Something interesting came up on a chat show today about the place of dreams in people's lives and more specifically, the question of whether or not they are a good thing or a bad thing.
So where and how do the oppositions stand?
To have dreams is to be human and indeed, it is the very human act of dreaming; to have hopes and desires beyond your grasp that is what drives us as a species to move forward. The question is then how far should dreams take us? How much should we invest in a dream? Where do we draw the line?
What is your dream?
Ok, scratch that, what are your dreams?
There's no denying that we all have dreams. There is hardly a person out there that doesn't in one way or another, want something. Some of these wants are selfish, some not so but they are all the same, a desire for something; a want, a need, a dream.
Some dreams are simple and perfectly understandable. We all want to be successful. We all want to be able to afford and to have the things we desire. This is what I consider to be one of the key elements of the human condition. Without the desire for more, we simply do not progress. Idly meandering along a path to nowhere gets you exactly that; nowhere so we should all dream to do better, to be better, to have better. If not for ourselves then for the people that follow.
I use them as an example time and time again but that is because it is relevent to me and a lot of people in the UK. My parents came to this country with nothing to make an attempt to be better than they were in HK. 50+ years ago, when my grand-parents first had a notion that their kids could ship themselves to the UK to have a go at getting work, they were farmers. Remember too that farming in HK back then wasn't exactly a high tech grand scale affair. It was one big cow, carrying buckets of water and getting hands and feet dirty farming; in fact pretty much how they did things in the UK around the 1700s. That's the kind of life my parents had as children.
But they had dreams and so off they sailed.
Part of these dreams were selfish.
It is prevalent in Chinese society/culture that parents live off the success of their children. As a result, many of my generation are doctors, lawyers, brokers, engineers, accountants are all professions that are desirable because they are either heroes of a sort or considered respectable. The dream for their child to be something was reason for them (the parents) to work hard to make money so that they can brag about the success of their child and hence recount tales of how hard they worked to put us (the children) through various schools.
Maybe this is something that all parents go through but it is just more poignant to me because of the specific details of really coming from nothing. I have never asked them the question and perhaps I never will but I do wonder what it was that they initially wanted from the UK, before me and my sister came into the picture?
It's obvious really, first and foremost it is to survive and in fact, a lot of this is about survival and what comes afterwards. Once you get beyond the basic need to survive is where it gets interesting. Once you are surviving comfortably and no longer have to worry about not making a living what place then do dreams take you?
As a working adult, we all want a better job. Even when you are at the top of your profession, there will be things that you want from your job. These are still dreams and this is what creates competition and again, competition is one of those things that drives us forward.
But these are the big overt dreams.
These are things that we can see with our eyes as they are the dreams that has an effect on our lives.
How about the smaller dreams?
It is natural for us to want to succeed.
To be able to do what ever we want is the true reason for the want to be successful and earn money. Money isn't the most important thing in the world but money helps you achieve things that are important. More accurately, money offers you freedom to choose the things you do and it is that little thing, the power of choice, the freedom of choice that is important and one of the things that ultimately define you as a person.
So it is good to have dreams; goals, ambitions, a direction for us to aim for so that we know how and where to make/take the next step.
Except somewhere along the line, people started to forget this.
When My grand-dad came to the UK, it was to give his children a chance at something better. When my parents came here it was further that cause and develop what had been started earlier. That leaves me here, now, sitting on the cusp of achieving what they started two generations ago and how I go from here, is my choice because I have a choice. That is what their dreams have given me and that is why I also feel guilty because I have not always made the best choices but that is my burden and not one that needs to be discussed...
But at least I do know where I should be going.
I'm not sure that can be said of many people these days.
It could be unfair of me and I know that a lot of this is going to be down to the media presentation but it seems that ahem, kids these days have no direction; no real dreams.
They want to be famous, to be a celebrity but without having to do the work that is usually associated with success and fame and fortune.
The abundance of reality talent shows show us just how much of an epidemic this is. Kids talk about wanting the chance as if it's owed to them, that they just deserve it but reality is, no.
For every good singer on X-Factor needing a chance, there are tens and even hundreds of equally good singers doing the club circuits and working ten times as hard. So who deserves it more?
Everyone remembers that classic "I live the life of a celebrity" from that who-ever on Big Brother in one of the early series. It's quite shocking to think that even back then, when this was in its infancy, that there were already people who thought like that and that is perhaps where the real issue is; that people place too much importance on themselves. They are so self centred that everything they do is ultimately so that they can gain.
What's worse is that they truely believe themselves; that they deserve whatever it is that they want and that somehow, that means they don't have to work at it. How often have you heard someone say "well, if it wasn't meant to be then that's just the way it is?". Well, I can't help but see that as an excuse to not work harder. It is akin to letting it fall on something as whimsical and not to mention non-existing, as fate. As if you don't have to worry because one day etc etc etc.
In the real world, we call that delusional but that's the problem with delusional; they don't know that they are. As far as they are concerned, they are what they think they are and that anyone who indicates otherwise is wrong. It is, as I keep repeating, a way of avoiding responsibilty.
The short of it is this; you don't really deserve anything you don't work at.
The inverse is also true; you deserve everything that results from the things that you do.
If someone praises you, well done but at the same time, if someone has something bad to say, chances are you deserve that too.
Titled: 19th October 2008
Published: 15th December 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
in case you missed it...
...i'm back.
In the UK that is.
Trip is over, shopping is done, work resumes.
Or at least something like that.
So how was HK?
Well, the same really but I guess that is perhaps the biggest difference; taking the same bus, the same metro, walking down the same roads, stopping in the same little shops, it all really does feel more familiar and for lack of a better word, comfortable.
It could just be all down to the simple fact that this was the third time that I've been there this year and the last time, I had a bit of autonomy seeing as I was by myself. Reason points to the fact that the more time you spend in a place, the more comfortable you get to be there, right?
It's nice not having to worry about where to eat because you're getting to know a few places. It's nice not having to worry about explaining to people that you don't really live there and that you can't read the language. It's nice not having to get people to (grudgingly) explain how the wierd (and stupidly cheap) set dinners work.
Best of all?
It's nice knowing that I have a kitchen to use if I wanted to.
Of course, I wasn't really there long enough to warrant kitting out the kitchen for a full on dinner cooking but having free use of a (clean) kettle is a thing that is taken for granted.
Let's not even go into having a clean bathroom...
So what did I achieve?
Mission accomplished?
Sort of.
My bed's always been there so it was only really a case of double bed, sofa and a side table for the telly. Oh, and the telly itself...
Despite my initial reservations, I settled on a corner sofa that came with lovely green cushions; which looks quite nice if I do say so myself. Except, I've still not seen it in place as I couldn't make delivery so really, mum's going to see it before I do.
Still, I haven't received any news of anything going wrong so I'm going to take it as no news being good news. As said before, the place isn't big and I hope that the sofa isn't going to take too much of the limited space. On paper, it all looks fine and dandy but as I have witnessed before in my line of work, even when something looks right in a layout drawing, nothing beats seeing the object in space to really know how big it is, so here's hoping.
Most importantly though, is that I bought a telly.
My what a difficult chore that was. For some bizarre reason, lcd tvs are stupidly overpriced in HK. Not simple a couple hundred HK$ but thousands. A 32"sony model that I've been eying up for home here costs around £360 which would equate to, at worst case exchange rate, HK$5400ish and that was what I was expecting. What was the best offer we got? HK$7200, something that at est would be £500, or at the exchange rate at the time, £650.
Sometimes, there is nothing that expresses the moment like WTF?
I've always known that there was effectively two grades of electronic goods in HK, that which is made in China and that which is made everywhere else and I have a sneaking suspicion that is what is happening here. Of course, the stores don't stock Made in China Sony tvs so I couldn't confirm this. What they did have though was Made in China and Made in Japan versions of a Toshiba telly.
Difference in price?
Actually I can't remember but the one I ended up getting was a Made In China Toshiba for around HK$4200 which was the only branded 32" that worked out to somewhere near UK price for the like.
Rediculous but at the same time interesting.
Does that happen here as well?
A cursory look on Amazon points to £350 being a decent entry point for 32" lcd tvs but where are they made? Are they all so cheap because they are all Made In China?
More importantly, are they cheaper because they really aren't as good as a Made In Japan version of the same?
I'd like to think myself as a smart shopper, as being one who is objective about "stuff" of all sorts so I'd like to think that all versions of the same should be just that, the same and that any difference lies soley with the consumers' perception.
