I.T. Erudio

Category: philosophy

  • Gifs, dial-up, and Libraries

    I went down the rabbit hole this morning on how to pronounce “gif”

    We always “recognize” more words than we actively use – and if you “learn” a word by reading, then the “correct” pronunciation might seem odd

    English/”American” is particularly bad – because we readily absorb words from other languages. e.g. is the “e” at the end of “cache” silent? (yes, yes it is – even in the original French I’m told the “e” is silent most of the time – but it is French so I have no idea 😉 )

    GIF

    SO there is a techie dispute of how to PROPERLY pronounce the acronym for “graphics interchange format” – is it “hard g” Gif or is it like the peanut butter “jif” – I never had to say “gif” out loud and “back in the era of dial up services” folks didn’t talk about “file extensions” on a regular basis — I’m guessing MY experience isn’t unusual, e.g. the dispute popped up this morning …

    fwiw: the OED suggests “Gif” while Merriam-Webster (in true American style) offers both pronunciations as acceptable (gif) — so if you feel strongly about it one way or the other, you are correct 😉

    I tended to just say the letters g-i-f or maybe “dot g-i-f” if I needed to distinguish the file extension.

    fwiw: back in the ol’ “Disk Operating System” (D.O.S.) days we were limited to file names with a maximum of 8 characters a period and then a 3 letter extension e.g. “something.txt”

    D.O.S. used the file extension to distinguish between “executable files” and “data files” – if the file was “something.bat” then D.O.S. would try to execute/run the file while “something.txt” would be seen as “text data.”

    “Modern” operating systems still tend to look at the file extension as a clue for the file’s purpose. The file extension can be connected with an application – e.g. a “something.xcf” file was probably created in GIMP, if you double click on the file your OS will probably try to open the file with GIMP …

    yeah, we had to use cryptic file names because of those limitations back in the day, but we LIKED it that way! and stay off my lawn you crazy kids!

    If memory serves – I think D.O.S. 5.0 expanded the “before the dot” file name space. “Modern” operating systems allow for longer file names, but you can still be as cryptic as you like …

    Dial-Up


    Before the “internet” became widely available there were various “information services” available over dial-up connections. CompuServe immediately comes to mind (they get credit for “creating” the .gif format). There were multiple large “national services” as well as “bulletin board services” (BBS) “before the interweb”.

    “Dial-up” used a “modem” with speeds measured in “bits per second” – with 56k being a “fast” dial-up modem. Which translates to “slow” and “point to point.” Any large file downloads tended to be “hit or miss” because the connection being broken would (probably) mean you needed to start the download from the beginning.

    This “slow and risky” file download aspect of dial-up was why a lot of Linux distributions sold CD’s/physical media early on – i.e. it might have taken DAYS to download an entire distribution over dial-up … good times 😉

    “Modem” is short for “modulator”/”demodulator” – e.g. the sending computer starts with a digital signal that gets “modulated” to an analog wave that could be sent over the “plain old telephone system” (POTS) by the “modem.” The receiving computer’s modem then “demodulated” the analog signal to a digital signal.

    While I’m at it – if you go searching for ancient computer gear you might also come across “baud rates” – which measures the number of “state changes” in a signal. The “baud rate” might be slower than the “bit rate” due to data compression.

    Ummm, of course none of that is REALLY important in the 21st Century. BUT I like to point out that in the “big picture” telegraph technology (dots and dashes sent as electrical signals over a wire) was the same way “dial-up” worked – and “modern networking” is still sending 1’s and 0’s. Yes, “modern networking” is much faster and reliable, but still just 1’s and 0’s …

    The term “modem” has stuck around as a generic form of “computer communication device” – technically you PROBABLY have a “router” connecting you to the internet – but if you call it a “modem” no one will notice …

    Those “dial-up services” back in the day used to charge per minute – so access was obviously restricted/limited. In the late 1980’s part of a librarian’s job description might have included doing “research” using various dial-up services — e.g. those “card catalog” systems were functionally “analog databases” and the “electronic resources” of the time were not much more sophisticated

    “Google will bring you back, you know, a hundred thousand answers. A librarian will bring you back the right one.”

    -Neil Gaman

    Neil Gaman’s quote illustrates the importance of “context” and the evaluation of “sources”

    I’m seeing a lot of “AI” and “machine learning” (ML) as buzzwords in job postings – and folks predicting a “global golden age” because “insert buzzword here” will transform society on a grand scale – and well, the lesson from history is that “access to information” is NEVER equals “wise application of knowledge”

    I’m not saying that “buzzword” won’t change the workplace – I’m just pointing out that humanity is great at justifying doing the “wrong” thing – i.e. greedy, self-centered, arrogant humans are not likely to create “supremely benevolent and wise AI”

    but yes, AI and ML are (probably) gonna be important TOOLS but we (as in “humanity in general”) are PROBABLY not gonna use those tools to usher in a “golden era” of universal peace and prosperity for EVERYONE

    Libraries

    The “value” of libraries has always come from “information access.” When “books” where expensive and ONLY available in “dead tree” format then “library” was synonymous with “books.”

    “Physical media” still dominated “library holdings” until the late 20th/early 21st Centuries gave us “low cost digital access to information.”

    The value of libraries is STILL “information access” with the caveat that “information curation” is PART of “access.”

    i.e. Including something in a “library” implies that the item has more value than items NOT included in the “library.”

    Obviously just because someone “wrote a book” does NOT mean that the book is “true.” Back in the days of “dead tree book domination” the fact that someone had gone to the expense of PUBLISHING a book implied that SOMEONE thought the book was valuable.

    This is the same idea as the “why” behind “ancient works” being considered “worthy of study” (at least in part) just because they are “ancient” — i.e. the logic being that if someone put the time and effort into making a copy of “work” then it MUST have been highly regarded at the time. Then if there are multiple copies of “work” that logic gets amplified.

    Which again loops back to the importance of “curation” – especially in a time when the barriers to “getting published” are close to nil.

    “Man’s mind, stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimension.”

     – Oliver Wendell Holmes

    Of course special care needs to be taken for the care and feeding of “young minds.” Curation to community standards is NOT the same as “censorship.”

  • random thoughts on “Acres of Diamonds”

    Russel Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) (from wikipedia) “was an American Baptist minister, orator, philanthropist, author, lawyer, and writer. He is best remembered as the founder and first president of Temple University in Philadelphia, as the Pastor of The Baptist Temple, and for his inspirational lecture, ‘Acres of Diamonds’.”

