Something unexpected happened to me today.
I was at work, running the cash, as normal, with three people in the line. The last person in line, when I looked into his eyes, I thought I saw something I ~knew~ and recognized with having even spoken to him. He didn't look out of the ordinary, wearing a big coat and I think a toque. And when he spoke to me I felt sort of embarrassed, and I bet I was blushing. He bought a cigar, and left me the change (forty cents) and only after he left did I realized my heart was racing and I had leaned forward to follow his scent, which had only just been blown into my face as he left the door, by the draft. And I felt like he was someone I knew, even though I was sure I didn't. and I was sort of giddy, too. Once my shift was over, ten minutes from then, or so, I went out onto the street, hoping I might see him. And I know I saw a customer, but I wasn't sure if it was him or not, and he was with someone else at the time, so I didn't head over and butt in. And I wonder if maybe I should have. There've been times before I've gone off looking for a second chance in the street, and they rarely do anything, but this was the first time time I remember feeling that close to someone I've not even really met. Now I'll probably not get the chance to ask him out to lunch or coffee, but I could hope.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Motorcycles, and the Sexiness thereof
I am not a very much a "man's man" in most respects. Aside from the obvious factor of sexuality, I don't like cars, or engines, or guns (Unless they are especially sciency) and most things "extreme" tend to annoy me with their trappings. And sports. Them especially. But, for some reason, motorcycles are extremely appealing to me. And I don't mean Harley's, or other stupid bikes. Those things are as loud and annoying and redundant as the people who ride them. Japanese bikes, on the other hand, are sleek and tight and awesome. Just quiet, understated power and speed. This is relevant because of the following:
I picked up a copy of BBC Focus the other day, and got around to reading it today. There was a bit about a new model of the Yamaha Tesseract, a sort of concept thingy which got revealed in Europe not too long ago. Look for it this list.
http://www.yamaha-motor-europe.com/community/experience/exhibitions/tokyo/
This post won't make much sense if you haven't seen if, so I suggest you take a moment to find it now.
Go on, then.
Four wheels, huh?
Let's have a look. Hybrid engine, but that could be put on anything these days.
It has about the same width as a two-wheeler, apparently. and you still steer it using the same mechanic as a regular motorcycle. And it can rest standing up, somehow.
So, it's exactly like a regular motorcycle. Apparently more stable..
This seems like a lot of work for a relatively small improvement. Fancy new suspension, new locking mechanism, god knows how many hours engineering time on the nightmare that must be the drive train for something so small. More stability just doesn't seem to a real benefit for such an investment. But maybe I'm wrong. It wasn't reviewed by a driver, no price is given yet, and for all I know it handles like a dream and fixes all the problems with riding a motorcycle while retaining all the awesome. But I somehow don't think so.
I'm going to advance my own theory.
It is a sexy beast. It is a sexy, sexy, beast, and I would ride it, or anyone on it, any time, anywhere. It is flashy, and sexy, and shiny in that "new gadget" way that all nerds secretly have a fetish for, except this things goes hundreds of kilometres an hour, and looks like it's derived from a jungle cat. Were I actually in the presence of it, I'm pretty sure my boner would show through my pants. How long before I will see one in person? Probably never, over in North America, but I can hope.
I picked up a copy of BBC Focus the other day, and got around to reading it today. There was a bit about a new model of the Yamaha Tesseract, a sort of concept thingy which got revealed in Europe not too long ago. Look for it this list.
http://www.yamaha-motor-europe.com/community/experience/exhibitions/tokyo/
This post won't make much sense if you haven't seen if, so I suggest you take a moment to find it now.
Go on, then.
Four wheels, huh?
Let's have a look. Hybrid engine, but that could be put on anything these days.
It has about the same width as a two-wheeler, apparently. and you still steer it using the same mechanic as a regular motorcycle. And it can rest standing up, somehow.
So, it's exactly like a regular motorcycle. Apparently more stable.
This seems like a lot of work for a relatively small improvement. Fancy new suspension, new locking mechanism, god knows how many hours engineering time on the nightmare that must be the drive train for something so small. More stability just doesn't seem to a real benefit for such an investment. But maybe I'm wrong. It wasn't reviewed by a driver, no price is given yet, and for all I know it handles like a dream and fixes all the problems with riding a motorcycle while retaining all the awesome. But I somehow don't think so.
I'm going to advance my own theory.
It is a sexy beast. It is a sexy, sexy, beast, and I would ride it, or anyone on it, any time, anywhere. It is flashy, and sexy, and shiny in that "new gadget" way that all nerds secretly have a fetish for, except this things goes hundreds of kilometres an hour, and looks like it's derived from a jungle cat. Were I actually in the presence of it, I'm pretty sure my boner would show through my pants. How long before I will see one in person? Probably never, over in North America, but I can hope.
Reflection 1- As Relates to Society and Communication
Everyone knows the internet and assorted communications technology is changing our world. (Here, anyway). And if everyone doesn't know that, I'm going to assume they do, for sake of sophistry. What I have yet to hear a precise description of is how exactly it is changing our generation. What does the current situation boil down to?
-Connectivity.
We have more connections to information, to friends, to work, to whatever. If one is an adept, they can find almost anything they want, if they know where to look. But even the question of knowing where to look is difficult. I'll use one example for clarity's sake. Reliable news. My FYP tutor from last year remarked on how terrible our newspapers were, and wondered when the crossover was made, between impartial reporting and opinion-sabre rattling. Presumably, her base sample was Europe, with Le Point and the BBC, and god knows what else for news. And apparently, here, the papers are terrible, with poor reporting and biased columns. Yet to anyone who grew up here, these papers are all we have had. How were we to know they were of poor quality? Assuming they are indeed of poor quality, and that we become aware of this, how then to find reliable news? By what measure can we deem a news source reliable or not?