Except, China really does have a bad record of shoddy produce.
Reason would say that any brand wouldn't allow 2nd rate produce to bear their name but again, consumer reports shows otherwise.
So have I made a bad choice?
Not even sure if it's important really as the tv would still be left unattended in hot and humid environment for 6 months - scratch that, the 6 hottest, most himd months of the year anyway.
That situation alone dictates that it is not worth spending more than £400 on a telly that WILL die sooner rather than later.
Sound like me justifying my purchase?
Maybe.
But it is the logical responce, no?
Anyway.
I'll be back in HK on the 24th on January anyway so time will tell.
It's not even that much time; 5 weeks-ish.
Home.
Now that is a strange word for me to use to call HK.
In the UK that is.
Trip is over, shopping is done, work resumes.
Or at least something like that.
So how was HK?
Well, the same really but I guess that is perhaps the biggest difference; taking the same bus, the same metro, walking down the same roads, stopping in the same little shops, it all really does feel more familiar and for lack of a better word, comfortable.
It could just be all down to the simple fact that this was the third time that I've been there this year and the last time, I had a bit of autonomy seeing as I was by myself. Reason points to the fact that the more time you spend in a place, the more comfortable you get to be there, right?
It's nice not having to worry about where to eat because you're getting to know a few places. It's nice not having to worry about explaining to people that you don't really live there and that you can't read the language. It's nice not having to get people to (grudgingly) explain how the wierd (and stupidly cheap) set dinners work.
Best of all?
It's nice knowing that I have a kitchen to use if I wanted to.
Of course, I wasn't really there long enough to warrant kitting out the kitchen for a full on dinner cooking but having free use of a (clean) kettle is a thing that is taken for granted.
Let's not even go into having a clean bathroom...
So what did I achieve?
Mission accomplished?
Sort of.
My bed's always been there so it was only really a case of double bed, sofa and a side table for the telly. Oh, and the telly itself...
Despite my initial reservations, I settled on a corner sofa that came with lovely green cushions; which looks quite nice if I do say so myself. Except, I've still not seen it in place as I couldn't make delivery so really, mum's going to see it before I do.
Still, I haven't received any news of anything going wrong so I'm going to take it as no news being good news. As said before, the place isn't big and I hope that the sofa isn't going to take too much of the limited space. On paper, it all looks fine and dandy but as I have witnessed before in my line of work, even when something looks right in a layout drawing, nothing beats seeing the object in space to really know how big it is, so here's hoping.
Most importantly though, is that I bought a telly.
My what a difficult chore that was. For some bizarre reason, lcd tvs are stupidly overpriced in HK. Not simple a couple hundred HK$ but thousands. A 32"sony model that I've been eying up for home here costs around £360 which would equate to, at worst case exchange rate, HK$5400ish and that was what I was expecting. What was the best offer we got? HK$7200, something that at est would be £500, or at the exchange rate at the time, £650.
Sometimes, there is nothing that expresses the moment like WTF?
I've always known that there was effectively two grades of electronic goods in HK, that which is made in China and that which is made everywhere else and I have a sneaking suspicion that is what is happening here. Of course, the stores don't stock Made in China Sony tvs so I couldn't confirm this. What they did have though was Made in China and Made in Japan versions of a Toshiba telly.
Difference in price?
Actually I can't remember but the one I ended up getting was a Made In China Toshiba for around HK$4200 which was the only branded 32" that worked out to somewhere near UK price for the like.
Rediculous but at the same time interesting.
Does that happen here as well?
A cursory look on Amazon points to £350 being a decent entry point for 32" lcd tvs but where are they made? Are they all so cheap because they are all Made In China?
More importantly, are they cheaper because they really aren't as good as a Made In Japan version of the same?
I'd like to think myself as a smart shopper, as being one who is objective about "stuff" of all sorts so I'd like to think that all versions of the same should be just that, the same and that any difference lies soley with the consumers' perception.
Except, China really does have a bad record of shoddy produce.
Reason would say that any brand wouldn't allow 2nd rate produce to bear their name but again, consumer reports shows otherwise.
So have I made a bad choice?
Not even sure if it's important really as the tv would still be left unattended in hot and humid environment for 6 months - scratch that, the 6 hottest, most himd months of the year anyway.
That situation alone dictates that it is not worth spending more than £400 on a telly that WILL die sooner rather than later.
Sound like me justifying my purchase?
Maybe.
But it is the logical responce, no?
Anyway.
I'll be back in HK on the 24th on January anyway so time will tell.
It's not even that much time; 5 weeks-ish.
Home.
Now that is a strange word for me to use to call HK.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Ode To The Forgotten
Sinclair ZX80
Atari 2600
Nintendo NES
Sega Master System
All these things are heralded as milestones in the world of gaming and yet for their praises and glories, one of them actually doesn't belong.
There is a tendency of the west to only see things in their immediate world, ignoring everything else that happens outside of their bubble and so it is true here.
Yes, it is true that the Nintendo NES was the landmark games console it is forgotten, more often not known, that the NES was a repackaged version of the, at time of the launch, 2 year old Nintendo Famicom.
While the Asian market machine was blessed with such things like an external floppy disc drive, a modem to connect to Nintendo servers, all the NES got were different game controllers. They also had a built in microphone on the second controller for use with some games. Sure it doesn't look as good as the NES (in all it's 1980s PC grey/beige box style) but it was where it mattered the most, the same.
So what is this post about really?
For one thing, it is a reminder that not everything people say is true. Indeed, it is possible that what most people say is actually false; not intentionally a lie but just misinformation that is never corrected.
The point?
Not a lot really; just that when-ever someone says that the NES was the first, just remind them that it wasn't, it was more like a version 1.5.
Atari 2600
Nintendo NES
Sega Master System
All these things are heralded as milestones in the world of gaming and yet for their praises and glories, one of them actually doesn't belong.
There is a tendency of the west to only see things in their immediate world, ignoring everything else that happens outside of their bubble and so it is true here.
Yes, it is true that the Nintendo NES was the landmark games console it is forgotten, more often not known, that the NES was a repackaged version of the, at time of the launch, 2 year old Nintendo Famicom.
While the Asian market machine was blessed with such things like an external floppy disc drive, a modem to connect to Nintendo servers, all the NES got were different game controllers. They also had a built in microphone on the second controller for use with some games. Sure it doesn't look as good as the NES (in all it's 1980s PC grey/beige box style) but it was where it mattered the most, the same.
So what is this post about really?
For one thing, it is a reminder that not everything people say is true. Indeed, it is possible that what most people say is actually false; not intentionally a lie but just misinformation that is never corrected.
The point?
Not a lot really; just that when-ever someone says that the NES was the first, just remind them that it wasn't, it was more like a version 1.5.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
travelling without....
.....no, not "moving" but instead, much better: without paying!
And it get's even better than that.
It's First Class without paying.
That's 12 hours of gentle, relaxed flying where I can actually lay down and have proper cutlery with my meal and hopefully, decent bread instead of the usual strangely plastic roll or fridge cold brioche.
Perhaps more importantly, I get decent copies of newspapers and magazines and the space to turn the pages. It makes the thought of flying all the way to HK to sort out some dodgy plumbing and to buy another bed and telly and other bits of small furniture not too tedious as well, I get the same comfy flight back.
Eck,
I just realised that I really will be flying to do some shopping.
How Jet-Set of me.
Bring
It
On.
And it get's even better than that.
It's First Class without paying.
That's 12 hours of gentle, relaxed flying where I can actually lay down and have proper cutlery with my meal and hopefully, decent bread instead of the usual strangely plastic roll or fridge cold brioche.
Perhaps more importantly, I get decent copies of newspapers and magazines and the space to turn the pages. It makes the thought of flying all the way to HK to sort out some dodgy plumbing and to buy another bed and telly and other bits of small furniture not too tedious as well, I get the same comfy flight back.
Eck,
I just realised that I really will be flying to do some shopping.
How Jet-Set of me.
Bring
It
On.
horse, cow, dog shit...
....ain't got nothing on you.
I am one that is usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to certain matters and despite the many times that I have had people tell me otherwise, I still believed that it is possible that there is just some sort of misunderstanding but I can ignore it no longer.
It is all horse shit.
Nothing but a fantasy hiding and hidden by lies, deceit and conceit.
Selfishness, arrogance and narcissim of the highest order all topped off with more than just a dash of hypocrisy.