    A link to the full text of Mr. Conwell’s speech is available on the Temple University page

    The story given as inspiration for the lecture (and as the introduction to the longer lecture) is available here

    100 years ago …

    Mr. Conwell would give the speech 6,000+ times – which is impressive. The “legend” is that when arrived in a new town (where he was going to perform the speech) that he would find out the “prominent”/successful folks in the town and work them into the performance.

    ONE of the “points” of the speech being that “opportunity” can be found everywhere. The entrepreneur doesn’t (automatically) need to travel far away looking for opportunity, it (might) be in the backyard.

    A hundred years ago, Mr. Conwell had to argue that “making money” was a worthwhile endeavor. The “common wisdom” of the day being that “extreme wealth” MUST have been achieved by some form of skullduggery.

    Historically, the human “founders” of these United States had come from a culture where land equaled “wealth.” In the “old world” land was in short supply AND passed down by inheritance. Someone born a “peasant” was going to stay a “peasant” because those “to the manor born” controlled the vast majority of land – and therefore “wealth.”

    A rising “merchant class” was in the process of disrupting things when the American Colonies and the U.K. had a disagreement in the late 18th Century — BUT most folks still lived/worked on farms until the early 20th Century.

    It is unfair to call ALL of those born into privilege “parasites.” However, 18th Century England is a good case study of “those in power” using the system to keep themselves in power AND wealthy.

    The grand point being that “money”/wealth is not evil. Money is a tool which can be used for good purposes OR for bad/”greed.” 1 Timothy 6:10 tell us that “LOVE of money is the root of all evil.”

    “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

    1 Timothy 6:10

    Note that “greed” is never “good.” Greed implies “getting more” at the expense of others – which is obviously impossible to reconcile with “loving your neighbor as yourself.”

    New World

    It is fun to point out that “technology” has always been a disruptive force. Technology is always about “application” of knowledge. Advances in “farming technology” helped farmers be more productive – while also freeing up “labor” for the factories of the industrial revolution.

    If we could do a survey asking “average farm workers” (back when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech) how they could get “wealthy” they PROBABLY would have said some variation of “striking gold.”

    (… and historians can point at the “gold rushes” in the middle of the 19th Century as helping populate the western United States. Of course more “wealth” was generated from folks helping the “prospectors” than from folks “striking it rich” pulling gold/silver out of the ground …)

    Of course if one of those “average farm workers” that sold everything to go gold prospecting had created a “better plow” they would have been much better off.

    e.g. A Vermont born blacksmith solved a common problem for farmers – and both he AND the farmers prospered. John Deere, Inc is still helping farmers be productive in the 21st Century.

    Transportation

    If you look at the “super wealthy” from the late 19th and early 20th Century, the common theme might be “transportation.”

    e.g. Cornelius Vanderbuilt built an empire from ferries – from the time when “waterways” were the primary means of transportation in the U.S.

    John Rockefeller built an oil empire – from the time when oil was used for light and heat. When Henry Ford made the horseless carriage affordable, “oil” being refined into gasoline made the Rockefeller clan even more wealthy.

    Sandwiched between Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Ford as “wealthiest American” was Andrew Carnegie – who had worked his way up from “child labor” to “steel magnate” – from a time with “railroads” and the telegraph were the latest and greatest “technology.”

    No, I am NOT holding up ANY of these men as “moral exemplars” – the grand point is that they helped “solve problems” for a large number of folks, and solving those problems was the root of their wealth …

    The musical “Oklahoma!” (1943) has a song where “rural residents” marvel at the advancements of Kansas City (“She went about as fur as she could go!”). By the mid 20th Century things like automobiles and the telephone system were commonplace enough to be a plot point in a musical.

    (“Oklahoma!” is set around the time the territory became a State. Oklahoma was the 46th State admitted to the Union in 1907)

    Again, the grand point being that some folks got wealthy from disrupting the status quo, and MANY more got wealthy by making incremental advances to cars and phones.

    e.g. Thomas Edison’s “diamonds in the backyard” looked like improvements to the telegraph system of his time long before “Edison Electric.”

    random thought – I’m sure there is an interesting story with the “cigarette lighter” technology. The actual “cigarette lighter” part isn’t a “standard feature” but you can find a lot of “accessories” that use the “automobile auxiliary power outlet.”

    Modern Times

    The sad fact is that in a LOT of nations the “economic game” IS stacked against the “average individual.” Which is why we see so many folks willing to risk everything to immigrate to “opportunity.”

    Obviously a complex subject – and someone living in a “warzone” is more concerned with survival than anything.

    For those NOT living in a warzone or an extremely dysfunctional government the big question becomes which “career path” to pursue.

    Charlie Chaplin made a movie called “Modern Times” back in 1936. Mr. Chaplin was a world famous “movie star” at the time – the movie sometimes get held up as an example of “radical political beliefs.” I’m not sure the movie has any agenda except “entertainment” – e.g. Mr Chaplin’s “tramp” character is pursuing “happiness” NOT a political agenda.

    That same idea applies to “modern workers” in the 21st century. “Happiness” probably won’t come from a “job.” Generic advice like “follow your bliss” is nice, but not particularly useful.

    There is nothing wrong with “working for a paycheck.” The best case scenario is to “do what you love” for a living. the WORST case scenario is doing a job you hate to survive …

    Education, intelligence, and “degrees”

    “Education in the United States” has changed a great deal in the last 100 years. The first “colleges” in the North America existed to train “clergy” (e.g. Harvard was founded in 1636) and then “academics.”

    The “Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges” came along later with the “land grant” colleges in the late 19th Century. The GI Bill sent 2.2 million WWII veterans to college AND 5.6 million more to other training programs.

    Sputnick I (1957) had the unintended consequence of changing national educational priorities in the U.S. – as well as kickstarting NASA (founded July 29, 1958). Both events helped the U.S. get to the moon 11 years later.

    World war and cold war politics aside, the 20th Century workplace was probably the historical “anomaly.” At one point in the 20th Century a “young worker” could drop out of high school, go to work at the local “factory,” and make a “good living,”

    Remember that for MOST of human history, folks lived and worked on farms. Cities provided a marketplace for those agricultural products as well as “other” commerce. Before mass media and rapid transportation MOST people would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born.

    Again, maybe interesting BUT I’ll point out that “compulsory” public education PROBABLY doesn’t have a great record of achievement in the U.S. (or anywhere). i.e. if the ONLY reason “student” is in “school” is because they “have to” – then that student isn’t going to learn much.

    This has nothing to do with “intelligence” and everything to do with “individual interests” and ability. “Education” is best understood as a live long process – not a short term goal.

