Wally is the kind of fellow that would appropriately be on my Christmas card list. Our relationship had a bunch of dimensions. I had been his customer, he had been a customer of mine, and we had shared a few social occasions over the last couple of years.
So when mid December came around, and I pulled out a store of Christmas cards, Wally came easily to mind as a recipient. There was one minor obstacle though. Somehow my contact info for him lacked a home address. And since he was not a landline subscriber the phone directories were of no use. Ditto for the online directories. So the card got prepared, but the envelope only showed a name and no address.
In due course the cards I had completed got sent out by post. A handful though, being without addresses, were going to be delivered personally. And so it was that on Christmas eve afternoon, I was driving around finishing up the chore of getting all the cards to their proper places.
The last to be delivered was Wally's. When I arrived at his place I noticed that his vehicle was in the drive. But I had no real intention of stopping in. There were too many items unfinished on my list, and this would have to be a drop and run.
Not seeing a mail box I figured it would be best simply to put it between the storm door and the main entrance door. And that's what I did. But on opening the screen door, I saw that someone else had had a similar idea. There, between the doors, was a nicely decorated gift bag with a wrapped parcel neatly tucked inside.
In that transitory moment, and without any conscious reasoning, I simply slipped the envelope into the gift bag, and closed the screen door. The mischievous part of me wondered if that would cause him any confusion. And as I was driving home, I thought to myself that I could really have messed him up if I had found another card in the gift bag, and had spirited it away, if only temporarily.
Well it wasn't 2 hours later that my doorbell rang, and who should be standing there but Wally and Marilyn. And they were bearing some wrapped parcels. This set my head into overdrive in a flash. The coincidence in timing was too great too ignore. Had Wally come by with gifts triggered by getting a gift himself, which he figured had come from me?
Sure enough that had been the trigger. Turns out the gift bag did not have a card with it, apart from mine. After reading my card, and being a bit perplexed, he later noticed that the bag itself had a small tag on it showing just the names of some niece and nephew of his. Now he was truly confused.
But to be on the safe side he hastily scrounged around for a reciprocal gift for me and drove over to my place.
Well when our stories were exchanged, a good laugh was had by all. But it occurred to me that the symmetry was incomplete. I still had no gift for him. That was soon cured with a run to the back room fridge where I was keeping a number of Christmas hams that I had been encouraged to buy to support a local fraternal outfit.
And there is how our cultural values express themselves when it comes to gift giving at this festive season.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Trading Enigma
Today I heard about two nations who were consummating a trade long in the works.
The units of trade, while out of the ordinary, were not what got my attention.
Rather it was the valuations reflected by the figures that sucked me in.
Side A was giving up 1 unit, a benefit to side B.
Side B was giving up some 700+ units, a benefit to side A.
What kind of mental ciphering would lead to that kind of trade? I wondered.
I probably will never know.
Just as surprising to me
was the lack of any commentary by the radio journalist who reported the story.
She dutifully recited the figures, and the physical protocols of the trade.
But by then her 28 seconds of air time were up.
All were left to wonder about the behind the scenes negotiations and
the motives of the negotiators.
Surely the optics of a 700+ :1 ratio would pique an enquiring mind.
Were journalists not required to anticipate what listeners were thinking,
and respond to the most likely presumed questions?
Apparently not in this case.
So you're asking 'what was it that was traded? what were these 'units'?
Anticipating that question I say:
Prisoners, that's what. Humanbeans beings.
The State of Israel gave up 700 Palestinian prisoners
in return for the Palestinians giving up 1 Israeli prisoner.
Don't be getting off-topic by asking 'does that imply that Palestine is a 'nation'?
Because I won't be answering that.
I'd rather focus on the 700:1 thing.
You'd think the Jews got jewed. (no letters please)
But no. No one held a gun to their head, if you know what I mean.
Not for this particular, isolated event.
This nation state of Jews have a very lonnng and admirable history
of being astute bargainers.
I don't imagine there was any lapse here.
Still it is hard to figure.
And the Palestinians are obviously no slouches in the negotiating game.
They knew how to lever whatever it was that they were levering.