What is this you ask?
Nothing really.
In fact it is nothing to do with me or even any one I really know.
Sort of.
The real question is why do I care?
I can stomach many things but hypocrisy is something that has always gotten my proverbial goat. In fact, if there was such a thing as a Hypocrisy Imp, he'd have a Gulag full of my goats but there isn't and all I have is a little virtual voice reminding me that she had already told me a long time ago that he's just an arsehole.
What I can't help but wonder is if people can really be that blind?
Can a person be so involved with themselves that they can't see past their own fantasy world?
Can a person be so fixated on fairy tales that they really can ignore and completely dismiss past behaviour because the current fantasy is "better" than the previous?
Can a person really be so without regret and remorse as to instantly forget things to suit their fantasy?
But ack, it really isn't anything to do with me.
The only thing I should say is that I do hope I am wrong, or actually, that I was right in the first place and that it was all just a misunderstanding of sorts.
Chances?
As I said already, I'm not a betting man.
If I were, the first thing I'd do, is do what horse racing punters do; look at past form.
oops.
I am one that is usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to certain matters and despite the many times that I have had people tell me otherwise, I still believed that it is possible that there is just some sort of misunderstanding but I can ignore it no longer.
It is all horse shit.
Nothing but a fantasy hiding and hidden by lies, deceit and conceit.
Selfishness, arrogance and narcissim of the highest order all topped off with more than just a dash of hypocrisy.
What is this you ask?
Nothing really.
In fact it is nothing to do with me or even any one I really know.
Sort of.
The real question is why do I care?
I can stomach many things but hypocrisy is something that has always gotten my proverbial goat. In fact, if there was such a thing as a Hypocrisy Imp, he'd have a Gulag full of my goats but there isn't and all I have is a little virtual voice reminding me that she had already told me a long time ago that he's just an arsehole.
What I can't help but wonder is if people can really be that blind?
Can a person be so involved with themselves that they can't see past their own fantasy world?
Can a person be so fixated on fairy tales that they really can ignore and completely dismiss past behaviour because the current fantasy is "better" than the previous?
Can a person really be so without regret and remorse as to instantly forget things to suit their fantasy?
But ack, it really isn't anything to do with me.
The only thing I should say is that I do hope I am wrong, or actually, that I was right in the first place and that it was all just a misunderstanding of sorts.
Chances?
As I said already, I'm not a betting man.
If I were, the first thing I'd do, is do what horse racing punters do; look at past form.
oops.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
where-ever I lay my hat... revisited
And yet another song reference.
This time though, there is a much better reason for it.
I don't recall mentioning it here before earlier this year, mum has finally , after dithering about it for (insert your choice of deity here) knows how many years, bought a small flat in Hong Kong. Ok, technically, it's not really in Hong Kong but in the New Territories.
Before this, every time any of us has gone to HK, we've always stayed at a relative's place; either at one of her sister (my aunt's) places or at one of my uncles' (her in-laws') place. This was never ideal, especially seeing as there is a very specific reason why I don't have a home where I'm supposed to but seeing as the parties involved aren't around anymore, that's never really been an issue but still; not ideal.
So this is it.
After many years of being homeless, I now do have a home.
That was why I made two successive trips to Hong Kong with a 3 week break in-between travelling at the beginning of this year; to sort out the paperwork and attempt to make a start at settling into the place.
Like the best laid plans, waste followed.
Admittedly, I only had just over a week. not including the weekend, to complete the exchange, before looking for and buying furniture and pushing them to deliver withing 5 days. That's the bit that failed. I had planned to exchange the day after I landed, then spend the first day/evening checking out furniture (praise whatever is holy that stores don't close until 10ish) and at the latest, buy stuff within the next two days. I was effecient enough in my browsing to manage to buy a fridge/freezer and bed. Unfortunately, my not understanding of how HK pay as you go mobiles work, meant I couldn't confirm and take delivery of the bed until the day I was due to fly. I also managed to stand up a friend I was due to meet for dinner who probably still hasn't forgiven me...
Short of it is that I never even got to stay at the place for one night, let alone the four I had planned. Once the fridge had been delivered, I had even bought some basic cooking ingredients, a nice big Tefal Wok, dining set, knives& forks, glasses, cups, chopsticks and other essential household bits; all of which are still sitting there gathering dust and probably going mouldy in the damp HK air.
But that doesn't matter.
Come January, for the first time ever, when my sister and I land in HK, we won't be making our way to an aunts' place, or an uncles' place, or my grand-ma's place but to our place.
I know I've said that I'm not one for sentimentality or that I am one who needs to feel like I belong but there's something about even the thought of having our place that does something to a usually miserable git.
It helps that I also already have a bed there and three rather big and plump pillows waiting for me.
There's still work to be done before it's a proper home though and that's something that's a little worrying as mum will be there two weeks before me and my sis arrive, which is two weeks of potential shopping disaster...
Anyway, it isn't a big place and there's nothing in it to make it interesting and I've only really got a few pics to show for it.
The View
The bathroom sink and the shower
The kitchenette
It really isn't much but it makes such a difference mentally to even the idea of a trip there.
Maybe there's something to that "feeling at home" lark after all.
This time though, there is a much better reason for it.
I don't recall mentioning it here before earlier this year, mum has finally , after dithering about it for (insert your choice of deity here) knows how many years, bought a small flat in Hong Kong. Ok, technically, it's not really in Hong Kong but in the New Territories.
Before this, every time any of us has gone to HK, we've always stayed at a relative's place; either at one of her sister (my aunt's) places or at one of my uncles' (her in-laws') place. This was never ideal, especially seeing as there is a very specific reason why I don't have a home where I'm supposed to but seeing as the parties involved aren't around anymore, that's never really been an issue but still; not ideal.
So this is it.
After many years of being homeless, I now do have a home.
That was why I made two successive trips to Hong Kong with a 3 week break in-between travelling at the beginning of this year; to sort out the paperwork and attempt to make a start at settling into the place.
Like the best laid plans, waste followed.
Admittedly, I only had just over a week. not including the weekend, to complete the exchange, before looking for and buying furniture and pushing them to deliver withing 5 days. That's the bit that failed. I had planned to exchange the day after I landed, then spend the first day/evening checking out furniture (praise whatever is holy that stores don't close until 10ish) and at the latest, buy stuff within the next two days. I was effecient enough in my browsing to manage to buy a fridge/freezer and bed. Unfortunately, my not understanding of how HK pay as you go mobiles work, meant I couldn't confirm and take delivery of the bed until the day I was due to fly. I also managed to stand up a friend I was due to meet for dinner who probably still hasn't forgiven me...
Short of it is that I never even got to stay at the place for one night, let alone the four I had planned. Once the fridge had been delivered, I had even bought some basic cooking ingredients, a nice big Tefal Wok, dining set, knives& forks, glasses, cups, chopsticks and other essential household bits; all of which are still sitting there gathering dust and probably going mouldy in the damp HK air.
But that doesn't matter.
Come January, for the first time ever, when my sister and I land in HK, we won't be making our way to an aunts' place, or an uncles' place, or my grand-ma's place but to our place.
I know I've said that I'm not one for sentimentality or that I am one who needs to feel like I belong but there's something about even the thought of having our place that does something to a usually miserable git.
It helps that I also already have a bed there and three rather big and plump pillows waiting for me.
There's still work to be done before it's a proper home though and that's something that's a little worrying as mum will be there two weeks before me and my sis arrive, which is two weeks of potential shopping disaster...
Anyway, it isn't a big place and there's nothing in it to make it interesting and I've only really got a few pics to show for it.
The View
The bathroom sink and the shower
The kitchenette
It really isn't much but it makes such a difference mentally to even the idea of a trip there.
Maybe there's something to that "feeling at home" lark after all.
Monday, October 13, 2008
yes sir, no sir, how high sir?
This is brief and an extension of a previous post and is a simple question that I may have posted before.
What is more important?
Someone to congratulate you on everything you do, to sing praises and blindly ignore faults and errors?
Or someone who is going to tell you when you are in the wrong and that you maybe need to take a look at your behaviour?
The answer is quite simple really, if you don't want to hear criticisms, don't do anything that can be criticised. You can argue that it's not your fault but if you didn't know that you were doing wrong then for that reason alone, someone needs to tell you that you were, no? If you did know you were doing wrong, then that's even more reason for someone to tell you so you hopefully won't do it again.
If I were a betting man, I'd take bets but I'm not.