    “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

    — Mark Twain

    Part of what makes us “human” is (probably) the desire for “mastery” of skills. In the “best case” this is how “education” should look – a journey from “untrained” to “skilled.”

    If an individual’s investment (in time and money) results in them having a valuable “skill set” – then they are “well educated.”

    The contrast being the “academic” that has a lot of “degrees” but no actual “skills” — i.e. having a “doctorate” doesn’t automatically mean anything. “Having” a degree shows “completion” of a set of requirements not “mastery” of those subjects.

    Of course that distinction is why we have “licensing” as well as “degree” requirements for some professions. e.g. The law school graduate that can’t pass the “Bar examination” won’t be allowed to practice law, but might be allowed to teach.

    Nepo babies

    Now, imagine we did a survey of “modern high school students” in the United States asking them “how can you become wealthy?”

    It would be interesting to actually perform the study – i.e. I’m just guessing here from MY personal experience.

    We would also have collect data on the parent’s education and career — i.e. if a child grows up in a family of “fire fighters” then they are (probably) more likely to pursue a career as “fire fighters” simply because that is what they are familiar.

    The term “nepo baby” gets used (derisively) for some entertainment industry professionals – but if mom and dad are both “entertainment industry professionals” then a child pursuing an acting/performance career kind of becomes “going into the family business.”

    Now, “having good genetics” (you know “being ridiculously good looking”) is always a positive – so there are certainly “nepo babies” out there.

    I’m not throwing stones at anyone, “hiring” is not an exact science in ANY industry. That “genetic component” probably applies to families of doctors, lawyers, and educators as well — i.e. if mom and dad were both “whatever”, it is possible that “junior” will have those same skills/personality preferences.

    … and it is also possible that “junior” will want to do something completely different.

    BUT if “student” has minimal exposure to “work life” outside of what they see at home and school – MY GUESS is that the majority (of my hypothetical survey of high school students) will say the “path to wealth” involves professional sports or “entertainment industry.”

    umm, both of which may be more likely than “winning the lottery” or speculating on the stock market — but not exactly “career counsellor” advice

    (… oh, and you only hear about the “big rock stars” being told by their “career counsellor” that they couldn’t make a living as a “rock star” AFTER they became “big rock stars” – if someone quits after being told they “can’t do it” or that the chance of success is small, then they PROBABLY didn’t want to do “it” very much …)

    “Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.”

    – Casey Kasem

    Did I have a point?

    “Well, the “message” in “Acres of Diamonds” is still valid 100+ years later.

    A certain amount of “knowledge” is required to be able to recognize opportunity. e.g. The person to “build a better mousetrap” is someone that has experience catching mice.

    BUT simply inventing a “better” mousetrap is only half of the problem – the mousetrap needs to be produced, marketed, and sold.

    Two BIG things that weren’t around when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech are “venture capital” and “franchising.” Neither of which “negatively” impacts the argument he was making – and if anything make his argument even stronger …

    check out https://curious.iterudio.com for a short (free) class on “success”

    You might also find this book interesting

  • Sisyphus, “Say Anything”, The Seeker

    The tragic part of living a life of “quiet desperation” (in the Henry David Thoreau sense) is usually the lost opportunity to do good as opposed to “intentional malice.”

    For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
    Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

    Sonnet 94 (William Shakespeare)

    In 2023 Merriam-Webster tells us that a “tragedy” is “a disastrous event : CALAMITY”

    Back in Mr Shakespeare’s time a “tragedy” was closer to “a medieval narrative poem or tale typically describing the downfall of a great man” (Merriam-Webster definition 2C – and I used the term as in Merriam-Webster definition 3: “tragic quality or element”)

    fwiw: Mr Shakespeare’s plays tend to be divided into “tragedy”, “comedy”, and “histories” – kind of the broad “genres” of his time. In Shakespearean “tragedy” a lot of people will be dead at the end of the play, in a “comedy” folks will pair up/get married, and “histories” were obviously “based on a true story” BUT tended to be presented to “please the sponsor” much more than be an accurate representation of historic events …

    Sisyphus

    The Ancient Greek concept of tragedy would have required a “great man” – to suffer a great downfall BUT more along the Merriam-Webster 2A definition (“the a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror”)

    Ancient Greek “tragedy” tends to involve a “mostly admirable” king/leader that does nothing “wrong” but still suffers because of a relatively small character flaw – e.g. the hero tries to avoid his “destiny”/fate and ends up bringing about his fate BECAUSE he tried to avoid it.

    Wikipedia tells us that Sisyphus was the king of Corinth, punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology.

    BUT the myth of Sisyphus is more of a “cautionary tale” about divine justice rather than a “tragedy” – the “lesson” the Ancient Greeks were passing along with the myth of Sisyphus was probably “don’t mess with the ‘gods’” not “don’t fight your fate”

    The punishment aspect of the myth of Sisyphus is always that he is sentenced to an endless AND pointless task – just pushing the boulder up a hill might not seem that bad, but being forced to do it FOREVER for no reason, well, that wouldn’t be any fun …
    The Ancient Greek concept of tragedy would have required a “great man” – to suffer a great downfall BUT more along the Merriam-Webster 2A definition (“the a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror”)

    Ancient Greek “tragedy” tends to involve a “mostly admirable” king/leader that does nothing “wrong” but still suffers because of a relatively small character flaw – e.g. the hero tries to avoid his “destiny”/fate and ends up bringing about his fate BECAUSE he tried to avoid it.

    Wikipedia tells us that Sisyphus was the king of Corinth, punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology.

    BUT the myth of Sisyphus is more of a “cautionary tale” about divine justice rather than a “tragedy” – the “lesson” the Ancient Greeks were passing along with the myth of Sisyphus was probably “don’t mess with the ‘gods’” not “don’t fight your fate”

    The punishment aspect of the myth of Sisyphus is always that he is sentenced to an endless AND pointless task – just pushing the boulder up a hill might not seem that bad, but being forced to do it FOREVER for no reason, well, that wouldn’t be any fun …

    Lloyd Dobler

    Now, the “average Ancient Greek” was a subsistence farmer (well, the “average Ancient human” was also a subsistence farmer – but that isn’t important).

    Life as a “subsistence farmer” (i.e. trying to live off of growing your own food) probably sounds “hard” to modern humans – but it would have had the advantage of a clear purpose/reason for daily labor (i.e. “survival” – feed yourself and your family).

    Fast forward to the 20th Century and there are still subsistence farmers – but they tend to be in what gets called “developing nations” in 2023.

