Sunday, December 23, 2007

Dating CV

"Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again."
- Franklin P. Jones

Why do we write a CV (curriculum vitae)? To chronicle our experience, in the hopes of conveying our skills, ability and knowledge to potential future employers. A CV (a.k.a. résumé in North America) is a short description of how we want the working world to view us. We list what we can do, and the experience it took to gain such skills, and provide references on request. This cannot give a perfect picture of us as an employee, but certainly creates an image for the people who need to evaluate our suitability.

I think we need to extend this concept to the realm of dating. After all, dating is one of the areas of our lives that has the greatest bearing on our personal happiness, and yet it's basically a crapshoot. We go on dates to learn about the other person, but from the get-go we know next to nothing about them; we essentially choose randomly for something that is intrinsic to our personal contentment. Maybe it's time to start culling the herd before we leap into the fray of dating.

Just as in the job market, there is no "perfect" CV. Different skills are required for different jobs, and different attributes apply to different people. But we cannot gauge the attributes of a potential suitor until it's too late and we're dating them. What if we could pre-filter "applicants" by looking for those with skills we desire? You want someone who knows how to cook? That had better be on their CV. Prefer to date only short (or tall, thin, fat, whatever) partners? Why not have that listed right up front? It wouldn't guarantee a match, but might boost your odds.

Of course, this removes some of the spontaneity, the joy inherent in discovering the attributes that make up your partner; truly this is one of the best things about the early stages of dating, you feel like an intrepid explorer charting new territory. But this joy is tempered with a major risk of failure-you might find out something that's an absolute deal-breaker in your view, something that with adequate warning could have been noted before any risk of heartbreak. This is already done to a degree by those engaging in online dating sites: when you get a list of a potential date's likes, dislikes and more, you are already filtering people based on your criteria. So why not formalise the concept?

Of course, getting references might be tricky. How can you expect an honest reference from an ex if the relationship ended badly? Though you might have many wonderful qualities, the enmity they feel since your breakup could forever colour their feelings. And of course, like any other CV, people will stretch the truth. "I can make a frozen pizza" suddenly becomes "I have an affinity for and exemplary skill in Italian cuisine".

Who knows? Maybe one day we'll enact this, and we'll soon enough see couples on the dance floors of popular clubs, exchanging two-page CVs detailing the highlights of their dating abilities. Past partners will be called for references, and we will weigh up all those who seek our affection. After a thorough, yet expedient evaluative process, we will contact the successful applicant, and they can begin their training. And what's more romantic than bringing mindless corporate logic and efficiency to the world of dating?

So, please use the comments section below to post what you would put on your dating CV.

NOTE: If you have taken this post with even the slightest wisp of seriousness, please write the word "sarcasm" on a cricket bat and apply it forcibly and repeatedly to your forehead. Consider this holiday goofiness at it's best. I ultimately just want a way to brag about my back massaging skills.
"Love is the answer, but while you're waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty interesting questions."
- Woody Allen

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Bizarre bike stuff theft

"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who hasn't sufficient capital to form a company."
- Howard Scott


It's almost a rite of passage in Manchester to get your bike stolen, a rite in which I fortunately have yet to participate. My friend and flatmate Dan, combined with his prior flatmate Jono, have had six bikes and one rear wheel stolen in the past two years. My friend Mike has had a shocking eight bikes stolen in the last 15 months. And my friend Liz has had at least two stolen, possibly more. Needless to say, they have contributed well to the scuzzy section of Manchester's society. I have so far been spared, due in no small way to how little I ride my bike around town, and the fact that I have always stored it within my flat.

However, I have had my first brush with bike theft since coming to Manchester, but in a bizarre and baffling way. You see, while my bike was locked up outside of the Stopford building last Tuesday (while I was in for debating and then the post-debate pub), some punk stole some of the stuff from my bike. Specifically, he stole the rear mudguard and light, and my two water bottles. In and of itself, not that strange, but only odd once you consider what was required to do so.

You see, I recently bought a security cable. This 8-foot-long woven steel cable allows me to lock up my front wheel and wrap it around my seat, thus avoiding me needing to remove those two things. In addition, I can now lock my helmet to my bike. The end result is that I spend and extra minute or two locking up my bike, but I no longer have to haul my seat and helmet with me. I used to carry the water bottles as well, but gave up figuring they were too worthless to bother stealing. Silly me.