Besides, I don't like winning when it's easy.
What is more important?
Someone to congratulate you on everything you do, to sing praises and blindly ignore faults and errors?
Or someone who is going to tell you when you are in the wrong and that you maybe need to take a look at your behaviour?
The answer is quite simple really, if you don't want to hear criticisms, don't do anything that can be criticised. You can argue that it's not your fault but if you didn't know that you were doing wrong then for that reason alone, someone needs to tell you that you were, no? If you did know you were doing wrong, then that's even more reason for someone to tell you so you hopefully won't do it again.
If I were a betting man, I'd take bets but I'm not.
Besides, I don't like winning when it's easy.
and so the story goes....
The original date for this post was the 29th December 2007.
Now that ain't a good thing.
For a start, it shows just how bad I am at keeping track of things. Secondly, it shows how bad I am at following through with things.
Right now, after having browsed every news thread for that date I can't even begin to think what it was that inspired the title.
A part of me thinks it may have been gun related.
Another part thinks it might've been Afghanistan related.
There is also another smaller part that thinks it might be girl related.
What story?
I have always refered to people's perception of themselves and their lives as their "story" and I do have vague memories of something happening around December last year that would've prompted a post about my own story.
But is that it?
Did a single simple missed phone call deserve a post?
As I sit here, have read the headlines for things that happened on on before the date, I can't but think what a waste of time this would've been if it was the only reason for the post; a sodding phone call. From a girl.
How much more shallow, empty and pathetic can you get?
Of course, this being purely for my own satisfaction, I am allowed a little self indulgence once in a while; much like how the countless little Fiat 500s and Puntos offset the occasional Ferrari Scuderia's excesses.
Yeah, right...
I can claim to be many things but if something like a missed phone call did spur me to think about making a post, what does that say about me?
I'm not entirely sure I like the answer to that one.
But if it's important to me, then where's the harm, right?
Part of this thing is for me to represent myself, good or bad and only by letting it flow without censor would I be able to look back at an honest representation of me at that moment in time.
I'll admit that I am far from being uncensored here but I am trying.
Maybe next time, I'll use some actual names.
Titled: 5th December 2007
Published: 13th October 2008
Now that ain't a good thing.
For a start, it shows just how bad I am at keeping track of things. Secondly, it shows how bad I am at following through with things.
Right now, after having browsed every news thread for that date I can't even begin to think what it was that inspired the title.
A part of me thinks it may have been gun related.
Another part thinks it might've been Afghanistan related.
There is also another smaller part that thinks it might be girl related.
What story?
I have always refered to people's perception of themselves and their lives as their "story" and I do have vague memories of something happening around December last year that would've prompted a post about my own story.
But is that it?
Did a single simple missed phone call deserve a post?
As I sit here, have read the headlines for things that happened on on before the date, I can't but think what a waste of time this would've been if it was the only reason for the post; a sodding phone call. From a girl.
How much more shallow, empty and pathetic can you get?
Of course, this being purely for my own satisfaction, I am allowed a little self indulgence once in a while; much like how the countless little Fiat 500s and Puntos offset the occasional Ferrari Scuderia's excesses.
Yeah, right...
I can claim to be many things but if something like a missed phone call did spur me to think about making a post, what does that say about me?
I'm not entirely sure I like the answer to that one.
But if it's important to me, then where's the harm, right?
Part of this thing is for me to represent myself, good or bad and only by letting it flow without censor would I be able to look back at an honest representation of me at that moment in time.
I'll admit that I am far from being uncensored here but I am trying.
Maybe next time, I'll use some actual names.
Titled: 5th December 2007
Published: 13th October 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
.....only lonely in a crowd
.....when's the last time you had a look at the people around you?
How many of those people are ones that you met at work?
How many are random encounters?
How many have you known for years?
Something came up in discussion a couple of days ago that went a little like this:
"adults have no friends".
How true is that?
Me in my almighty non-commited wisdom said that it is when you are an adult with proper work and proper responsibilties that you know who your friends really are. I followed this with saying that when you are young, the people you hang out with when you have nothing to do, are just people you hang out because you have nothing to do.
How correct was I then?
The real question behind all this is:
what is a friend?
If we don't first define what "friend" means then we can't even begin to have answer for the questions about friends.
So where do we begin?
How about with what friends are when we are young? This seems like a good starting point as it is after all, the point in our lives when we first learn about friendship and when we first use it for our own (evil) means. We are without doubt, simpler creatures when we are children and so what we think of as friends then is naturally going to be the most basic definition.
To a child, a friend is someone who you can play with; playing being the most important thing when you are small and without any true responsibilities. Having fun is the reason for waking up early and sleeping as late as you can and having people to play with makes playing even better. So a friend is someone who you can play with? That by itself suggests that by the nature of playing, you and those you play with share a liking for something; after all, if you don't like Star Wars, you aint going to want to join in as Luke Skywalker #3 come playtime. So are friends those you have something in common with? But eck.... that means that technically we can be friends with half the people in the world if all it was about was commonality.
So does mean it's all down to fun and who you can have fun with?
Superficially, this is not much more than an extension of "commonality" but dig a little bit deeper and taken in a more adult context, this takes a definitely different path. Commonality does not automatically mean you can have fun together. A love of detective stories can mean a love of Frost as opposed to a love of Morse. A common liking for cars can be divided into fans of brands as in the real world, people's likes and dislikes fall into very specific sets. Again, this can be taken as simply a more in depth expansion of commonality which is indeed true were it not for one thing. People can have fun together even if they have nothing in common; hence opposites attract. How many tales have you heard of two people who get together simply for a bit of fun and don't let things progress beyond the bedroom? Of course, a little part of me thinks that this may just be another of those indicators of the state of modern society, when people find ways to get what they need without getting what they don't need or perhaps, want.
And there's the other point; are friends people we want one way or another? Are they people like us, people we want to be like or people we want?
How about all three?
Maybe.
What you want from a friend depends on many things and what those things are, like most things, depends on how honest you are.
I am perhaps, a little bit of a despot but paradoxically, I don't like to be seen to be so. In that respect, I am perhaps a bit of a Machievelli type who perfers to be behind the scenes. If that smells a bit too much like me being manipulative; I can't say that isn't true. In my defence though, it's not as if I am forever making or planning on making people do what I want; it is more like I like things done in a certain way and if at all possible, I would like you to do it , how I would like it to be done...
What that equates to, is that I like to have someone around who is louder, ruder and more arrogant than I am to well, distract from my own failings. At the same time, I also have a tendency to have people who are easy to manipulate.
What I mean is, people who are easy to guess their next move. In truth, I know that it is their predictability that I need because uncertainty is something I have a very hard time dealing with. Knowing how someone is going to react/behave is a comforting safety blanket.
So does that make them friends of mine or tools for my own gain?
But isn't that what friends are on one level? Simple tools to fulfil a need of ours? We are a social creature, so much so that those who are not social are termed "outcasts" so the basic most fundemental function of a friend is to be a companion; be it a companion to watch a film with, or have a drink with or in today's world, a companion who you only ever just talk to.
But this sort of companion does not need to be someone like us, someone we want or someone we want to be like.
Doesn't help, does it?
Logic dictates that when you have a thing that consists of variable interactions between different individuals that are dependent on even more variables, no single definition of "friend" is going to fit all friends.
It seems the best we can do is to identify what it is we like or perhaps more importantly don't like about any individual we call a friend and understand what it says about ourselves.
Titled: 3rd January 2008
Published: 12th October 2008
How many of those people are ones that you met at work?
How many are random encounters?
How many have you known for years?
Something came up in discussion a couple of days ago that went a little like this:
"adults have no friends".
How true is that?
Me in my almighty non-commited wisdom said that it is when you are an adult with proper work and proper responsibilties that you know who your friends really are. I followed this with saying that when you are young, the people you hang out with when you have nothing to do, are just people you hang out because you have nothing to do.
How correct was I then?
The real question behind all this is:
what is a friend?
If we don't first define what "friend" means then we can't even begin to have answer for the questions about friends.
So where do we begin?
How about with what friends are when we are young? This seems like a good starting point as it is after all, the point in our lives when we first learn about friendship and when we first use it for our own (evil) means. We are without doubt, simpler creatures when we are children and so what we think of as friends then is naturally going to be the most basic definition.