    (aside: The concept of “Third World” nations is a relic of the “Cold War” – i.e. countries could be divided into “us” vs “them” with “not us or them” being the “Third World” – of course those countries were probably NOT “us” OR “them” because they were “undeveloped” – but now I feel like I’m going in circles.)

    Just like in “ancient times” the average “modern” subsistence farmer is most concerned with survival – and that daily struggle for survival is an obvious “purpose for work.”

    In the “developed world” the “people” can still be divided between “haves” and “have nots” – but the daily struggle for “food” has been replaced by a “subsistence paycheck” in exchange for labor.

    Of course the “problem” for “modern workers” can become CHOOSING a profession — i.e. again, for most of human existence the problem was growing enough food to survive – not “self-fulfillment”

    The last half of the 20th Century saw a lot of “progress” but human nature didn’t change. We “know” more and we “have” more in the “developed world” but humans are still the same “stuff” we have always been.

    Better nutrition and health care means the average height and weight have increased – people are bigger and healthier but still the same ol’ “people.”

    The unintended consequence of material prosperity has been to replace the “fight for survival” with a “search for meaning.”

    A lot of folks have ALWAYS managed to avoid the subject – and these are those folks leading the “unexamined life is not worth living” (as Socrates put it) or “lives of quiet desperation” (as Mr Thoreau put it).

    The late 20th century version of that struggle is found in “Say Anything” (1989) when the protagonist points out:

    “I don’t want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don’t want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed.”

    –Lloyd Dobler

    The Seeker

    From a “big picture history” point of view the rise and fall of “great societies”/Empires can be seen as a failure of “values.”

    Yes, different cultures have different concepts of “normal” – BUT for them to be a “culture” they have a “set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices.”

    It should be obvious that just living in the same geographic region does NOT make a “culture” – unless you count hating ‘those people’ as a “culture”

    I won’t bother with multiple examples – e.g. “Arabs” and “Jews.”

    On a MUCH smaller scale I laughed at myself when I didn’t apply for a “tech job” with a school system in southwestern Ohio because THEY were rivals with US in high school sports (ok, there were other reasons as well – but the friendly sports rivalry was my first thought when I saw the job posting).

    “The Who” (one of those “rock & roll” bands) serves as a modern cultural example of that human “desire for meaning” and “belonging” – one of their songs asks the big question but American poet E.E. Cummings asked a similar question in 1923:

    seeker of truth

    follow no path
    all paths lead where

    truth is here

    e.e. cummings

    The obvious problem for “seekers” is that it is possible to be deceived into thinking “truth is here” when it isn’t – this verse comes to mind –

    I tend to be suspicious of ANYONE that asks me to “trust them” about ANYTHING without any proof/verification – but that is just me (Luke 6:43-45 also comes to mind)

    Just because someone believes something and is sincere DOES NOT mean they are “true” – it is possible to be “sincerely wrong” …

    of course I could ALWAYS be wrong so you shouldn’t trust me on that –

  • Feedback, praise, and constructive criticism

    Starting with a definition: Communication is “a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior” (thank you Merriam-Webster — emphasis mine)

    Notice the emphasis on “information is exchanged.” If INFORMATION is NOT being EXCHANGED then you don’t have “communication.” Two people yelling at each other might be “fighting” and “sending messages” but calling a screamed insult “information” is true only at the lowest level.

    Remember “communication” involves a “message” being “sent” AND “received” — e.g. if both sides are “sending” at the same time (e.g. two folks yelling at each other) then accurate reception of the “sent” message is unlikely.

    My completely made up on the fly “communication rule #1” is to point out that “active listening” is part of “effective communication.”

    Know the audience

    Imagine a radio station BROADCASTING a signal. That “signal” has to be “received”/interpreted for “communication” to take place.

    If a “sender” wants their message to be understood – then they need to tailor the “message” to the recipients. That radio station is sending out a signal on a specific frequency which recipients will need a “radio receiver” tuned to the correct frequency to receive.

    BUT the “message” also need to be crafted with the recipients in mind.
    e.g. someone is giving a speech to “college presidents” the form of the message will be much different than someone giving a speech to “elementary school students.”

    The “message” will also need to be adjusted based on the “media” involved — e.g. a “published article” in a scholarly journal will be crafted differently than an op-ed for a local newspaper.

    What should be “obvious” is that NOTHING should be assumed to be “obvious.” The more familiar a “speaker”/”writer” is with their audience the better they will be able to communicate a message.

    e.g. Assuming that “EVERYONE knows” something can cause problems – “Well, everyone knew I was joking” becomes a recipe for misunderstanding (especially if you are in a leadership position)

    btw: I’m NOT saying to avoid “humor” – I’m pointing out that attempts at “humor” can easily be misunderstood. “Joking around” with people you have known for years will (almost certainly) be taken differently than “joking around” with someone you just met …

    Feedback

    Definition time: Feedback “the transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the original or controlling source”

    “Feedback” covers a LOT of communication territory – it can be positive or negative – constructive or destructive – and will obviously vary in “usefulness” based on a combination of “sender” AND “receiver” characteristics.

    Effective feedback takes effort and a willingness to listen. Honesty is essential – BUT “honesty” should not be an excuse to be mean/insulting.

    “Honest” feedback is NOT just pointing out everything someone did WRONG. Honestly pointing out the positives is also not “flattery.”

    Feedback is (drum roll) “communication” – and to be effective must be tailored to the individual/audience AND be “actionable.”

    A “fan” telling their favorite artist how fantastic they (the artist) is might be “honest” and appreciated – but isn’t exactly “useful feedback” – e.g. Fan: “YOU are great I love your work” Artist: “Thank you”

    Same is true of a “manager” heaping abuse on an “employee” during an “annual review” – e.g. manager: “I haven’t given you any feedback all year, but now I am going to tell you how terrible a job you have done so I can justify not giving you a raise!” Employee: “Thank you for the motivation to look for another job!”

    The “actionable” part if important for something to be “feedback” – i.e. if I just say “I liked x and y” then I am giving my opinion – If I say “X and Y seemed to work well, Z could have been better – maybe try ABC next time” then THAT is “feedback”

    Praise

    A specific type of feedback gets called “praise.” By definition praise is favorable BUT it is not just giving compliments or saying “positive” things.

    For “praise” to be effective it needs to be specific. e.g. “I watched your performance and I thought you did x, y, and z REALLY well” is better than “You looked good out there” (though both may be appropriate at certain times).

    Compliments also work best when they are specific – with “honesty” being the difference between a “compliment” and “flattery.”