Anyway, this still doesn't make it weird. What makes it weird is that I can't loop the security cable through my seat, so I wrap it around the post a few times, over and under the mudguard, hopefully making it enough of a pain to get off to not make it worthwhile. The light and the mudguard both attached to the seat post. What this means is that the thieves wiggled the cable loose enough to get the seat out, pulled the seat out of the bike, thus freeing the cable. They then took the mudguard and light (original retail value combined £25 or so) and replaced the seat. The seat isn't worth a lot, but probably more than the rest combined. The light had a half-broken clip, and the mudguard was filthy. The water bottles were old and scratched. So their net benefit from this was maybe £5, if they were lucky. But the seat probably could have sold for £10 or more. So why not take it?

As I see it, there are usually two reasons for theft like this:
  1. Make money. Well, obviously, it's not that. Like I say, the seat was the most expensive thing they removed, and they put it back. They also overlooked the tire pump, though it's black and was obscured somewhat by the security cable, so maybe they just didn't notice that). Even if the seat weren't worth more, it's worth something, so why not take it?
  2. Vandalism. This pisses me off more than theft, but some people will steal or destroy things just because they like to cause harm to others. But again, in this case, why not take the seat? It'll certainly piss me off more to have to ride home without a seat and to have to replace this more-expensive item. Even if you (as the thief) don't keep it, just toss it in the bin; I'll still be equally annoyed.
So, what is the explanation? The only thing I can possibly come up with, is some guy passing by on his bike said to himself "boy, it sure is dark and wet, and I'm really thirsty! I wish I had a light to make me more visible, a mudguard to keep my butt dry and some water bottles to slake my thirst. Hmmmmmmm.... I have an idea!" If not this, I have no idea why someone would pass on the seat. It could be that they just wanted to cram what they could fit into a backpack for easy transport, but the mudguard is far longer than the seat. So who knows? Anyone have any ideas?

I'm baffled. Also a little pissed that I now need to buy a second mudguard in as many weeks. I guess I'll have to find a way to more-securely lock up my seat.

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live.
-Mark Twain

Friday, November 23, 2007

When's "Buy more Day"?

"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."
- Winston Churchill

Today is Buy Nothing Day. To celebrate, I'm going to buy some stuff. Because, you see, buy nothing day irritates me. It irritates me for practical reasons, it irritates me for philosophical reasons. To a degree, my concerns are quite rational, but I will admit to some illogic as well, insofar as it is largely the proponents of BND who bother me more than the concept itself. So let me address my concerns under those two headings: practical and principled.

Practical: Guess what guys? If you stick fastidiously to buying nothing over the course of today, it makes no difference. None. Because not only are you in an incredibly slim minority of people who actually adhere to the concept, but ultimately your shopping patterns don't change. You're still going to buy just as much stuff, you'll just buy more tomorrow. You can't go without food, and you won't go without the consumer goods that you want. BND is like those one-day gas boycotts that get suggested every now and again, where people hope to "send a message to the big gas companies" by not filling up their car one day: if a handful of people boycott gas stations for a day, then fill up the next day, the companies won't feel it. Ditto for BND.

Principled: I wholeheartedly agree with some of the points that AdBusters (the progenitors of BND) make. I think we have become an overly-consumeristic, wasteful society. It is sad and shocking that 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of its resources. We are causing massive environmental damage in our insatiable quest for more stuff, and that stuff often gets in the way of family, friends and actually experiencing life. But BND, and its proponents, go further. The undercurrent is that any consumerism is bad. You shouldn't care at all about things, you shouldn't want objects, just peace, happiness and friends. Bullshit. I enjoy the time I spend on the internet, and its ability to keep me connected to those friends, be they across the street or on the other side of the planet. So should I feel guilty about wanting a computer? I enjoy movies and some television shows-should I feel guilty about wanting a TV, a DVD player and a nice sound system? What about my iPod-am I a bad person because I like to listen to music on the go? That's ultimately what is insinuated by BND and its most fervent followers: capitalism=bad, consumerism=bad.

Furthermore, many go further. I've actually heard people, in the pursuit of BND, say that this is a model for how we should always operate. These people (and admittedly my undergrad was full of uber-hippies) actually espoused a return to the barter system. The barter system! You know, that thing we got rid of, because it's seriously flawed? The system that only ever works when there's a mutual and symbiotic needs arrangement between two parties? Yeah, that barter system. Forget international trade, forget a common unit of currency, we'll just trade for everything. The best part is that these selfsame people were the ones most actively pushing for the government to reduce tuition. Now I think education should be free, and I think the government should fully fund it for those qualified to attend. But unlike the BND fanatics, I understand how that can happen. The way you get a government to fund something is to have a good social policy in place, and a robust economy to support its investments. The government gets its money from taxes: income tax, sales tax and business tax. If nobody's buying anything, nobody is getting paid, so say goodbye to income tax. Plus, since there are no money-based sales, au revoir to sales tax. And of course, those businesses are no longer earning money, so farewell my good friend business tax. So, no money for the government; I guess they'll just trade the professors some apples in exchange for their teaching. Idealism is great, but when it's not balanced with a sense of reality, you end up looking like a raving loony.

