is unlikely to be back up.
Meh, I found three different sources (albeit one was a google cache.) The weird/funny/racist(?) illustrations that accompanied it in the Whole Earth review were on a separate site, though, so if you want the whole thing you have to open the first eight or nine search results to find all of it.
P J Evans,
>Creationism/'intelligent design' is a philosophy.
>evolution is a theory. Big, big difference
>between them.
"evolution" isn't always a word that means natural selection plus a bunch of related stuff. Sometimes it means a particularly hostile, utilitarian philosophy gussied up with science-y words.* Kahn is confusing the two, probably on purpose. Sloppy reasoning, sloppy rhetoric.
Teresa, about what you said: word, yo. Word! Nice.
*not really common any more, but sometimes rhetorically deployed in the short and cheezy way of using evolution as "proof" that God isn't x, where x is something positive, (is benevolent, does exist, etc.) and the deployer wants merely to say "fundamentalists are nutjobs." This is also sloppy rhetoric. Needless to say fundamentalists embarass the rest of Christendom by rising to the bait. The anti-religious types who use this rhetoric embarass some of the skeptics too, more's the pity.
in #43 ::: Lisa Goldstein noted in reply:
Finding space to put the thing might not be that important -- you just use the space where all the books used to be. You'd keep one copy of each book on the shelf, and people could look at them and decide which one(s) they want, and the clerk would fire up the POD machine.
Granted. This is the weakest part of the arguement, anyway, since 139 square feet isn't a whole bookstore by a long shot. I could resort to the whole "opportunity cost" of devoting the square footage to POD vs. regular books, but that seems like a cheap trick that ignores some important variables.
The rest of your arguments are pretty compelling, though...
God bless you, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day!
And in #44 ::: GlendaP asked me
Why wouldn't that be a business model for POD? Pay $X for a book if you come back tomorrow to pick it up, or $X+Y to get it in an hour.
That's a pretty good model, actually. I'd love to be able to pick up a book the next day if it wasn't in stock.
I think we'd need to see automated warehousing/shelving be used to accomplish it though - waiting a day for a POD title vs. waiting two or three for Amazon to get it to me feels about the same, but the physical quality of mass produced books is better.
The one-hour-photo places now do one-hour-or-much-less digital printing, so they really shouldn't be hurting for business. I get my photos printed up at Target from time to time, and they are usually ready by the time I'm done shopping. Did you know that you can upload your pics to them and pick them up the same day? Nifty. To a degree you can already do this with Borders online inventory system. You can find a title in inventory (you can check any store's inventory!) and have them set it aside. Sadly, this can take about a day, and isn't implemented as an easy one-click thing. They really need to fix that.
By the way, I didn't intend for my observations on the problems of POD-on-site to be terribly snarky. I like the idea of POD-on-site, I really do, but I don't think it makes sense for retail. It would, however, make sense for kinko's and whatnot located in business parks, conference centers, and convention centers, for business-centric trade, but I'm pretty sure that's available in the form of short run printers. However, short run printers and copy shops tend to do a really poor job of packaging their services in a way that an ordinary human can understand. (That's not really their fault - printing isn't simple anyway.)
-r.
in #37 ::: A.R.Yngve wrote:
Inasmuch as I like to poke fun at the publishers who rejected J.K.Rowling (Ha ha!), I will say this in their defence: Who knew?
Sometimes even picking J.K.Rowling doesn't help: didn't Scholastic get into trouble by overprinting HP #5? I'm having trouble finding a source to cite (harry potter web spam? yup.) but I recall reading that they actually didn't make much money off of that one because they printed one copy for each person who concievably could buy one. That could just be the simple tricks and nonsense of publishing accounting inaccurately reported by the mainstream media.
That said, I did find an interesting essay called On the Survival of Rats in the Slush Pile, but I don't know how seriously to take it - it seems to be a variant on the "this business is hit-driven and therefore statistical rules of randomness determine success" meme*.
-r.
*I really wish we had a shorter name for that meme. I first noticed it about a month ago in an article on Techdirt on the lack of coorelation between paying a big star a lot of money and the blockbuster status of the film made.
in #24 ::: James D. Macdonald wrote:
There's been that talk about the POD machines in shops "in the near future" for the past 15 years at least.
Let's examine it. First: "Instantly." You can't even photocopy a single sheet of paper instantly...
Having worked with assorted production model xerox copiers, I assure you, printing a book quickly, even with the setup perfect, is not quick, takes up a large volume of space, is noisy, and is prone to breakdown. That's before you get to the binding step. Moving midsize bits of paper around, from a stack, wrapped around a drum, coated, baked, flipped to the other side of the drum, coated, baked, spat out, lined up, trimmed, glued, crimped, and cooled is not a trivial engineering exercise when you are trying to do it at a rate exceeding 1 page per second. A rainy day can throw things off: paper expands when it is slightly damper than bone dry (even claycoated laser paper), and a stack of paper moves quite a bit.