    When “awards” show season rolls around I tend to point out that giving out awards for singing/acting/artistic impression is a little pointless from a “fan” point of view (i.e. I don’t need someone to tell me what I should like) BUT that doesn’t mean the awards are pointless.

    Hey, fans “voted” on what they like by buying tickets – so a lot of awards become “recognition by peers.” e.g. If “people that do X” for a living all get together and vote on who did “X” best this year – and then give out an award – the award becomes a form of “peer praise”/recognition, which is always nice

    The point being that “knowledgeable praise” – as in “praise from people that honestly understand the act being praised” – is much more valued than “random praise from non-experts”

    Constructive Criticism

    Of course “perfect performances” tend to be rare – so pointing out “what didn’t go so well” is also important.

    “Criticism” implies “unfavorable feedback” – which is why you often hear the term “constructive criticism” used for the process of “evaluating or analyzing” an event.

    “Youth coaches” will talk about “praise sandwiches” as a model for constructive criticism – e.g. start the feedback with a “positive” (praise), mention a “corrective” (criticism), and then end with another “positive” (praise)

    Once again, audience matters – if you are coaching a “Little League Baseball” team and are talking to the team after a game, then “praise sandwiches” all around. If you are doing film study with older athletes then “praise sandwiches” will probably come across as a little disingenuous.

    The Pet Peeve

    Occasionally I see a “social media” post that goes something like “I don’t know who needs to hear this – but you are doing a great job!”

    “You can do it!”

    Townie (Rob Schneider) from “The Waterboy“

    Now, I appreciate the sentiment – but generic affirmations from someone that has never met me are not particularly useful.

    I’m not particularly offended by those type of posts – but I wouldn’t classify them as “feedback” in any form. Maybe call them a “positive thought broadcast” but not “praise.”

    BUT I could always be wrong …

  • Science Fiction, “social commentary”, and “Politics”

    FIRST I will say that I am a fan of William Shatner OC. The “OC” stands for “Order of Canada” – which is an honor of merit bestowed by the Canadian government.

    The 2019 announcement specifically mentions Captain James T Kirk/Star Trek but these types of honors tend to be conferred because of a combination of “entertainment and philanthropy” e.g. The motto of the “Order of Canada” is “DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM” (They desire a better country)

    Not being a Canadian – I had to look up the “Order of Canada.” I was trying to figure out if there is a formal address for “Officers of the Order of Canada” (umm, no? I’m still not sure – apparently Canada uses “Honorable” and “Right Honorable” for certain positions/persons – but I don’t think “OC” comes along with an honorific, but again I’m not 100% on that one way or the other …)

    fwiw: Mr Shatner pointed out that being “knighted” is mostly for citizens of Great Britain. SO Mr Shatner is not “Sir William” (and I’m told that Canadian citizens are not eligible for the top two levels of the “OBE”)

    fwiw 2: Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the United States gov’ment from conferring “Titles of Nobility” – but several prominent Americans have been awarded “KBE” by the United Kingdom. The “KBE” usually gets described as an “honorary knighthood” – they get the award from the Crown and can put “KBE” after their name if they want, but don’t get the official honorific of “Sir/Dame.”

    Star Trek


    “Star Trek” TOS (the original series) ran for 3 seasons (79 official episodes) and then there was an “animated series” that ran for 22 episodes.

    It is part of the legend of “Star Trek” that the show ran for 3 seasons and was CANCELLED each season — organized “fan letter” campaigns convinced network decision makers to bring the show back for another season after the season 1 and 2 cancellations.

    BUT while the fan letter campaign might have convinced network executives to keep the show on the air, it couldn’t convince them to invest money in the show. e.g. if you watch the TOS episodes in order you will notice a drop in “production value” in many season 3 episodes.

    The rumor was that Mr Shatner and Leonard Nimoy were the only actors “getting raises” – and most of season 3 is just not as good as seasons 1 and 2 for various reasons. Of course “not very good” Star Trek is still better than a lot of shows – I’m not being overly critical but two words “Spock’s Brain” (season 3 episode 1)

    I have always had the impression that William Shatner has a passion for performing – which is why he has 250 credits to his name. Leonard Nimoy went from Star Trek to “Mission Impossible” and has 136 credits. DeForest Kelley was 10 years older than both Mr Shatner and Mr Nimoy – and was certainly the more “established” actor when Star Trek TOS started (not surprisingly considering the time and popular tastes – he was in a lot of westerns) – has 133 credits to his name.

    ANYWAY – My very round about point is that while William Shatner OC will be remembered as “Captain Kirk.” Mr Shatner has had a long and distinguished career. – i.e. his career included a LOT more than JUST “Star Trek” – e.g. Mr Shatner’s portrayal of the very “not Captain Kirk” character “Denny Crane” won him a Primetime Emmy in 2004 AND 2005, and don’t forget the “exceptionally 80’s” TJ Hooker.

    The motivation for the blog post was a meme with Mr Shatner asking “When did Star Trek become political?”

    “When did Star Trek become political?”

    William Shatner OC

    There are a LOT of responses belittling Mr Shatner – with the general theme being something like “Star Trek is the most political show in the history of television!”

    While I understand what folks “mean” when they say that Star Trek was/is “political” I have to disagree because, well, they are simply wrong.

    Science Fiction in general

    We should probably define some terms:

    Merriam-Webster tells us that Science Fiction = “fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component”

    The important part of the “science fiction” definition is of course the “science” part — i.e. just because a story takes place in “outer space”, has “ray guns” and/or spaceships does NOT automatically mean it is “science fiction.”

    e.g. A lot of those “serial” films like Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers are more “space fantasy” than science fiction. “Star Wars” (the original trilogy) is very much “space fantasy” – and the broad thematic similarities between Flash Gordon and Star Wars should be obvious (heroes going off on a mission to save life as we know it).

    To be clear I am not criticizing any of the above – they are entertaining and have had societal influence – but they could just as easily take place “once upon a time in a land far far away” (e.g. sounds a lot like “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away”).

    Social Commentary

    Going back to our definition – notice the “impact … on society or individuals” part. If someone is telling stories about the impact of “whatever” on “society and individuals” they are almost certainly engaging in “social commentary” —

    e.g. H.G. Wells typically gets credit for “inventing” the genre with “The Time Machine” in 1895. — Mr Well’s time traveler (an inventor/scientist) went into a distant future where humanity had destroyed the societies of his time (war is bad) and there are two surviving “classes” of humans – one above ground and the other below … so “science” and “social commentary” has ALWAYS been a recipe for “science fiction”

    There are multiple “sub genres” of “science fiction” that I will just wave at as we go by – i.e. a comprehensive discussion on all things “science fiction” is beyond the scope of this little blog …

    BUT “social commentary” is NOT “politics” — e.g. if you want to say that “Star Trek” has always been a commentary on modern society – then I would tend to agree.