Capitalism has some serious flaws, and unfettered consumerism is bad. We live in a nation consumed and oft-crippled by credit card debt and we're polluting the planet to fulfill our unquenchable thirst for more. But one of the realities of a free market is that it shows very clearly what people want. Wanting things is part of human nature; we measure standard of living not just by our health and education, but by our creature comforts and amenities. These can never replace human interaction in our lives, but they can augment it, and I'm sick and tired of being made to feel guilty because I want a fast computer and a big-screen TV one day. As soon as Visa ups my credit limit...

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want."
-Milton Friedman

Not everyone should go to university

Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything one learned in school.
-Albert Einstein

(This is another opinion piece I've written for Student Direct)

I pay a lot for my tuition. I paid a lot for my undergrad tuition in Canada. University is an expensive proposition in many parts of the world, and it shouldn’t be. University should be free to everyone who is good enough to partake, and can benefit from the experience. The problem is, at some point we assumed that those conditions applied to everyone. And they never have.

The UK government has a stated goal of 50% university enrollment. On the surface this seems like a great suggestion; after all, an educated society is a thriving one. Education really is the silver bullet that can cure a myriad of social ills. The problem is that such a goal is untenable in a world where the cost of university, be it borne by the government or the individual, is as high as it is in this world. Simply put, professors and equipment are expensive, and the more of them you need to hire and buy, respectively, the more that university bill will grow.

Let’s put it simply: imagine you have enough money in the national budget to pay the entirety of 100,000 student’s tuition. You admit 100,000 students and none of them pays a penny for the education itself; maybe you even subsidise housing, though I suppose free beer legislation shall forever remain a fantasy. Now, increase that number-admit 200,000 students. All of a sudden, the budget strains; say goodbye to subsidised housing, and say hello to tuition fees.

The first danger of this is obvious: when there is a financial cost involved with university, some people simply won’t be able to afford it. Even though the commensurate increase in potential earnings will compensate for the costs in the long-run (in most cases), the up-front cost can be crippling. Bursaries, scholarships and student loans can help, but when money is involved, there will inevitably be some people who simply cannot afford to go. Every qualified, capable student who cannot attend university is a lost opportunity and a loss to society.

The knock-on effects of such a policy, however, prove even more deleterious to wider society. 30 years ago, a high school diploma would be sufficient many jobs in the world. Today, even bus drivers and grocery store cashiers will often have university degrees. Which means that lacking such a degree cripples one’s career prospects. There are many jobs for which a university degree is unnecessary and, ultimately, a waste of time and money. Plumbers, mechanics, administrative staff can all do without spending three to four years discussing the ramifications of Sartre. But when presented with two job candidates, only one of whom lacks a degree, the situation is dire for that individual. Congratulations, you’ve made going to university mandatory for anyone with any career aspirations.

Of course, there’s more to university than simply preparing for the working world. There’s the joy of learning, the social atmosphere, and the chance to open your mind to new thoughts and ideas, and to challenge yourself at every turn. And all of these are great, and should be encouraged. But it’s an experience that just isn’t for everyone. And when you exclude capable students who could benefit from all this to make room for those who feel they must attend university, you’ve lost out again.

So what’s the solution? Stringent entrance requirements and a limit on the size of the student body. Those who attend university should do so because of the learning it can bring, and should be driven in that manner. They should be academically and intellectually gifted and open-minded. When push comes to shove, they should have a reason for wanting to be here, rather than simply feeling a coercive force to be.

If you can get into university, and have the drive to do so, you should. No tuition fees should stand in your way (and “top-up fees” are nothing but a poorly-disguised set of tuition fees). But you should want to be here. You should be driven to be here. And you should have a reason to be here. Because if you don’t, if what you want out of life is to be a plumber, then the government’s investment in your tuition is wasted. We need more plumbers. They just don’t necessarily need to hold degrees in art history.

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
-Oscar Wilde

Thursday, October 18, 2007

The world coming to an end?

I have had some seriously weird dreams the last two nights. The other night, I dreamt I quit my degree, joined the Marines (the U.S. Marines, specifically, which is odd since I'm neither a U.S. citizen nor do I live there), and shipped myself off to Iraq. This after almost quitting training from it being too hard, but getting all determined and dedicated (see every clichéd army movie in the history of Hollywood). By the end of the movie, there I was, M82A1 sniper rifle in hand, aboard a troop transport to go shoot insurgents. Keep in mind, I'm about as anti-war, anti-military as you can get, and this is just plain odd.