To a child, a friend is someone who you can play with; playing being the most important thing when you are small and without any true responsibilities. Having fun is the reason for waking up early and sleeping as late as you can and having people to play with makes playing even better. So a friend is someone who you can play with? That by itself suggests that by the nature of playing, you and those you play with share a liking for something; after all, if you don't like Star Wars, you aint going to want to join in as Luke Skywalker #3 come playtime. So are friends those you have something in common with? But eck.... that means that technically we can be friends with half the people in the world if all it was about was commonality.
So does mean it's all down to fun and who you can have fun with?
Superficially, this is not much more than an extension of "commonality" but dig a little bit deeper and taken in a more adult context, this takes a definitely different path. Commonality does not automatically mean you can have fun together. A love of detective stories can mean a love of Frost as opposed to a love of Morse. A common liking for cars can be divided into fans of brands as in the real world, people's likes and dislikes fall into very specific sets. Again, this can be taken as simply a more in depth expansion of commonality which is indeed true were it not for one thing. People can have fun together even if they have nothing in common; hence opposites attract. How many tales have you heard of two people who get together simply for a bit of fun and don't let things progress beyond the bedroom? Of course, a little part of me thinks that this may just be another of those indicators of the state of modern society, when people find ways to get what they need without getting what they don't need or perhaps, want.
And there's the other point; are friends people we want one way or another? Are they people like us, people we want to be like or people we want?
How about all three?
Maybe.
What you want from a friend depends on many things and what those things are, like most things, depends on how honest you are.
I am perhaps, a little bit of a despot but paradoxically, I don't like to be seen to be so. In that respect, I am perhaps a bit of a Machievelli type who perfers to be behind the scenes. If that smells a bit too much like me being manipulative; I can't say that isn't true. In my defence though, it's not as if I am forever making or planning on making people do what I want; it is more like I like things done in a certain way and if at all possible, I would like you to do it , how I would like it to be done...
What that equates to, is that I like to have someone around who is louder, ruder and more arrogant than I am to well, distract from my own failings. At the same time, I also have a tendency to have people who are easy to manipulate.
What I mean is, people who are easy to guess their next move. In truth, I know that it is their predictability that I need because uncertainty is something I have a very hard time dealing with. Knowing how someone is going to react/behave is a comforting safety blanket.
So does that make them friends of mine or tools for my own gain?
But isn't that what friends are on one level? Simple tools to fulfil a need of ours? We are a social creature, so much so that those who are not social are termed "outcasts" so the basic most fundemental function of a friend is to be a companion; be it a companion to watch a film with, or have a drink with or in today's world, a companion who you only ever just talk to.
But this sort of companion does not need to be someone like us, someone we want or someone we want to be like.
Doesn't help, does it?
Logic dictates that when you have a thing that consists of variable interactions between different individuals that are dependent on even more variables, no single definition of "friend" is going to fit all friends.
It seems the best we can do is to identify what it is we like or perhaps more importantly don't like about any individual we call a friend and understand what it says about ourselves.
Titled: 3rd January 2008
Published: 12th October 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
so i turn the radio on, i turn the radio up
I know, it's not like me to use a cheesy pop song but it's so much easier to express myself when it's using someone else's words, isn't it? I mean, if it all goes badly, I can blame them on the words because they are someone elses....
Except, the words I really want to say, I haven't even included in the title and I'm not even sure I want to type them out here. That is of course, the cowards way as I have pretty much given them to you anyway so why the hesitance in going the whole hog and just typing them out?
If I'm being honest, it's mainly because I don't want it to be true, or more to the point, I don't want to admit that it's true.
Except it is.
As cheesey as it sounds, I do think of you every day and I can't go about my daily routine without running into something that reminds me of you in some way and in the same old way I still don't know what I am supposed to do about it. Knowing that there isn't anything I should do or even could do is not the most comforting thought. Knowing that it still doesn't mean anything adds the neccessary edge of posion to make sure I don't forget.
Nice.
Titled: 14th August 2008
Published: 12th October 2008
Except, the words I really want to say, I haven't even included in the title and I'm not even sure I want to type them out here. That is of course, the cowards way as I have pretty much given them to you anyway so why the hesitance in going the whole hog and just typing them out?
If I'm being honest, it's mainly because I don't want it to be true, or more to the point, I don't want to admit that it's true.
Except it is.
As cheesey as it sounds, I do think of you every day and I can't go about my daily routine without running into something that reminds me of you in some way and in the same old way I still don't know what I am supposed to do about it. Knowing that there isn't anything I should do or even could do is not the most comforting thought. Knowing that it still doesn't mean anything adds the neccessary edge of posion to make sure I don't forget.
Nice.
Titled: 14th August 2008
Published: 12th October 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
modern life 1. Heroes: Part 2
And so they are upon us; the 29th Olympic Games hosted by China.
Surely this is the greatest sports event in the World and there is no doubt that all things related to the games becomes more spectacular with each successful host.
But alas all is not rosy and to see why, you have to look to the reason for the inception of the Modern Olympic Games.
We must first look to the motto of the Modern Olympic Games:
Citius, Altius,Fortius
Faster, Higher, Stronger
Originally, that was to represent the goal to be better than oneself instead of focusing on the win. The idea of the games was to unify the nations under the banner of a competition; a forum that doesn't discrimate nor offer a chance for politics be they local or global, get in the way of the display of human achievement.
All well meaning and good in principle but we all know that would never be the reality of them. Instead, what we have today, is a massively political forum where each nation competes to prove that they are the best. Try as they might to emphasis the personal achievements of the individuals, pointing out when they've pulled a personal best again but ultimately, the games these days, and the media coverage, looks to who got what where.
It is nothing more than just another sports competition except here, the pretence of the now empty slogan and tagline "Building a Peaceful and Better World Through Sport and the Olympic Ideal" justs serves to remind me just what the world is still like despite what they might tell you.
I am reminded by this by my own people who are resolutely from Kong Kong for the majority of the time, going so far as to make clear distinctions not to call them "big green" people but when something like the Olympic Games comes along, they're happy to revel in the glories of the people of the nation that they shun.
People say that apathy is the modern disease but hypocricy is right up there with it and equally as evil.
But athletes, on their own are undoubtly people to look up to.
They are prime examples of what the human being can do and just how far a person can push themselves if they want to (not the same as need to) so why are they not heroes to people who aren't interested in what they do? Is their only worth in the things that they win and the medals that they get awarded? Is that what the history books will remember them by? Mr A.Thlete, Three Times World Champion and Olympic Record Holder.
Where am I going with this?
Well, it's a moot point now but I am not 100% in agreement that China should've been selected for the hosting of the games. The reasons are many but mostly because of the way the country treats its own people and athletes; something that fundementally goes against
"Building a Peaceful and Better World Through Sport and the Olympic Ideal"
On a more global scale and outside the athletics arena, nothing has changed in their behaviour sicne their first application for hosting and the even the selection process is full of descrepancies indicating more hypocrisy within the Olympic Selection Commitee.
So why has no-one stepped out and spoken up?
Quite simple, any athlete wanting to take part in the Olympic games are not allowed to participate in any form of political demonstration. If they do, they are essentially banned from competing. I am certain that I am not the only one who thinks something isn't quite right there.
In case you missed it, that's blackmail.
But let's ignore that for a moment. Why don't atheltes, in spite of the threat, make a stand anyway? Surely during a time when the whole is looking at sportsmen, making a stand when it could mean their future participation in the event be even more meaningful. It is sad to think that perhaps that still in todays world, athletes, despite their glories are destined to be not much more than medal or a world record.
Just what is the legacy of an athlete?
Pop stars have tried to make the world a better place.
Film stars use their influence on the media to get coverage of events and causes.
Yes, some top dollar athletes have lent their name and face to some causes but it is not by any means the norm. I know that this is in part due the fact that the media doesn't grant them the same worth as musician and actors but doesn't that mean that at a time when nothing else apart from the Olympics matter, a time when your voice is the loudest that you should at least make a whisper?
Titled: 13th August 2008
Published: 12th October 2008
Surely this is the greatest sports event in the World and there is no doubt that all things related to the games becomes more spectacular with each successful host.
But alas all is not rosy and to see why, you have to look to the reason for the inception of the Modern Olympic Games.
We must first look to the motto of the Modern Olympic Games:
Citius, Altius,Fortius
Faster, Higher, Stronger
Originally, that was to represent the goal to be better than oneself instead of focusing on the win. The idea of the games was to unify the nations under the banner of a competition; a forum that doesn't discrimate nor offer a chance for politics be they local or global, get in the way of the display of human achievement.