    The movies with “the original cast” also fit into that model — i.e. they are broad “social commentary” about issues of the day but are NOT “political”

    Politics

    Obviously now we need to define politics – the first recorded use of the word in English goes back to 1529 – with an “art or science of government” meaning.

    The roots of “politics” go back to the Ancient Greek “polis”/city state – so when Aristotle said that “Man is by nature a political animal” he was saying that men are capable of communication and moral reasoning — therefore they can create governments/societies based on that moral reasoning (i.e. “politics”)

    fwiw: Aristotle wasn’t a fan of “democracies” because they tend to decay into chaos – so his use of the word “political” was descriptive in a general sense – neither positive or negative – he was obviously biased toward the Greek polis (constitutional republic) as an ideal.

    The word “politics” gets thrown around a lot – as it is used in “modern times” it can be understood as the practical process of “who gets what, how much they get, and when do they get it” — i.e. if you have scarce resources there will ALWAYS be “politics” to deal with – whether you are talking about a small business or the Federal government EVERYBODY can’t get EVERYTHING they want NOW – so “politics” happen.

    “Science fiction” might tell a story where the “social commentary theme” is “racism is bad” or “war is bad but sometimes necessary” – but would NOT advance a specific set of policy principles or advocate for (or against) a current political figure.

    Sure someone COULD tell a thinly veiled story pushing a specific political agenda and pretend it is “science fiction” – but that is more accurately called “propaganda” not “fiction”

    If we went through all of of TOS episodes we can PROBABLY find an underlying “social commentary” in each one – some are more overt than others – but it is there if you look for it (an exercise for a time when I have more time on my hands).

    Fashions change – social commentary endures

    It can also be fun to point out the “science fiction fashion victims” – just like you can point out the “historical epic fashion victims” – i.e. any television show or movie tends to reflect the time it was made.

    SO we get miniskirts and beehive hairdos in TOS and somehow all of the aliens look like humans from 1960s North America who all speak English on every “M” class planet they stumble upon after travelling multiples of the speed of light to get there. Oh, and all alien species are all able to interbreed (and fall in love with Captain Kirk) – and those sideburns …

    BUT this is all part of the suspension of disbelief – we can also point at “Doctor Zhivago” (1965) as a great movie about the Russian revolution (1917-1923) with a cast full of actors with “1965” hairstyles – enjoy the movie, don’t worry about the hairstyles

    It is also fun to compare the “tech” from TOS to the “tech” in TNG — One of my favorites is the concept of the “paperless society” – in all of TOS episodes and movies if you see a “dead tree” book on the Enterprise it is probably a “plot element” – they read off of screens a lot, and they use (what we would call) “tablets” a lot. BUT Captain Jean Luc Picard had his leather bound edition of the “Complete Works of Shakespeare”

    in the “just for fun” category Pavel Chekov could illustrate the potential dangers of working in “political” jokes – e.g. the character was introduced in an attempt to appeal to younger viewers and also as a little “Cold War” reference.

    According to Mr Chekov EVERYTHING was invented in Russia – which is still funny as a running gag, but during the Stalin era Russian history was periodically rewritten to conform to the current political environment …


    Scott : [raising his glass] Now this is a drink for a man. Chekov : Scotch?
    Scott : Aye.
    Chekov : It was invented by a little old lady from Leningrad.

    “The Trouble With Tribbles” Season 2 Episode 15



    BUT yes, I am nitpicking — my original point was that Star Trek TOS is “social commentary” and it remains popular BECAUSE it was NOT “political” — which was probably what Mr Shatner was saying — if he actually said the “When did Star Trek become political?” line …

  • Team building

    The word “team” implies a coordinated ensemble. The word comes into the English language via Old High German with obvious “draft animal” connotations.

    Since modern English is a combination of Germanic and French/Latin vocabularies, we tend to have multiple words for the same concept – e.g. the French/Latin companion to “team” is probably “companion”/”company” (please excuse the mild attempt at word play).

    Both “team” and “company” imply functional relationships but different connotations. If you Google for “company building” (images) you will probably get pictures of “office buildings”/real estate. Search for “team building” (images) and you will probably get groups of smiling people “doing things.”

    Corporation

    Even less personal is “corporation” which comes from the Latin “corporatus” – “to form into a body.” In modern English the name implies a formal “legal” structure designed to allow “association” without liability – e.g. a “limited liability company” is a corporate form.

    One of the first “corporations” – the British East India Company (BEIC) – formed in 1600 for “Trading into the East-Indies.” They grew to the point where company activity accounted for half of ALL world trade in the mid 1700s/early1800s. “The Company” got so big that they had all of the issues of a nation-state – and the British Crown became increasingly entangled in “company” affairs to the point that the corporation was dissolved in 1874 and the “British Empire” assumed control.

    The relevant point of the BEIC story is that they were more of an “accidental empire” than a planned endeavor. The same ends up being true of MOST “startup companies.”

    Startups

    Just for fun we will define “startup success” as “lasting longer than 5 years” and hiring at least 1 employee. Historically “successful” startup companies consist of (at least) 3 “founders.”

    In general those three founders consist of:

    1. the “visionary/sales” person – who is good at explaining what the company does.
    2. the person actually skilled at doing “whatever” it is the company does
    3. the “operations” person who handles the “business” side

    In the last half of the 20th Century “venture capital” became a thing – and modern examples abound e.g. Intel, Apple, Google all instantly come to mind.

    This isn’t a “carved in stone” rule, the idea is that no one person is going to be able to perform all three functions for a large organization simply because they involve different skillsets. One function is not more important than another – all three have to work together for the startup/company/TEAM to succeed.

    It is in that “working together” where “team building” happens.

    Team

    The “division of labor” concept has an interesting history – that I won’t bother going over (“The Wealth of Nations” – Adam Smith 1776).

    To point out the obvious “team sports” a require a “team” of players. The number of players varies by sport but what makes a “team” a “team” is that you need more than 1 member. The degree of specialization between team members also (obviously) varies by sport – BUT understanding “player specialization” becomes the first step when we are “building a team.”

    Selection

    Being able to attract, select, and retain the right “team members” is essential to any organizations success and continued existence – not just “nice for growth.”

    Something like “talent” or “experience” aren’t major considerations if you are struggling to fill a vacant position. In that scenario the major challenge becomes placing “marginally qualified” players in positions.