Last night, I dreamt that city after city was being levelled by some mysterious force that nobody could explain. Everything would be fine, then all of a sudden, all the tallest buildings would spontaneously collapse. Earthquake? Terrorism? Nobody knew. Then, sure enough, the city I was in got hit. I could see row after row of building go down, and knew mine was coming (I was in a skyscraper and the collapsing ones were getting closer and closer to mine). I grabbed my brother who was inexplicably there, and we fled to the basement, where there was a series of interconnected tunnels (basically like The Path in Toronto, for anyone familiar with that). We heard buildings all around us collapse, but we made it out alive, and got to the waterfront, met up with a bunch of people fleeing the destruction, and were then attacked by (I shit you not) Optimus Prime and Voltron, who I guess were evil, and possibly the cause of the destruction. Very weird. Also, at some point, a group of us refugees were asked if we were circumcised. Perhaps our rescuers were the Jewish U.N. or something?

Weird weird weird!

"Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real."
-Tupac Shakur

Friday, September 28, 2007

Why I judge you for using bad grammar

"The language denotes the man. A coarse or refined character finds its expression naturally in a coarse or refined phraseology."

-Bovee

This is an opinion article I wrote for my university newspaper, Student Direct.

The English language is under siege. It is under siege not from a hostile invader or a devious interloper, but rather from sloth and a lack of care. But the result is the same: the detriment and dissolution of a once-proud establishment is evident; the war of attrition is beginning to take its toll.

The first salvo was the spelling checker. A brilliant idea, when used to augment one’s spelling ability, the spell checker has devolved into a crutch. This can be shown in two ways. We all know someone who relies on the spell checker, and its younger sibling, the auto-corrector, because they no longer truly know how to spell. But the effects of this go much deeper. More and more, people fail to understand the difference between “their” and “they’re”, between “your” are “you’re”. Even wholly disconnected words have begun to be interchangeable. On far too many messageboards and facebook walls have I seen people who cannot differentiate the words “lose” and “loose” despite their wildly different meanings.

The strongest weapon in this epic battle, however, came in the form of small messages, both SMS text messages and instant messenger clients such as MSN. A new shorthand arose, especially in the case of SMS, where a 160-character hard limit enforced a decided sense of brevity. “You’re” and “your” became not only interchangeable, but reduced to “ur”, “are” became “r” and so forth.

The real damage did not come, however, until this shorthand extended its tendrils into mainstream society. With a short message, the brevity I described is understandable, and even I cannot decry its use. But when that vile shorthand begins to appear in emails, letters and (as has become increasingly common) submitted essays in school, a serious blow has been dealt to the English language. Combined with a general decay in attention to grammar and spelling, eventual capitulation often seems inevitable.

So, why does this matter? After all, language is fluid and dynamic; the English we speak now varies dramatically from that spoken by Shakespeare and his cohort. Slang and idiomatic expressions have long shaped the face of any language and always will. We incorporate new words both into the common tongue and into our official bastion of the language, The Oxford English Dictionary. Is this not simply another evolution of the same process? I don’t think it is, and I believe this for a number of reasons.

The first is the motivation behind this shift, and the speed at which is has occurred. These changes have been inspired by laziness and imprecision, not by an organic evolutionary process. They have entered the language quickly, leaving older generations often unawares and leaving little time for a truly cohesive set of language to coalesce.

My biggest qualm, however, is that these words are neither new nor more-descriptive. In fact, they achieve quite the contrary: when you confuse “you’re” with “your” by shortening them all into “ur”, you lose (not loose) variety in the language. The context may differentiate the meaning, but the flavour of the language has gone. Language is a tool. Like any craftsman, a writer hones his art through the application of a tool, and imperfections and dullness in that tool results in an inferior end product. One would never expect a carver to work with a dull knife, yet people are increasingly writing with dulled and rusty linguistics.

It’s not a minor point that in Orwell’s 1984, Newspeak, the pride of Oceania, is hailed for its perpetually-shrinking vocabulary. That the language gets smaller every year is seen by the misguided souls who push it as a benefit. In the mock-Communist world of the novel, that lack of flavour is representative of a world under the thumb of tyranny. The meaning is there, but everything that makes a language unique and colourful has been stripped away. In such a world, Shakespeare would not write “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, he would instead simply state “I don’t care who your family is”. The meaning remains, but the joy and depth of the phrase is forever lost.

This war rages all around us, and will do so for the foreseeable future. It does so on badly-spelt YouTube pages, it does so in hastily-checked emails. The warriors are not active participants, but merely those too lazy to care. And for this, I judge them. Because if you choose to not expend the necessary effort to craft your words with care, you help the denigration of a mellifluous tongue. You don’t need to be a linguistic perfectionist, but if you know not whether you routinely lose your keys or loose them, I will forever feel scorn towards your indifference.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

- The Boondock Saints

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Feminism and Gender Equality in the 21st Century

"Does feminist mean 'large unpleasant person who'll shout at you' or 'someone who believes women are human beings'? To me it's the latter, so I sign up."