All well meaning and good in principle but we all know that would never be the reality of them. Instead, what we have today, is a massively political forum where each nation competes to prove that they are the best. Try as they might to emphasis the personal achievements of the individuals, pointing out when they've pulled a personal best again but ultimately, the games these days, and the media coverage, looks to who got what where.
It is nothing more than just another sports competition except here, the pretence of the now empty slogan and tagline "Building a Peaceful and Better World Through Sport and the Olympic Ideal" justs serves to remind me just what the world is still like despite what they might tell you.
I am reminded by this by my own people who are resolutely from Kong Kong for the majority of the time, going so far as to make clear distinctions not to call them "big green" people but when something like the Olympic Games comes along, they're happy to revel in the glories of the people of the nation that they shun.
People say that apathy is the modern disease but hypocricy is right up there with it and equally as evil.
But athletes, on their own are undoubtly people to look up to.
They are prime examples of what the human being can do and just how far a person can push themselves if they want to (not the same as need to) so why are they not heroes to people who aren't interested in what they do? Is their only worth in the things that they win and the medals that they get awarded? Is that what the history books will remember them by? Mr A.Thlete, Three Times World Champion and Olympic Record Holder.
Where am I going with this?
Well, it's a moot point now but I am not 100% in agreement that China should've been selected for the hosting of the games. The reasons are many but mostly because of the way the country treats its own people and athletes; something that fundementally goes against
"Building a Peaceful and Better World Through Sport and the Olympic Ideal"
On a more global scale and outside the athletics arena, nothing has changed in their behaviour sicne their first application for hosting and the even the selection process is full of descrepancies indicating more hypocrisy within the Olympic Selection Commitee.
So why has no-one stepped out and spoken up?
Quite simple, any athlete wanting to take part in the Olympic games are not allowed to participate in any form of political demonstration. If they do, they are essentially banned from competing. I am certain that I am not the only one who thinks something isn't quite right there.
In case you missed it, that's blackmail.
But let's ignore that for a moment. Why don't atheltes, in spite of the threat, make a stand anyway? Surely during a time when the whole is looking at sportsmen, making a stand when it could mean their future participation in the event be even more meaningful. It is sad to think that perhaps that still in todays world, athletes, despite their glories are destined to be not much more than medal or a world record.
Just what is the legacy of an athlete?
Pop stars have tried to make the world a better place.
Film stars use their influence on the media to get coverage of events and causes.
Yes, some top dollar athletes have lent their name and face to some causes but it is not by any means the norm. I know that this is in part due the fact that the media doesn't grant them the same worth as musician and actors but doesn't that mean that at a time when nothing else apart from the Olympics matter, a time when your voice is the loudest that you should at least make a whisper?
Titled: 13th August 2008
Published: 12th October 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
A Scribe, De Scribe, Re Scribe
Recently, I looked through my old note books and found one of my unfinished stories today.
It was one of my longer things and I had originall started writing it as an exercise for me to have something to illustrate but after 2000 odd words and only having just gotten past what can be considered an introduction, it seems I gave up and moved on. Thing is, looking through it now and seeing the chapter headings laid out, the story came back to me and I'm getting the urge to put pen to paper and start the srcibbles again.
I've so far typed it all up into a word file so I can add to it at work on my breaks and I've dug out a nice and clean note book to start sketching into again because that's the thing I think I really miss; just drawing.
When I was a kid, drawing was for fun but these days, the drawing that I do is work and is nothing like the carefree doodlings that I used to do. In fact, the last real bit of drawing I did was a couple of A3 sort of posters that I did for ahem... someone... and that was aeons ago.
Actually, scratch that, the last bit of drawing I did was of a car but that was just a scale up of a photo so that doesn't really count.
Here is a mid stage pic is in case you're interested.
On second thoughts, seeing as I had recorded much of the process, here's the whole lot.
It's not much to look at and the dodgy photography has distorted it somewhat. It also looks better when I bump up the contrast and level out the histogram.... That is me rationalising it. I only really did that to prove to myself that I could still do it as well, I really haven't drawn anything for a long time and it was interesting to find out if you can forget something like that.
I ahve to admit that it was much harder than I thought it would be but not in the sense that it was difficult. I found that I couldn't concerntrate and my hand kept wanting to loosely mark a line when I wanted to put down hard detail.
How much was that was me not being able to draw it and how much was it down to me knowing that it's wasier to make a sketch look good then it is to achieve a photo-realistic image?
As you can see, so far it is halfway between both and I still haven't decided which way to fall to complete it.
But anyway....
As I said, I have opened a fresh sketch book and I have a sort of plan; to make a page a day.
Let's see how that get's on.
It was one of my longer things and I had originall started writing it as an exercise for me to have something to illustrate but after 2000 odd words and only having just gotten past what can be considered an introduction, it seems I gave up and moved on. Thing is, looking through it now and seeing the chapter headings laid out, the story came back to me and I'm getting the urge to put pen to paper and start the srcibbles again.
I've so far typed it all up into a word file so I can add to it at work on my breaks and I've dug out a nice and clean note book to start sketching into again because that's the thing I think I really miss; just drawing.
When I was a kid, drawing was for fun but these days, the drawing that I do is work and is nothing like the carefree doodlings that I used to do. In fact, the last real bit of drawing I did was a couple of A3 sort of posters that I did for ahem... someone... and that was aeons ago.
Actually, scratch that, the last bit of drawing I did was of a car but that was just a scale up of a photo so that doesn't really count.
Here is a mid stage pic is in case you're interested.
On second thoughts, seeing as I had recorded much of the process, here's the whole lot.
It's not much to look at and the dodgy photography has distorted it somewhat. It also looks better when I bump up the contrast and level out the histogram.... That is me rationalising it. I only really did that to prove to myself that I could still do it as well, I really haven't drawn anything for a long time and it was interesting to find out if you can forget something like that.
I ahve to admit that it was much harder than I thought it would be but not in the sense that it was difficult. I found that I couldn't concerntrate and my hand kept wanting to loosely mark a line when I wanted to put down hard detail.
How much was that was me not being able to draw it and how much was it down to me knowing that it's wasier to make a sketch look good then it is to achieve a photo-realistic image?
As you can see, so far it is halfway between both and I still haven't decided which way to fall to complete it.
But anyway....
As I said, I have opened a fresh sketch book and I have a sort of plan; to make a page a day.
Let's see how that get's on.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
re-post
Just a quickie.
Two weeks after I got back from Hong Kong and made a post here, I fly back to finish some business as well as to remedy the fact that last time, I came back empty handed.
This time, I bought a new camera and broke from my self imposed tradition and didn't buy a Pentax so without further ado, my new toy;
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX-2
Now why would I need another camera I hear you ask? Well, mostly because I wanted one and as many reasons there can be thought of for why I didn't need one, not many can stand against the simple need for fulfilling a desire. On a more rational level, it's to do with useability. Unlike most point and click cameras, this one has pretty much as miuch control over exposure settings as an SLR does. Of course it doesn't have the same range of aperture or shutter speeds as an SLR does but it's pretty close.
Other nice features is a wider than most 28mm (at its widest) lens. Also nice is that it has settings for 4:3 (telly) 3:2 (most photo medium) and 16:9 (widescreen) images.
On a more practical level, there's this not secret bit of info.
Panasonic manufacture lens for Leica and even make two digital camera's for them. In case you haven't guessed, this is one of them. The Leica version has a slightly different body but other than that, they are the same where it counts. One of the places where they differ is in the pricing of the two. The Leica one weighs in at around £350-400.
What did I pay for mine?
£210.
That is including an extra battery (not factory though) and a very nice Toshiba 4GB SDHC card and a proper Panasonic camera case for the camera.
Been playing around and it is taking some very tasty looking pics even on the default point and click mode. It'll take me some time to get back into the swing of chaning f-stops and whatnots but it will come.... In the mean time, I'm trying to think of reasons not to buy that SLR after all....
Two weeks after I got back from Hong Kong and made a post here, I fly back to finish some business as well as to remedy the fact that last time, I came back empty handed.
This time, I bought a new camera and broke from my self imposed tradition and didn't buy a Pentax so without further ado, my new toy;
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX-2
Now why would I need another camera I hear you ask? Well, mostly because I wanted one and as many reasons there can be thought of for why I didn't need one, not many can stand against the simple need for fulfilling a desire. On a more rational level, it's to do with useability. Unlike most point and click cameras, this one has pretty much as miuch control over exposure settings as an SLR does. Of course it doesn't have the same range of aperture or shutter speeds as an SLR does but it's pretty close.