    The small “startup” faces the same challenge – but a startup is literally “betting the company” on each new hire. A “bad hire” when the company consists of a handful of employees will have a larger impact on the company’s future than “massive corporation” making a bad hire.

    Remember – just in general – most startups fail. “Cash flow”/lack of financing is the major REPORTED reason for failure. While industries differ – saying that “employees are any organizations most valuable asset” is a cliche for a reason. Once an organization “settles” on hiring “lower grade” employees they are on their way to extinction.

    The problem is that those “lower grade” employees will tend to stick around and hire even lower grade employees to make themselves look good. It is possible to reverse the trend – but it isn’t easy. Arguably we are discussing a “normal” cycle of “organization” life and death – but again “normal” doesn’t mean “desirable” or “inevitable.”

    Retention

    If you get the “selection” part right then the need to retain those employees should be clear.

    For the record – the reason “good employees leave” is probably NOT “money.” Dig a little and you will find a lot of “advice” about how “money doesn’t motivate” – which is only partially true. i.e. the point becomes that if the organization is paying folks “enough” then paying “more” won’t increase retention.

    BUT if the organization isn’t paying “enough” – then that is obviously the easiest part of the “retention” equation to fix.

    The other parts of the “retention equation” are things like “mission”/”purpose” and then “interpersonal relations” within the organization.

    e.g. if someone feels they are making a valued contribution and serving a worthwhile purpose – then they will probably stick around until they are forced to retire. Then if someone feels like they are taken for granted and EVERYTHING is a whining contest – well, the competent employees probably leave the first chance they get …

    I’m also fond of pointing out that “job seekers” are “interviewing” the organization as well as “being interviewed” during the hiring process.

    If you don’t like the way you are treated during the hiring process – then you should have serious thoughts about accepting a job offer. A professional company staffed by competent employees is NOT going to have a “third rate” hiring process.

    Team Building Exercises

    I question the benefits of artificial “team building” exercises. You know, the “obstacle course” rope climbing sort of thing that is supposed to build “team spirit.”

    Motivational speakers are a dime a dozen. Forcing folks to socialize while doing make work activities is ACU = Almost. Completely. Useless.

    There is a lucrative market in selling those ACU activities because, well, there are a lot of incompetent executives out there looking for easy solutions to low employee moral, high turnover, and general under productivity.

    HOWEVER, real, productive “training” is something it is hard to have too much of.

    Elite

    There are no easy solutions to guarantee “good hires.”

    HOWEVER, the first step is setting high standards and having a worthwhile mission.

    Comparing the U.S. Marines to the other services is a little deceptive – i.e. the “Marines” are a component of the Depart of the Navy – still “the few, the proud, the marines” rarely had to resort to “drafting” recruits.

    In comparison the U.S. Army is twice as big as the U.S. Marines (well, Google tells me the Army has around 500,000 active duty soldiers and the Marines under 200,000 active duty), the U.S. Navy is around 350,000 active duty, and the U.S. Air Force also “around” 350,000 active duty

    Within the Army and Navy you have “special services.” How those “special services” folks are selected and trained is the stuff of legend – and not what I’m concerned with here.

    The “big concept” from a team building point of view is that those “special services” folks need the “regular service” in much the same way that the ‘edge of the knife” doesn’t exist without the rest of the knife.

    They work together to serve a common mission – i.e. they are a “team.” The “rank and file” need to be treated with respect even if the “Elite” deserve a little preferential treatment.

    From a “non military organization” point of view – the top 20% (i.e. the “Elite“) of employees in a large organization are probably more productive than the next 70%, and the bottom 10% probably need to be “eased out the door.”

    The goal of “leadership” should be to retain that elite 20%, work with the 70% who are solid contributors (and might move into the 20%), and also treat the bottom 10% with respect while helping them find their way (which may not be with the organization).

    Remember: Yes, “rank has its privileges” but that is always because “rank also has obligations.”

  • Random thoughts on Time, Distance, and Faster Than Light Travel

    The good folks at Merriam-Webster give us 14 definitions for “time” as a noun, another 5 as a verb, and then 3 more as an adjective.

    A quick peek at the etymology tells us that the “time” came into the English language by way of Old English and (Old Norse) words for “tide.”

    That “time” and “tide” are related shouldn’t surprise anyone — after all “time and tide wait for no man” is one of those “proverb” things. e.g. If you make your living next to/on a large body of water then the tide going out and coming in probably greatly influences your day to day activities as much as the sun rising and setting.

    From an “exploration” point of view “precision time keeping” was essential for sailors because they could use it to determine their longitude. Not being a sailor or even mildly comfortable on a boat that doesn’t have a motor – I’m told you can use a sextant to determine your latitude using the moon and stars.

    Obviously in 2023 GPS is used for most voyages. Some high up officials in the U.S. Navy pointed out that we should still teach “basic seamanship.”

    I’ve had a career that revolves around “fixing” things because, well, things break — so teaching basic navigation without GPS sounds obvious. e.g. the U.S. Army initial entry training (“basic training”) used to spend a little bit of time teaching the POGs (“persons other than grunts”) how to read a map and use a compass.

    “Way back when” I was trained as a medic – which used to mean nine weeks of “basic” and then another period of “AIT” (advanced initial training) — all of which I seem to remember took 6 months in real time. In 2023 Google tells me that the “11B Infantry” training is “One Station Unit Training” lasting 22 weeks.

    The “Distance” Problem

    Before the “industrial revolution” in the 18th century gave us things like trains, and eventually planes, and automobiles – the fastest human beings could travel on land was on the back of a horse.

    Which basically meant that the “average human being” would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born. Since MOST people were ‘subsistence farmers” they probably didn’t have a pressing need to travel exceptionally far.

    Of course “ancient peoples” probably formed the first “cities” as equal parts “areas of mutual protection” AND “areas of commerce” — so the “local farmers market” today might be described as an example of the foundation of modern society – “people gotta eat” and “people like to socialize” …

    Those ancient subsistence farmers no doubt figured out the cycles of the moon as well as the yearly seasons so they could optimize the output of their farms. Those folks not concerned with the tides still had to “plant” and “harvest” – so “time management” was a consideration even if precise time keeping wasn’t an issue.

    Those Ancient Greeks even went so far as to create the idea of a “decisive battle” so they could decide conflicts and get back to their farms with minimal disruption (i.e. if you don’t plant, you can’t expect to harvest) – but that is another story.

    The point being that “time” was a constant – how we “redeem the time” is up to the individual – but part of being human is dealing with the inevitability of “time passing.”