-Margaret Atwood


I recently read a very well-written and incisive blog posting written by a woman I met through debating. Though I commented on it on her blog, I wanted to expand somewhat on what I'd written, because the post adeptly elucidates much of what I've felt for some time, and does so from a position of someone with a vested interest, lending it even greater credence. The post details the concept of feminism and why the author considers herself not to be a feminist. This is something with which I have to concur. I think the concept of feminism, as commonly held and espoused by the majority who claim to preach its doctrines, is flawed. Now before my friend Liz whacks me with a 2x4, let me explain...

Let me be clear-I am by no stretch anti-female. I don't think women are inferior, I don't think they should be subjugated, oppressed or controlled. Further, I don't write off many of the concepts of feminist theory; I just think that, as a whole, the idea has been skewed by people who have taken it off the rails into ill-defined and often blithely shallow territory. So perhaps it's better to say that I take issue with what feminism has commonly come to be construed as, as well as those who claim to be shining examples of its doctrines.

I agree with the cited blog post insofar as I think that one of the greatest problems is a lack of definitive clarity as to what feminism actually means. And here I think the first kinks begin to show in the armour. Because many people would tell you it relates to equality of opportunity. This means that a man and woman, of equal qualifications and skills, should be paid the same. To me, this isn't feminism, this is humanity and common sense. So, is it an opinion that women are intrinsically superior? There are certainly those who hold that viewpoint, but I think the question is trite, primarily because superiority is itself ill-defined-superior in what sense? So what about the notion that men and women are totally identical in every potential, and it is societal influences that mould us into disparate creatures? I deny this notion-first of all, there are physical differences; men are not (by and large) bigger due to diet and gym regimes. We are bigger because testosterone grows muscle better. Similarly, I firmly believe that men and women have different intellectual and emotional strengths; I don't see anything wrong with this. So, many of the most commonly-held views of what it means to be a feminist are views with which I either disagree or agree insofar as I feel the issue is self-evident and requires no such "-ism" label. I'm not a "masculist" because I think men should have the chance to be paid as well as women; I shouldn't have to be a "feminist" to believe the reverse is true.

My second issue with most people's view on feminism is that it is a zero-sum game. A zero sum game is one in which, for one side to "win", the other must "lose". For example, sports are a zero-sum game: if one team rises in the rankings, another has fallen. Stocks, however, are an example of something that isn't. Just because Apple's stock rises, doesn't means Microsoft's falls. In fact, it's theoretically possible, through the magic of economics, for every stock in existence to rise in a given trading day. In terms of feminism, I feel many people view the issue as a zero-sum game: if you are pro-woman, it must mean you're anti-man. This is just wrong, and it this thinking that leads people to automatically equate "feminist" with "man-hater". It is simple fact that one can support women's rights without impinging on men's. But the inherent assumption behind many feminists is that you must push men down in order to be able to elevate women. All this does is galvanise both sides into a black-and-white idealogical debate that need not take place. It is similar to movements such as the Black Panther movement in the 1960s that preached black supremacy; rather than striving for integration and the elimination of barriers, all this does is energise your opposition.

The biggest issue I take with the allegedly-feminist views I've heard espoused, however, is that there is only one way to be feminist, and only one line of thought leading to that standard; that many groups have wildly disparate views of what that one way is is evidence of the very fallacy of the concept. There are those who will say that a woman should not use her looks to her advantage; there are those who preach conformity to male ideals (as evidenced in the shoulder-pad suits so prominent in the 80s and 90s). There are those who feel that every instance of the word "man" should be replaced with "person" (chairman to chairperson, congressman to congressperson and so forth). There are those who feel that men and women are fundamentally identical and therefore every position should be held by 50% women (I'll get to this ridiculous assertion in a minute, as I feel it's deleterious enough to merit its own paragraph). In a realistic, pragmatic world, there is no singular way to do anything, much less define one's identity. A perfect example of this arises in one of my favourite television shows, The West Wing. At one point Sam, one of the lead male roles, makes the comment "you'd make a good dog break his leash" to Ainsley, a recurring female lead who is both skilled and very physically attractive (and dressed in a very fetching backless ball gown at the time the comment was made). A female coworker takes offense at his "sexist" remark-she feels that Sam is degrading Ainsley by complementing her on her sexuality in lieu of her skills as a lawyer or her intelligence and general aptitudes. I disagree. I don't think that being physically attractive takes away from one's skill or power in other areas, nor do I feel that it automatically makes one an empty shell. This is the consensus that many of the other characters reach in that specific episode, but I feel that many feminists would still take offense. My point here is that neither side is automatically right. There are arguments to be made that emphasising one's sexuality decreases one's power and control or automatically makes it impossible for one to escape being merely "eye candy"; similarly, there are arguments that say one should use any and all tools at one's disposal and that complimenting a woman (or a man for that matter) on their sexuality in no way implies that you value them less as an intelligent human being.