Other nice features is a wider than most 28mm (at its widest) lens. Also nice is that it has settings for 4:3 (telly) 3:2 (most photo medium) and 16:9 (widescreen) images.
On a more practical level, there's this not secret bit of info.
Panasonic manufacture lens for Leica and even make two digital camera's for them. In case you haven't guessed, this is one of them. The Leica version has a slightly different body but other than that, they are the same where it counts. One of the places where they differ is in the pricing of the two. The Leica one weighs in at around £350-400.
What did I pay for mine?
£210.
That is including an extra battery (not factory though) and a very nice Toshiba 4GB SDHC card and a proper Panasonic camera case for the camera.
Been playing around and it is taking some very tasty looking pics even on the default point and click mode. It'll take me some time to get back into the swing of chaning f-stops and whatnots but it will come.... In the mean time, I'm trying to think of reasons not to buy that SLR after all....
Saturday, March 15, 2008
....and like that...
...2 months has passed.
What can I say; it's been hectic but really, that is no excuse.
In my defence, two of those weeks, I was in Hong Kong and another two weeks I was internetless for what appears to be the most stupid of reasons, that still leaves a month unaccounted for.
So what is my muse for this post?
Not much really; just felt the need to make a mark to prove I still exist beyond my virtual drawing board.
What can I say; it's been hectic but really, that is no excuse.
In my defence, two of those weeks, I was in Hong Kong and another two weeks I was internetless for what appears to be the most stupid of reasons, that still leaves a month unaccounted for.
So what is my muse for this post?
Not much really; just felt the need to make a mark to prove I still exist beyond my virtual drawing board.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
in/balance
this is another one that I had titled but completely forgotten about but for some strange reason, it all came back to me today while watching The Simpsons.
How responsible are you?
By that, I am not talking about regular responsibilties like keeping to your word, respecting those who deserve respect, and other niceties. Instead, I am talking about the smaller responsibilties that all the same play a big part in your life, albeit in a much more subtle way.
How responsible are you for your actions, not just your larger overt ones but the smaller, less noticeable ones.
Mies Van Der Rohe famously said "God Lies In The Detail" and so it is true that your nature is best revealed in the little things that you do and in the things that are often beyond regular perception.
I have said (after others) that we exist in and through our interactions the people and things around us. It follows that because we are creatures of interactions, we share an equal part of the responsibilties of each and every interaction, no matter how brief the moment. How often have you heard people shirk responsibilty but blaming it on fate, or luck, or perhaps more accurately, bad luck?
Is "it wasn't meant to be" a vaild excuse for anything?
Ok, while the reality is that sometimes, things really are not of our doing and totally out of our control but again, like many other things, this is something that only you can answer and how honestly you answer lies solely on your conscience. It is too easy to blame things on other people and even easier to blame something that is intangible but does that really benefit us beyond the bliss of ignorance of our irresponsibility?
Ignorance is often cited as being a device to protect ourselves from truth; the perfect example being the 30 seconds from doom scenario but that, as a descriptive scenario is deliberately extreme to aid in the description.
Life is not that extreme.
Our existance, that is our interactions with the things around us are constant. As I am sitting here, hitting these keys, I am doing something, thinking something and perhaps more intrigueingly, in a state of constant change. Every word I am typing is being processed and reprocessed for a reason. In this peculiar interaction, I am interacting with myself but again, bizzarely, I am interacting with myself as I was the briefest moment ago. These words are appearing on screen a moment after I think them and by the time the sentence has completed, I will be left reading what is essentially, my past self. After that, I read and re-read and occasionally, delete and re-type.
This is my primary interaction in this situation.
Let's skip a few steps and get to the part where you are reading this; that would be, your interaction with what I was thinking. Where does my responsibilty lie there? If you are upset or angered or elated or saddened, is that my fault? Would I be the cause of any reactions you may have from reading what I have written, especially if that text was written months ago and without reference to you or anything about you?
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
That would depend on both our honesty.
That was perhaps a bit too cryptic and bit too confusing but you get the gist of what I am trying to say, no? How about we go onto something a bit simpler?
If I am unhappy with my friendship (or lack of friendship) with someone, who is to blame?
Let's for a moment ignore that it might not even be a blame issue and to seek someone/something to blame is indicative of something else about your nature and instead look to the situation and the responsibilties within that situation.
Any relationship, be it good or bad, long term or in passing, has at the heart of it, two people.
What ever happens, it is always about how those two people interact and so it is reasonable to say that both parties are equally responsible for the outcome of that relationship.
The problem is that people have developed a atural tendency to point out when things are good and how that is a result of them. At the same time, when things are bad, they instanty find fault with the other side.
To that, I say bull.
Even if the other party has a fault (note: not "IS at fault"), you are still, if not more at fault for not bringing the issue up. Who is to blame if you don't say anything? If you don't tell them you're not happy, whose fault is that. That is of course a trick question as the answer is in the question...
All this is a very long winded way of going back to the title:
in/balance
There are two sides to that title, just as in our interactions.
It is easy to blame others for things but always so hard to blame ourselves.
People alway say that you get what you put in, so my question to you is this;
if you're not getting a lot out of something, how much are you putting in?
Titled: 9th December 2007
Published: 6th January 2008
How responsible are you?
By that, I am not talking about regular responsibilties like keeping to your word, respecting those who deserve respect, and other niceties. Instead, I am talking about the smaller responsibilties that all the same play a big part in your life, albeit in a much more subtle way.
How responsible are you for your actions, not just your larger overt ones but the smaller, less noticeable ones.
Mies Van Der Rohe famously said "God Lies In The Detail" and so it is true that your nature is best revealed in the little things that you do and in the things that are often beyond regular perception.
I have said (after others) that we exist in and through our interactions the people and things around us. It follows that because we are creatures of interactions, we share an equal part of the responsibilties of each and every interaction, no matter how brief the moment. How often have you heard people shirk responsibilty but blaming it on fate, or luck, or perhaps more accurately, bad luck?
Is "it wasn't meant to be" a vaild excuse for anything?
Ok, while the reality is that sometimes, things really are not of our doing and totally out of our control but again, like many other things, this is something that only you can answer and how honestly you answer lies solely on your conscience. It is too easy to blame things on other people and even easier to blame something that is intangible but does that really benefit us beyond the bliss of ignorance of our irresponsibility?
Ignorance is often cited as being a device to protect ourselves from truth; the perfect example being the 30 seconds from doom scenario but that, as a descriptive scenario is deliberately extreme to aid in the description.
Life is not that extreme.
Our existance, that is our interactions with the things around us are constant. As I am sitting here, hitting these keys, I am doing something, thinking something and perhaps more intrigueingly, in a state of constant change. Every word I am typing is being processed and reprocessed for a reason. In this peculiar interaction, I am interacting with myself but again, bizzarely, I am interacting with myself as I was the briefest moment ago. These words are appearing on screen a moment after I think them and by the time the sentence has completed, I will be left reading what is essentially, my past self. After that, I read and re-read and occasionally, delete and re-type.
This is my primary interaction in this situation.
Let's skip a few steps and get to the part where you are reading this; that would be, your interaction with what I was thinking. Where does my responsibilty lie there? If you are upset or angered or elated or saddened, is that my fault? Would I be the cause of any reactions you may have from reading what I have written, especially if that text was written months ago and without reference to you or anything about you?
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
That would depend on both our honesty.
That was perhaps a bit too cryptic and bit too confusing but you get the gist of what I am trying to say, no? How about we go onto something a bit simpler?
If I am unhappy with my friendship (or lack of friendship) with someone, who is to blame?
Let's for a moment ignore that it might not even be a blame issue and to seek someone/something to blame is indicative of something else about your nature and instead look to the situation and the responsibilties within that situation.
Any relationship, be it good or bad, long term or in passing, has at the heart of it, two people.
What ever happens, it is always about how those two people interact and so it is reasonable to say that both parties are equally responsible for the outcome of that relationship.
The problem is that people have developed a atural tendency to point out when things are good and how that is a result of them. At the same time, when things are bad, they instanty find fault with the other side.
To that, I say bull.