I've heard of 2 for one specials, even 3 for one, once.
But 700:1. That's a new record for me.
What were all of them thinking?
(new sign off line for a series of columns, hmmmm.....)
And if you get that one figured out,
don't be shy to comment on whether the journalist let us all down
by not addressing, however obliquely, the issue of the 700:1.
The units of trade, while out of the ordinary, were not what got my attention.
Rather it was the valuations reflected by the figures that sucked me in.
Side A was giving up 1 unit, a benefit to side B.
Side B was giving up some 700+ units, a benefit to side A.
What kind of mental ciphering would lead to that kind of trade? I wondered.
I probably will never know.
Just as surprising to me
was the lack of any commentary by the radio journalist who reported the story.
She dutifully recited the figures, and the physical protocols of the trade.
But by then her 28 seconds of air time were up.
All were left to wonder about the behind the scenes negotiations and
the motives of the negotiators.
Surely the optics of a 700+ :1 ratio would pique an enquiring mind.
Were journalists not required to anticipate what listeners were thinking,
and respond to the most likely presumed questions?
Apparently not in this case.
So you're asking 'what was it that was traded? what were these 'units'?
Anticipating that question I say:
Prisoners, that's what. Human
The State of Israel gave up 700 Palestinian prisoners
in return for the Palestinians giving up 1 Israeli prisoner.
Don't be getting off-topic by asking 'does that imply that Palestine is a 'nation'?
Because I won't be answering that.
I'd rather focus on the 700:1 thing.
You'd think the Jews got jewed. (no letters please)
But no. No one held a gun to their head, if you know what I mean.
Not for this particular, isolated event.
This nation state of Jews have a very lonnng and admirable history
of being astute bargainers.
I don't imagine there was any lapse here.
Still it is hard to figure.
And the Palestinians are obviously no slouches in the negotiating game.
They knew how to lever whatever it was that they were levering.
I've heard of 2 for one specials, even 3 for one, once.
But 700:1. That's a new record for me.
What were all of them thinking?
(new sign off line for a series of columns, hmmmm.....)
And if you get that one figured out,
don't be shy to comment on whether the journalist let us all down
by not addressing, however obliquely, the issue of the 700:1.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
2nd hand Career Advice
"Young People:
You have come here for an education.
An educated person is a person who by the age of 21 has developed a theory of what constitutes a satisfying life and significant life.
This theory should be consonant and consistent with the history of humankind and the great thinkers that have gone before.
And an educated person is one who by the age of 25 has developed a plan or course of action to implement their theory, to move towards a satisfying and significant life.
Now
if that person has attained those ages and
has not developed a theory or planned and moved towards implementing it,
then that person
is a fool,
an ignoramus and
probably dangerous."
Wow - what a prescription. What a concluding condemnation.
I delight in it.
And now some context.
The words are mostly not mine.
But I tried as best I could to be faithful to what I understand the original to be.
The original was composed about 1902.
By the then President of the University of Chicago - if my memory holds.
To the entering class that year, seated about an auditorium.
I first read the words in Montreal in 1976.
I was a Project Analyst in the Strategic Projects Group, Headquarters of Canadian National - a diversified conglomerate - trains hotels marine telecommunications.
Half my job was to scan/read periodicals by the bucketful.
One publication I often read was Vital Speeches of the Day.
And one issue was the speech of some military type guy - (Brig. Gen'l?) that had as a theme education.
And the story was told of this turn of the 20th century (1902) University president giving this incredible 60 second address to a throng of frosh.
That was his entire appearance - enter, give a minute long speech, and exit.
And for 35 years now
I have kept that speech in my mind
cuz I thought it so profound and helpful.
You may be curious whether in all those years
I developed a theory
and a plan
for a S&S life.
Not completely, so perhaps I'm a fool.
But hardly dangerous.
But I have given it plenty of thought,
and narrowed the many choices to a few
and rejected plenty of others.
And it is with that in mind that
I presume to scribble (or keyboard equivalent)
some of the notions I've taken a fancy to,
which may loosely qualify as components of My Theory.
To serve is to be content.
True service is an example of love. Love (admittedly a confusing word) is good.