"What's the point in feminism if I can't shave my legs when I damn well want to?"

-S. Camus

Now, the matter of quotas. As I mentioned above, there is often a push amongst feminist groups to eliminate the gender split in the workforce, either in terms of wages, or in terms of the number of people who make up that role (that is to say, every job should employ 50% women, 50% men). The disparity is especially prevalent in certain fields, notably computer science and engineering. In many cases, schools are actively trying to recruit female students into these programs. In some cases (I read an article to this effect ages ago, which sadly I cannot locate), there is a stated goal of having 50% enrollment. I think this misses the point entirely. Assuming that, just because the overall ratio of women-men is 50-50 implies that any given degree or job (much less every degree or job) should match that ratio is foolish, and is a shining example of feminism gone awry. Men and women do think differently, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and different avenues of study and employment appeal to them. A simple example is highly-physical labour (firemen, construction workers etc.). Men are physically larger and stronger than women, and I see no harm in there being more firemen than firewomen. In academics, if a particular field appeals more to one gender, so be it; this happens for both genders-some programs (notably biological sciences, psychology, veterinary science and many of the fine arts) are absolutely dominated by women and yet I feel no urge to cry foul that these degrees are discriminating against men; I realise they are degrees which are simply of a greater magnetism to women, for varied and perhaps unknown reasons. What we must do is ensure there are no artificial barriers to entry to these jobs or degrees. When it comes to women in engineering and computer science, this means making sure there's no harassment of women, either overt or subtle, that there isn't a residual "old boys' club" mentality, and so forth. Unfortunately, if you're a politician it's easier to point to a number and say "50%! Success!" than it is to to a thorough audit of any lingering sexism in a system as broad as a university or workplace. And politicians will take the easy and more-publicly-visible way out whenever they can.

Similarly, an assertion that every woman should make the same as every man is ludicrous. Unluckily for women (or lucky if you think kids aren't a giant pain in the ass), women have been saddled by nature as the ones who bear children. This means that a woman who chooses to raise a family must take time off work. But what people fail to realise is that a year off work actually sets one back by well over a year: the lost training, missing out on technological advances in one's line of work, and simply forgetting some of what you've done mean that a year's diversion mid-career puts one further back in one's career than it would seem. Put another way, someone with five uninterrupted years of experience will be much better-trained and much more capable than someone who has worked every other year for the past decade, taking the alternate years completely off of training and employment. The solution to this, of course, is to enshrine the concept of paternal leave, allowing men to share the burden of child-rearing early-on, and to allow women to continue training where possible while on maternity leave. But to compare a man and a woman in the same position, each with an apparent 10 years of experience, and then point to their disparate salaries as automatically implying sexism is disingenuous. Because if in that time, the woman took a year off for each of two kids, her career has probably been set back by the equivalent of three years. Blind equality is misleading; what's needed is a true evaluation of the equivalency of two employees' potential, and salaries commensurate to that.

This leads me to what I think we need in place of feminism: a total equality of opportunity. In every case, whether it be a job application or a university education, everyone who applies, regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic, should be presented with the same chances to excel or fail based on their individual merits. Those who are the best candidates should be admitted and prosper; those who are ill-suited should (and will) fall by the wayside. This should be held true in our hearts and enshrined in the annals of law and in academia and corporations the world over. This isn't an easy thing to achieve-distorted views, adversarial sentiments and old-fashioned sexism are often hard to detect, even within oneself. But I think that modern feminism in many ways is counter-productive. By trying to force a supremacy of women, by espousing views that are easily seen by the masses as "man hating", and by trying to pigeonhole women into any one of a number of wildly disparate "right ways to do things", you exacerbate the situation. People put their guards up, and become instantly recalcitrant to engage in the matter to a meaningful degree. You cannot reason with someone whose shackles are nor, nor with someone who feels attacked and denigrated.

So if not feminism, what is this? I think it's simply: humanism. You don't have to feel women are superior in order to feel they should have equality of opportunity. That's just human decency. You don't need to believe men and women are identical in every biological way to believe that the salaries of two people who are truly equivalent should be same, no matter what; you just need common sense. And you don't need an antiquated affirmative-action quota or ratio system to ensure that every role in the world is filled by 50% women; you just have to make sure that it settles at the natural, equilibrium level, that there is nothing preventing hopeful candidates. It's not feminism, it's humanism.