What would you need to run a POD copier? A place to put it. A copier of (barely) sufficent speed, like a xerox DC480 takes up a 3'x6' spot, plus another 3'x6' altogether for clearance to get at it (to get at all the hatches for part replacement, paper stocking, etc. and somewhere to stand.) Add a trimmer/gluer/binder, and you'd need another 3'x6'. Where do you put the pallet of paper stock? that's 6'x6'x6', and you can't put anything on top of it. Assume another 3'x3' for fuser oil, extra rollers (replace every 15,000 double sided pages) and a single day's toner to be generous. Replacement xerographic module? 2'x2'x3', boxed. You'll want two. Any booksellers want to comment on what money you could make with 129 square feet?
This doesn't even get to the question of where to put the trash, but you get the point. A reliable POD site looks more like a cinnabon or starbux in footprint and enginnering requirements than a bookstore. Starbux makes it's money off of assembling flavors, hot water, and milk, using simple machines* with few moving parts. Ditto for cinnabon assembling starches. What would be comparable for books? Oh, I know! Having a heap of pre-assembled bound volumes by f/l/a/v/o/r/s/ authors who are market-tested to be liked by consumers. You know, the pyramids of bestsellers.
If POD-ing books in the mall was as profitable as making coffee, don't you think we'd be doing it already?
-r.
*okay, there's nothing simple engineering-wise about a cappuchino maker, but thanks to the miracle of steam power there's blessed few moving parts, and basically no user-serviceable parts at all. Next time you have a cappuchino, think of Girl Genius - steampower is all around us!
Delighted that you wrote about this Teresa. I thought of you (and C.E. Petit) as soon as I glanced at the cover of the WSJ, and was even revemoved to buy a copy. I wanted to blog about this one, but since I've never bothered to build an audience, I had to hope that someone sensible would take charge of this.
For those who keep score, this article has been BoingBoinged, and now mentioned over on Techdirt, in "Must Some Movies Fail Miserably Just So Others Can Be A Hit?"
in #49 ::: Giacomo quoted
#44 Dave Bell: So the journalist doesn't quite lie, he puts the whole story in print, but the bit he puts at the beginning is what matters.
and then Giacomo said:
I've seen this happening more and more, recently. The title and first few paragraphs of one piece would say something, then 95% of the remaining text would basically negate the initial assertions, sometimes even vigorously. And not just on US papers, but worldwide.
The first practice, known as inverted pyramid style supposedly originated with war correspondents during the U.S. Civil war. Lengthy, flowery missives that didn't start with the key facts tended to be cut short - literally - when tramsitted via telegraph. (This is likely apocryphal, but this is the creation-myth taught to young journalists to emphasize the importance of the style.) If anything, its a cheap way to get novice writers to get to the point without having to actually train them to write well* - and hints at a wired world in 19th century cities where skimming lots of text quickly was part daily life. Not unlike frenetically skimming blog posts as they roll by in an RSS reader, methinks.
If I had one bit of advice to newspapers who can't seem to get traction with consumers 18-35, I would suggest ditching the inverse pyramid style for something resembling modern blog posts. If you write as though you don't intend for people to read all of it, chances are, we won't read any of it. One of the things that makes the blogoshpere so entertaining is the crystal certainty of each writer that what they write is significant. (If only to their cats.) Probably the other innovation would be tidying up the layout - which would mean making ads easier to ignore - and will therefore never happen.**
Giacomo, the second practice, writing one thing, but meaning another, seems to just be an inevitable outcome of the style. Hidden messages to your base and whatnot. An easy way to pander to multiple audiences.
-r.
*the real reason is that you need to be able to cut any article short to make room for an extra ad about five minutes before the presses roll, but don't tell the reporters that.
**People no longer seem to look for ads for information about stuff in their world anymore - the internet changed all that. When all you had to work with that was current was a newspaper, advertising was much more useful for getting a sense of what was available or culturally important.
emergency funds:
Caveat: civil forfiture laws allow the authorities to "arrest" large sums of cash. 10,000$ is the threshold, I think. Not sure if that is specific to paper money, or if other valuables apply too. Any lawyers want to chime in? (No trial, no appeal for your cash either.)
The point above about the non-resalability of diamonds is well put. Some things are quite resaleable, but only to specialists. I was told, years ago (c.1990) that a handy way to make money as a student doing a semester in Britain was to buy a moderately expensive guitar and sell it on arrival to a private individual. Between not charging VAT and Britain having a competitive (smaller) used instrument market apparently one could make a great deal of money. I'd think this would depend on the UK tax authorities not auditing what people take back home with them when they leave, and the US customs folks not caring on re-entry.
Other plans suggest themselves, with any kind of small, specialty item that has value overseas. Collectible stamps, Elvis memorabelia, autographs, etc. A particularly nice geode or other item that would be interesting to an institutional collector might be a way to go.
The lack of consistent appreciation in value is a bit of a problem. Hmm. I wonder how much of the froth, speculation, and implausible stories about how things increase in value in collector's markets is all about money laundering?
The trouble with all of these discussions is that the same methods are all applicable to moving money around illegally, and have the same three weaknesses:
1. the authorities know to look for them
2. if they are looking, foreign bank/stock holding dodges don't help
3. if you aren't holding investments overseas, you are losing vs. inflation. Calculating how much depends on measuring against inflation in the target country, not your own, and then converting back. Difficult to do right.
Note that Cringely has an essay up on how a newly enacted anti-net gambling law only helps terrorists by creating a market for secret transactions.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 264 |
| 2005 | 7 |
Total: 271 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take some time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by rhandir:
Show all comments by rhandir.