Keep a special respect for Nature and her ways. You are part of Nature.
Biology, the study of living things from microbes to humans, informs us that living things follow certain patterns as a routine. Best to be mindful of these biological imperatives for self and other living things.
Our mission is to move towards accelerating evolution.
Natural systems, starting with the cosmos, evolve.
You are a part of natural systems.
Consider the direction of evolution for the cosmos, and for our species.
Consider making choices consistent with those evolutionary directions.
Community is important and deserves to be supported and nurtured.
Consider playing a meaningful role in your communities.
Humans are social creatures. We are not designed/evolved to go it alone.
We grow best in communities.
You have come here for an education.
An educated person is a person who by the age of 21 has developed a theory of what constitutes a satisfying life and significant life.
This theory should be consonant and consistent with the history of humankind and the great thinkers that have gone before.
And an educated person is one who by the age of 25 has developed a plan or course of action to implement their theory, to move towards a satisfying and significant life.
Now
if that person has attained those ages and
has not developed a theory or planned and moved towards implementing it,
then that person
is a fool,
an ignoramus and
probably dangerous."
Wow - what a prescription. What a concluding condemnation.
I delight in it.
And now some context.
The words are mostly not mine.
But I tried as best I could to be faithful to what I understand the original to be.
The original was composed about 1902.
By the then President of the University of Chicago - if my memory holds.
To the entering class that year, seated about an auditorium.
I first read the words in Montreal in 1976.
I was a Project Analyst in the Strategic Projects Group, Headquarters of Canadian National - a diversified conglomerate - trains hotels marine telecommunications.
Half my job was to scan/read periodicals by the bucketful.
One publication I often read was Vital Speeches of the Day.
And one issue was the speech of some military type guy - (Brig. Gen'l?) that had as a theme education.
And the story was told of this turn of the 20th century (1902) University president giving this incredible 60 second address to a throng of frosh.
That was his entire appearance - enter, give a minute long speech, and exit.
And for 35 years now
I have kept that speech in my mind
cuz I thought it so profound and helpful.
You may be curious whether in all those years
I developed a theory
and a plan
for a S&S life.
Not completely, so perhaps I'm a fool.
But hardly dangerous.
But I have given it plenty of thought,
and narrowed the many choices to a few
and rejected plenty of others.
And it is with that in mind that
I presume to scribble (or keyboard equivalent)
some of the notions I've taken a fancy to,
which may loosely qualify as components of My Theory.
To serve is to be content.
True service is an example of love. Love (admittedly a confusing word) is good.
Keep a special respect for Nature and her ways. You are part of Nature.
Biology, the study of living things from microbes to humans, informs us that living things follow certain patterns as a routine. Best to be mindful of these biological imperatives for self and other living things.
Our mission is to move towards accelerating evolution.
Natural systems, starting with the cosmos, evolve.
You are a part of natural systems.
Consider the direction of evolution for the cosmos, and for our species.
Consider making choices consistent with those evolutionary directions.
Community is important and deserves to be supported and nurtured.
Consider playing a meaningful role in your communities.
Humans are social creatures. We are not designed/evolved to go it alone.
We grow best in communities.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
KB Voting - internet opportunity?
So here's the idea - which I have commented on previously, though not sure which forum.
Knowledge Based voting.
A system of voting whereby a vote from a more knowledgeable voter counts more than a vote from a less knowledgeable voter.
Could it be that this represents a new wave.
Could it be that this is a dramatic improvement over the current system where every vote counts the same.
I think the answer may be YES on both counts.
No surprise that the internet revolution is an enabling phenomena.
So while this idea may have had validity independant of the internet age, the internet now makes the concept a feasible one.
To recap the notion, let's say a community of people were faced with a decision about a new source of drinking water. Let's also imagine that there are two front running choices on the table - one being to dig a new well, the other to run an aqueduct from a nearby lake. Both choices have their proponents and their detractors. Debate has been active in the community. Ultimately the political leaders decide to hold a referendum to decide the issue.