"Women: their rights, and nothing less; Men: their rights, and nothing more."

-Susan B. Anthony

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

50 Things To Do Before You Leave University

Following along with the theme of my last post (39 Ways To Live Your Life in An Airy-Fairy World), I'd like to respond to another such article, this one from New Scientist: 50 Things To Do Before You Leave University. This one bugged me less than the rest, so it's more of a personal checklist, along with my own rambling thoughts.
  1. Spend At Least One Week Researching Your Career (kinda done). I've certainly looked into various prospects over the years, though haven't ever given the concerted effort they suggest.
  2. Send Off A Job Application (done). Thanks to co-op, I have done this many, many times.
  3. Work On Your CV (done). Again, have done this a lot, and I actually feel I'm quite adept at it now.
  4. Hand In Assignment A Week Early (done). I've done this, but it didn't feel great; the only reason I handed in an assignment very early was because there were like 10 more waiting to be done.
  5. Visit Every Library On Campus (kinda done). I've been to the three main libraries here at Manchester. I never use hard-copy journal articles though-everything's online now.
  6. Star In A Play (not done). My acting ability falls somewhere in-between "shrub" and "dead shrub". There has never been a play desperate enough to cast me as the lead. Although, when I was 5, I do believe I played some role in the kindergarden production of Little Red Riding Hood, because every kid in class has to do so.
  7. Attend A Career Fair (done). In my experience, these are good for free stuff, bad for actual career-hunting. I was told at a career fair (sponsored in part by the University of Guelph) "we didn't know Guelph hab engineering" and "we only hire engineers from Waterloo".
  8. Attend A History Lecture (done). I'll do you one better, I took a 3rd-year history course (Celtic Ireland and Britain to 1066), loved it and got an 81%. I only wish I'd had more time in undergrad to do things unrelated to my field.
  9. Do Something Stupid For Charity. (done). I know I sat on a giant teeter-totter (made out of a telephone pole) for awhile, and I'm fairly certain I ran across campus in my underwear at least once.
  10. Fall Madly In Love (done). It is both a learning experience and a character-building one. Heartbreak is no fun, but whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, right?
  11. Pull Pints (done). Only briefly, this past Christmas, thanks to Jon and his amazingly kind and generous family.
  12. Take A Course Or Alternative Module (done). I took the History course mentioned above, an English course (which sucked) and two economics courses (which were boring, but I got a 90% and 100% so yay for me). I considered minoring in economics, but it was just too boring to dedicate the time to.
  13. Try Out For The University Challenge Team (not done). I had a pretty good knowledge of obscure trivia, but a sadly-lacking knowledge of British-oriented trivia. Cricket? Football? Old prime ministers? BBC sitcoms? No thanks.
  14. Argue With An Arts Student (done A LOT). This is always fun. I debate, so dig arguing. And arts students have some plain old wacky ideas. It's also a challenge to debate with someone lacking basic logic (I kid, I kid).
  15. Join A Society (done). Debating, Jiu-Jitsu, SafeWalk, Fencing, etc.
  16. Consider Never Leaving (done). I've been in some form of school for 22 years, almost uninterrupted.
  17. Vote (done). I think student politics is usually just a big circle-jerk, but I've voted once or twice (generally to vote against candidates, but that's neither here nor there). I've also voted in provincial and federal elections, because they actually matter.
  18. Attend A Protest (not done). Here's the weird thing: the more activist people around me are, the less inclined am I to want to get involved. I actually get pissed off, and they tend to push me the other way. And I've attended two very activist universities, so I've become pretty apathetic.
  19. Hug A Professor (done). Done because they say getting to know one counts. And there have been a few who have really inspired me-notably Jack Wiener and Shawki Areibi.
  20. Discover A Local Band (not done). In fairness, a majority of local bands suck.
  21. Get Some Work Experience (done). Again, thanks to co-op, I've worked a number of contract positions. Not in the area I hoep to go into eventually, but so be it.
  22. Speak At A Debate (done). Let's see... I was secretary then president of the debate society back home, and have been communications officer for two years running here. I've debated for over ten years counting high school debating, and have made it to the quarter-finals of the European Championship. I think I can safely check this one off the list.
  23. Teach Science To Kids (not done). I almost worked for the Guelph engineering school's summer science camp once, but was too late in applying. Besides, kids are scary.
  24. Take Your Parents To The Pub (done). Did this last year when they came to visit.
  25. Write A Blog (done). You're reading it right now. Actually, I suspect nobody is reading it, but if you are seeing these words, I'm wrong.
  26. Try A Job-Shadow (not done). Probably would've been a good idea, though.
  27. Wear You Pyjamas To A Lecture (not done). This was common-place at Guelph (even for people who took the bus into campus), and it always bugged me. I don't think it's asking too much to ask you to put on some freaking pants before you turn up. This isn't black-tie, but throw on a pair of trousers, dammit!
  28. Flip Burgers (done). Dairy Queen, the summer after first year. It sucked.
  29. Buy A Suit (done). A nice charcoal-grey pinstripe number. The jacket shrunk in the rain once, but then I lost weight, so it fits nicely again. Pants had to be altered, though.
  30. Visit The Careers Office (done). In my experience, the careers office is singularly unhelpful. Your mileage may vary, but my guess is that some of the most useless people you'll ever meet work there. Needless to say, one visit was all I did.
  31. Become Excessively Pretentious (done). See #22 (debating) for details.
  32. Organise Something (kinda done). I helped organise World On A Plate for my hall in undergrad, and have helped organise various debates and other events. Never spearheaded anything, though.
  33. Throw A Dinner Party (kinda done). Do barbecues count?
  34. Volunteer (done). Only a little bit, for things like the engineering Speed River Cleanup.
  35. Be A Culture Volunteer (done). I've been to a few museums and art galleries, though I really should see some more.
  36. Join A Sports Team (kinda done). I played one game of volleyball for the Watson Hall team.
  37. Start A Business (not done). Lots of ideas, no real follow-through.
  38. Live Out (done). Halls are great at first, but I am so glad to be in my own place instead.
  39. Make 100 Friends (done). I might have to stretch the definition slightly, but I think I can do it. Certainly my facebook list is well over 100 if that counts.
  40. Buy A Piece Of University Clothing (done). I have a U of Guelph polo shirt and hoodie. Nothing from Manchester, yet, though I do have T-Shirts from Harvard and Oxford (where I have never studied).
  41. Go To The Zoo (not done). Haven't been since I was a kid.
  42. Subscribe To A Magazine (done). Maxim, in my first year. Not exactly erudite social commentary and news, but entertaining. And with a much higher boobs-to-depressing-war-story ratio.
  43. Collect £50 In Loose Change (not done). I hate change. A lot. I try to keep as little of it as possible.
  44. Take A Sandwich Year (kinda done). With co-op, I had work terms in-between study terms. But none of the work terms were a full year long-8 months was the longest.
  45. Go To A Fancy-Dress Ball (kinda done). I've been to a fancy-dress party, but not a ball. Note for non-Brits: fancy-dress=costume party.
  46. Brighten Up Your Department (done). I threw some plastic flowers that were going to be discarded into a wine bottle. I'm counting it.
  47. Find Religion (not done). I have some interesting view on spirituality and divinity, but nothing that could be called a religion.
  48. Find A Job (done). Again, co-op.
  49. Give Up Drinking (not done). Beer: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  50. Open Your Mind (done). I think I'm open to a wide range of ideas and concepts.
So what's my total? Counting "kinda done" as one-half, that puts me at 34.5 out of 50 (or a pathetic 69%). Anyone else want to weigh in with their ranking?