Even if the other party has a fault (note: not "IS at fault"), you are still, if not more at fault for not bringing the issue up. Who is to blame if you don't say anything? If you don't tell them you're not happy, whose fault is that. That is of course a trick question as the answer is in the question...
All this is a very long winded way of going back to the title:
in/balance
There are two sides to that title, just as in our interactions.
It is easy to blame others for things but always so hard to blame ourselves.
People alway say that you get what you put in, so my question to you is this;
if you're not getting a lot out of something, how much are you putting in?
Titled: 9th December 2007
Published: 6th January 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
modern life 1. Heroes: Part 1
We all have dreams.
Indeed, it is one of the fundemental things that makes us human. We all have desires and ambitions, things to aspire and things that inspire us. It is this want/need to have more, do more and be more that has lead us to where we are at this point in time. Is it good? Sometimes yes, sometimes no but there is no doubt that it is this ambition that has given us so much. In a time when everything comes and goes so quickly, it is all too easy to forget that as little as 50 years ago, nay, 20 years ago, you would not be able to read what I type so easily, let alone read what someone halfway across the world is typing at the same time.
20 years ago, could you have imagined that you'd be able to converse with multiple people in multiple countries all at the same time from your home?
Think about what your parents had when they were your age.
Think about what your grandparents had at that age.
This might be because I come from a family where as recently as in my grandparent's time and even my own parents' time that they were very basic and simple farmers but I am very aware of the "magical" things in life. I am, as you might know, a compulsive horder of trivial things and I cannot look at those "trinkets" without thinking of how lucky I am. The thing I am most grateful for though, isn't my horde of bits and pieces but rather the fact that I am free to be able to horde. I am thankful for being in a position where I can decide what I want to do. Certainly, I do have a path I should be taking but I am more free than most to walk that path at my own pace (although I know I should go a bit faster....). I am very aware of my freedom.
But what of my parents' freedom?
How free were they do really do what they wanted to do?
I don't really know my parents.
My father died when I was doing my A-Levels so I never had the chance but even before that, I never really the chance. The one thing that I will always remember is that my parents were always working. This might've been because they made a few not so good choices earlier but I also know that it was because were for lack of a better term, poor. Remember this, my mum and dad came to this country with not a lot in their pockets and not much English to help them get by. Subsequently, they worked asmuch as they could to buy a house, a partnership in a restuarant, then the place outright, then a smaller place where they worked even more hours just to put me and my sister through school.
I can't but help wonder now, whether or not they, during those working years, stopped to ask themselves if that was what they wanted to do in life? I know that at times, circumstances decides what you have to do but to give up so much of your life doing something that ultimately isn't for yourself is something I am finding hard to understand.
But that is just it, isn't it?
To be a parent is to sacrifce.
To sacrifice is the noblest deed of all, is it not?
And that is one of the constants throughout history.
Parent figures are always heroes.
They are the archetypal hero model. They raise a child and care for a child and give all for the child. In those stories especially, the parents are often shifted to the sidelines as a backstory for the main Hero of the tale but still, they sacrifice all for the child-hero. In some cases, even their lives are forfeit for the child-hero. As far back as recorded history goes, when-ever we have a hero figure, the parents of that hero figure are also heroes.
In the ancient tribes, we have chiefs, the strongest, wisest, bravest man in the tribe leading them to prosperity. Tradition has it that his son will take his place. In nature, the biggest baddest son of the alpha male takes over the harem. Again and again, it is as if it is in nature that heroes beget heroes.
Is that why we hero-worship?
Is that why we have a need to admire and to imitate others, in particular those we see as being better than ourselves? Let's be honest here, you might not admit to wanting to be like someone else but we all know you do. And again, let's be honest here about who those people are; I mean, how many aspire to be like that guy who sells the Big Issue on Charing Cross Road by the Oscar Wilde statue?
Are we forgetting what heroes really are?
The obvious answer is that in a modern society and culture where celebrity is the thing most celebrated, it is true that we have lost all meaning of what a hero is. Perhaps more importantly, we have forgotten what things are admirable in a person. In classical tales, heroes are people, often simple people who are faced with fearsome tasks against insurmountable odds. They are people who come a background of having nothing or perhaps even worse, of tragedy. They are people who learn to rise above it all, to overcome all dangers and to regain all that was lost. They are people who fight against all foes to reach the pinacle of their existance and achieve all they set out to achieve.
Heroes were examples of how to be a good person.
They were not gods with powers beyond mortals nor were they demons bound by their evil to do evil things. They were normal people, hindered from birth by the acts of an evil being/enemy who overcomes and realises dreams and that is why they are heroes.
Indeed, it is one of the fundemental things that makes us human. We all have desires and ambitions, things to aspire and things that inspire us. It is this want/need to have more, do more and be more that has lead us to where we are at this point in time. Is it good? Sometimes yes, sometimes no but there is no doubt that it is this ambition that has given us so much. In a time when everything comes and goes so quickly, it is all too easy to forget that as little as 50 years ago, nay, 20 years ago, you would not be able to read what I type so easily, let alone read what someone halfway across the world is typing at the same time.
20 years ago, could you have imagined that you'd be able to converse with multiple people in multiple countries all at the same time from your home?
Think about what your parents had when they were your age.
Think about what your grandparents had at that age.
This might be because I come from a family where as recently as in my grandparent's time and even my own parents' time that they were very basic and simple farmers but I am very aware of the "magical" things in life. I am, as you might know, a compulsive horder of trivial things and I cannot look at those "trinkets" without thinking of how lucky I am. The thing I am most grateful for though, isn't my horde of bits and pieces but rather the fact that I am free to be able to horde. I am thankful for being in a position where I can decide what I want to do. Certainly, I do have a path I should be taking but I am more free than most to walk that path at my own pace (although I know I should go a bit faster....). I am very aware of my freedom.
But what of my parents' freedom?
How free were they do really do what they wanted to do?
I don't really know my parents.
My father died when I was doing my A-Levels so I never had the chance but even before that, I never really the chance. The one thing that I will always remember is that my parents were always working. This might've been because they made a few not so good choices earlier but I also know that it was because were for lack of a better term, poor. Remember this, my mum and dad came to this country with not a lot in their pockets and not much English to help them get by. Subsequently, they worked asmuch as they could to buy a house, a partnership in a restuarant, then the place outright, then a smaller place where they worked even more hours just to put me and my sister through school.
I can't but help wonder now, whether or not they, during those working years, stopped to ask themselves if that was what they wanted to do in life? I know that at times, circumstances decides what you have to do but to give up so much of your life doing something that ultimately isn't for yourself is something I am finding hard to understand.
But that is just it, isn't it?
To be a parent is to sacrifce.
To sacrifice is the noblest deed of all, is it not?
And that is one of the constants throughout history.
Parent figures are always heroes.
They are the archetypal hero model. They raise a child and care for a child and give all for the child. In those stories especially, the parents are often shifted to the sidelines as a backstory for the main Hero of the tale but still, they sacrifice all for the child-hero. In some cases, even their lives are forfeit for the child-hero. As far back as recorded history goes, when-ever we have a hero figure, the parents of that hero figure are also heroes.
In the ancient tribes, we have chiefs, the strongest, wisest, bravest man in the tribe leading them to prosperity. Tradition has it that his son will take his place. In nature, the biggest baddest son of the alpha male takes over the harem. Again and again, it is as if it is in nature that heroes beget heroes.
Is that why we hero-worship?
Is that why we have a need to admire and to imitate others, in particular those we see as being better than ourselves? Let's be honest here, you might not admit to wanting to be like someone else but we all know you do. And again, let's be honest here about who those people are; I mean, how many aspire to be like that guy who sells the Big Issue on Charing Cross Road by the Oscar Wilde statue?
Are we forgetting what heroes really are?
The obvious answer is that in a modern society and culture where celebrity is the thing most celebrated, it is true that we have lost all meaning of what a hero is. Perhaps more importantly, we have forgotten what things are admirable in a person. In classical tales, heroes are people, often simple people who are faced with fearsome tasks against insurmountable odds. They are people who come a background of having nothing or perhaps even worse, of tragedy. They are people who learn to rise above it all, to overcome all dangers and to regain all that was lost. They are people who fight against all foes to reach the pinacle of their existance and achieve all they set out to achieve.
Heroes were examples of how to be a good person.
They were not gods with powers beyond mortals nor were they demons bound by their evil to do evil things. They were normal people, hindered from birth by the acts of an evil being/enemy who overcomes and realises dreams and that is why they are heroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