By referendum of course they mean a vote of the citizens. No doubt such a vote would limit the voters to those who would or could vote in the regular elections for political leaders. And without a second thought, no doubt each voter could cast but a single ballot, and each ballot would count only as a single vote - meaning the input of each voter would be identical in weight or influence.
There is a part of me that wants to shout 'This is sheer insanity'.
Why should all the votes carry equal weight, when the knowledge base of those voting covers those who literally wuld know nothing about the topic, and those who would be recognized as world experts.
Surely a sensible system would give more weight and influence to the voter who was a world class expert.
In any event, it is now clear that the tools for KB voting are readily accessible, and inexpensive, and able to be applied conveniently.
Admittedly such a system would have start up challenges.
But only through experience and repeated iterations can the kinks be worked out.
Let's get on with the job.
Seems to me the first steps might include getting a trial system up and running and freely available.
Might start with a simple template.
Knowledge Based voting.
A system of voting whereby a vote from a more knowledgeable voter counts more than a vote from a less knowledgeable voter.
Could it be that this represents a new wave.
Could it be that this is a dramatic improvement over the current system where every vote counts the same.
I think the answer may be YES on both counts.
No surprise that the internet revolution is an enabling phenomena.
So while this idea may have had validity independant of the internet age, the internet now makes the concept a feasible one.
To recap the notion, let's say a community of people were faced with a decision about a new source of drinking water. Let's also imagine that there are two front running choices on the table - one being to dig a new well, the other to run an aqueduct from a nearby lake. Both choices have their proponents and their detractors. Debate has been active in the community. Ultimately the political leaders decide to hold a referendum to decide the issue.
By referendum of course they mean a vote of the citizens. No doubt such a vote would limit the voters to those who would or could vote in the regular elections for political leaders. And without a second thought, no doubt each voter could cast but a single ballot, and each ballot would count only as a single vote - meaning the input of each voter would be identical in weight or influence.
There is a part of me that wants to shout 'This is sheer insanity'.
Why should all the votes carry equal weight, when the knowledge base of those voting covers those who literally wuld know nothing about the topic, and those who would be recognized as world experts.
Surely a sensible system would give more weight and influence to the voter who was a world class expert.
In any event, it is now clear that the tools for KB voting are readily accessible, and inexpensive, and able to be applied conveniently.
Admittedly such a system would have start up challenges.
But only through experience and repeated iterations can the kinks be worked out.
Let's get on with the job.
Seems to me the first steps might include getting a trial system up and running and freely available.
Might start with a simple template.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
A Grand Move
40 days and 40 nights since the move, give or take, and I'm moved to report.
Nov. 19th, 2010 ended my Greenvalley Dr. experience and I started sleeping at 277 Elm St., formerly 5 Cypress Street Sudbury.
Nov. 26th, 2010 ended my 75 Lorne St. office experience, and I started working from the new house.
A twofer - two moves into one structure. And what a grand structure I have discovered it to be.
Spacious - 2500 sq.ft. foot print, with a full height same area basement and remarkably an attic offering near equivalent area potential ( with volumes that are awesome due to 14 foot peaks.)
And everywhere comfort inducing oversized proportions.
Getting here has been quite the journey.
Drawn out, yet really quick.
Modestly priced, yet budget blowing.
Hugely stressful, yet eventually generating great relief.
Wonderful opportunities for 'creating', but never the time to exploit adequately.
and as is typical
more later
Nov. 19th, 2010 ended my Greenvalley Dr. experience and I started sleeping at 277 Elm St., formerly 5 Cypress Street Sudbury.
Nov. 26th, 2010 ended my 75 Lorne St. office experience, and I started working from the new house.
A twofer - two moves into one structure. And what a grand structure I have discovered it to be.
Spacious - 2500 sq.ft. foot print, with a full height same area basement and remarkably an attic offering near equivalent area potential ( with volumes that are awesome due to 14 foot peaks.)
And everywhere comfort inducing oversized proportions.
Getting here has been quite the journey.
Drawn out, yet really quick.
Modestly priced, yet budget blowing.
Hugely stressful, yet eventually generating great relief.
Wonderful opportunities for 'creating', but never the time to exploit adequately.
and as is typical
more later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)