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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Take chances. Spot on, something I've written about before.
  6. 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.
  7. Find your passion. Yeah, this one's good too. It's on my to-do list.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Eliminate everything else. See above.
  14. 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%.
  15. 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.
  16. Open your heart. Tough thing to do, but worth it.
  17. 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!
  18. Face your fears. Yup, good advice, and again, something I've written about before.
  19. When you suffer, suffer. This kind of contradicts his #15, but aligns nicely with my critique thereof.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Learn new skills. I agree with this one, but try not to lose the old skills, eh?
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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).
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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).
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. Try something new, every week. Good advice, albeit a little impractical.
  39. 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.
I don't think the article is bad per se. I just thinks it's naive and simplistic. I don't think it's fair to paint everyone with the same brush, something I feel the author does quite a bit. There are some great bits of advice there, but they must be tempered with a dose of pragmatism. Put another way, idealism is wonderful, but should never compromise realism.

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.

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

The title of this post is hyperbolic at best, outright disingenuous at worst. I do not see Steve Jobs as Lenin, nor Bill Gates as Adam Smith. Rather, it reflects a recent revelation that I had: Apple strives for tight-knit control over the whole computing ecosystem for Macs (Steve Jobs famously described Apple's strategy as "Making the whole widget"), and are largely successful at doing so (the most notable example being the vertical integration of the iPod, iTunes and the iTunes Store); the PC world, on the other hand (by which I mean Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Dell, HP, etc.) is much more about having a wide variety of competition for every component (Microsoft's antitrust practices aside). Each side has benefits and problems, and I think the two approaches reflect very aptly the strengths and weaknesses of a command economy contrasted with a free market state.

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:
  • 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