With the internet, there are a multiplicity of options, all fairly easily available-if you know they're there. But the process of figuring out what source is reliable requires cross-checking- with what sources? Now that your first assumption of what is reliable has been proven or demonstrated to be wrong, by what grounds does something become reliable? Da** near every news source I've seen has had the same pretentions, the same window dressing. "Come here for the news. We promise it's accurate and everything you need to know". And, with the same problem of advertising, we know if everyone is saying the same wonderful things, then someone is da**-well lying through their teeth.
I read in the paper today that Putin is crushing democracy. There are continual threats to jobs, to safety, to children, if the people do not vote Putin. Bosses threaten employees, teachers press children into lobbying their parents, and all the other wonderful hallmarks of a rotten system of democracy. I read this in the new york times, so it has to be true, doesn't it? Surely such a pillar of American visions wouldn't put shoddy reporting on the front page. And yet, I have cause to wonder. The cause is irrelevant at the moment, save that I did not read a conflicting story. Indeed, I have not read any other stories about Putin being a terrible democrat. Or any stories about him at all, recently.
I cannot know the truth from a source if my only sources for comparison require the same judgment of truth, wherein their standards are their peers. And my only source for news is piped into me from distributors in Ontario, or Britain, or France, or America. I have few methods of alternative information.
To return to my point, I have connections to many news sources. If I were to try and compose a pool of comparison for them, I would spend hours every day reading different news sources, just trying to collect enough information for a statistical analysis. With so many connections, my ability to usefully do something is blunted by sheer volume. And yet- Would it be better to have few enough connections to be workable? Would this not be more limited?
Expand the principle. We now have connections to knowledge and experience far beyond what any normal person would in our history. We are, I argue, not suited to the filtering and collating of this much information. We have a glut of feeds from everywhere, and we will individually not see a millionth of the pool on the web. Trying to gain perspective in so much information strains pathways which already run in dreams and half-conscious notions. The crux of the problem is that it has become harder to know anything certainly , but to be capable of knowing as much as one is willing to expend effort to.
It's almost post-modern.
-Connectivity.
We have more connections to information, to friends, to work, to whatever. If one is an adept, they can find almost anything they want, if they know where to look. But even the question of knowing where to look is difficult. I'll use one example for clarity's sake. Reliable news. My FYP tutor from last year remarked on how terrible our newspapers were, and wondered when the crossover was made, between impartial reporting and opinion-sabre rattling. Presumably, her base sample was Europe, with Le Point and the BBC, and god knows what else for news. And apparently, here, the papers are terrible, with poor reporting and biased columns. Yet to anyone who grew up here, these papers are all we have had. How were we to know they were of poor quality? Assuming they are indeed of poor quality, and that we become aware of this, how then to find reliable news? By what measure can we deem a news source reliable or not?
With the internet, there are a multiplicity of options, all fairly easily available-if you know they're there. But the process of figuring out what source is reliable requires cross-checking- with what sources? Now that your first assumption of what is reliable has been proven or demonstrated to be wrong, by what grounds does something become reliable? Da** near every news source I've seen has had the same pretentions, the same window dressing. "Come here for the news. We promise it's accurate and everything you need to know". And, with the same problem of advertising, we know if everyone is saying the same wonderful things, then someone is da**-well lying through their teeth.
I read in the paper today that Putin is crushing democracy. There are continual threats to jobs, to safety, to children, if the people do not vote Putin. Bosses threaten employees, teachers press children into lobbying their parents, and all the other wonderful hallmarks of a rotten system of democracy. I read this in the new york times, so it has to be true, doesn't it? Surely such a pillar of American visions wouldn't put shoddy reporting on the front page. And yet, I have cause to wonder. The cause is irrelevant at the moment, save that I did not read a conflicting story. Indeed, I have not read any other stories about Putin being a terrible democrat. Or any stories about him at all, recently.
I cannot know the truth from a source if my only sources for comparison require the same judgment of truth, wherein their standards are their peers. And my only source for news is piped into me from distributors in Ontario, or Britain, or France, or America. I have few methods of alternative information.
To return to my point, I have connections to many news sources. If I were to try and compose a pool of comparison for them, I would spend hours every day reading different news sources, just trying to collect enough information for a statistical analysis. With so many connections, my ability to usefully do something is blunted by sheer volume. And yet- Would it be better to have few enough connections to be workable? Would this not be more limited?
Expand the principle. We now have connections to knowledge and experience far beyond what any normal person would in our history. We are, I argue, not suited to the filtering and collating of this much information. We have a glut of feeds from everywhere, and we will individually not see a millionth of the pool on the web. Trying to gain perspective in so much information strains pathways which already run in dreams and half-conscious notions. The crux of the problem is that it has become harder to know anything certainly , but to be capable of knowing as much as one is willing to expend effort to.
It's almost post-modern.
Le Nouveau Intellectual
Hm. It would appear, that through circumstances most dire, involving my keyboard mouse and hands, I have a blog. A portal through which to vent my inner anger at an entirely irrelevant and anonymous audience. Maybe I'll get used to it. Maybe I'll forget I even have it within a week. Let's find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)