    The relationship between “distance” (d), “speed” (s), and “time” (t) is probably still a “middle school” math exercise (d= st) which I won’t go into – but it is hard to overstate the impact that “fast and safe high speed travel” changed human society.

    My favorite example is “transcontinental” travel in North America. Before the U.S. completed the first transcontinental railroad in 1869 the fastest you could travel from “coast to coast” would take 6 months – e.g. you could probably take a train to Nebraska in a couple days, but then the trip from Nebraska to the west coast would take several months. Or you could sail around South America (Cape Horn) which would also take 6 months (it was probably safer but much more expensive).

    btw: Canada’s “transcontinental railroad” opened in 1881 – and is still in operation. Parts of what was the U.S. Transcontinental railroad are still around – but the rise of “automobiles” and the Interstate highway system made “interstate railway passenger travel” unprofitable.

    AFTER the transcontinental railroads you could travel coast to coast in about a week. The original “intent” of the U.S. transcontinental railroad was that it would open up trade with Asia – i.e. good shipped in from the “far east” could be shipped across the U.S. — the bigger impact ended up being allowing immigrants from Europe to settle “out west” – which is again, another story.

    It is safe to say that the “problem” of distance for “human travel” was solved by the industrial revolution. e.g. Google tell me I can DRIVE from southwestern Ohio to California in 2 days – although I could hop on a plane and travel from CVG to LAX in about 6 hours if I was pressed for time.

    If I wanted to go to Chicago (298 miles from Cincinnati) the drive is about 6 hours – but with the cost of gas (if I schedule far enough in advance) the plane trip would still take 4 hours, but probably cheaper than driving.

    The point being that “Travelling around the world” in ANY amount of time USED to be an unthinkable adventure because of the distances involved and the lack of safe/speedy travel options – now it is about time management and deciding on how comfortable you wanna be while you travel (and of course whether you want to be shot at when you get where you are going 😉 — and THAT is another story …

    Faster Than Light

    Back when I was teaching the “Network+” class multiple times a term – the textbook we used would start out comparing/contrasting common “networking media.” The three “common” media covered were 1. coaxial – one relatively large copper cable, 2. unshielded twisted pair (UTP) – 8 smaller copper wires twisted together in pairs, and then 3. “fiberoptic” cable – thin “optical fiber” strands (“glass”).

    SO I would lecture a couple hours on the costs/benefits/convenience of the three “media type” – spoiler alert most “local area networks” are using some flavor of UTP because it is still hits that sweet spot between cost/speed/convenience. The take away from that “intro to networking class” about “fiberoptic cabling” was that it was exceptionally fast, but more expensive, and harder to install than the other two.

    The “exceptionally fast” part of fiberoptic cabling is because we are dealing with the speed of light. Yes, there are other factors in network “speed” but physics 101 tells us that it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light (which is 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per hour)

    (oh, and the “slow” part of most “computing systems/networks” is the human beings involved in the process – so UTP is just fine for 99% of the LAN implementations out there – but once again, that is another story)

    I’m not a physicist but saying that the speed of “light” is the speed of energy without mass is accurate enough for today. The point being that unless you can “change the rules of the universe” as we understand them today – it is NOT possible to go faster than light (FTL).

    There was a lot of optimism that “science” would solve the “interstellar distance” problem during the “space race” period of human history. But “interstellar distance” is mindboggling huge compared to terrestrial travel – AND we keep hitting that hard barrier of the speed of light.

    Of course neither “subsistence farmers” OR “trained thinkers” 2,000 years ago comprehended the size of the earth in relation to the rest of the universe – “educated types” probably thought it was round, and might have had a good idea at the earth’s circumference – but travelling “around the world” would have been the stuff of fantasy.

    Some well meaning folks were predicting “moon tourism” by the end of the 20th century – and I suppose the distance isn’t the problem with “moon tourism” so much as “outer space” being VERY non-conducive to human life (read that as “actively hostile” to human life).

    Gene Rodenberry (probably) came up with the idea for “Star Trek” as a direct result of the “moon mania” of the late 1960’s. Yes, “Star Trek” was conceived of as a “space western” so it was never a “hard” science fiction program – so the “Star Trek” universe tends to get a pass on the FTL issue.

    After all humanity had created jet engines that allowed us to break the speed of sound, wouldn’t it be natural to assume that someone would come up with FTL engines? With that in mind “dilithium crystals” fueling warp drive engines that allow our adventurers to go multiples of the speed of light doesn’t sound that far-fetched.

    Folks were using “Mach 2” to signify multiple of the speed of sound – why not use “Warp speed” for multiples of the speed of light.

    It is easy to forget that “the original series” (TOS) was “cancelled” each year it was produced – after seasons 1 and 2 a fan letter writing campaign convinced the network folks to bring the show back. TOS was always best when it concentrated on the characters and stayed away from the “hard science” as much as possible.

    BUT I’m not picking on “Star Trek” – just pointing out the physics …

    Time Travel

    Mr Einstein’s theory sometimes involves a “though experiment” where we have two newborn babies (or feel free to think of newborn kittens/puppies/hamsters/whatever if the “baby” example gets in the way) AND we put one of the newborns on a “spaceship” and accelerate that ship “close to the speed of light” (we can’t actually go the speed of light – we are just getting as close as possible).

    When our imaginary thought experiment ship returns – the newborn on the ship doesn’t appear to have aged but the newborn that stayed behind is now extremely old. This is the “twin paradox” and a lot of folks smarter than me have spent considerable time examining the question –

    The point is that Mr Einstein’s theory does not allow for “travelling backwards” in time.

    Again, “Star Trek” (TOS) became famous for slingshotting the Enterprise around the sun, and going faster than the speed of light (“light speed break-away factor“) to travel backwards in time.

    Of course, if you have “suspended disbelief” and have accepted that the warp drive engines can routinely achieve multiples of the speed of light – then the “Star Trek” writers are just engaged in good storytelling, which again interesting characters and good stories has always been the best part of the “Star Trek” universe.

    btw: the most plausible “time travel” in a TOS episode was “The City on the Edge of Forever” – that is the one with Joan Collins for casual fans (season 1 episode 28). It tends to be listed near the top of “best episode” lists for TOS.

    I seem to remember someone asking Stephen Hawking about the possibility of time travel “way back when.” (btw: Mr Hawking was a Star Trek fan and has the distinction of being the only “celebrity guest star” to play themselves – TNG Season 6, episode 26 – Data on the holodeck playing poker with Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking) – as I remember it, Mr Hawking’s response was something along the lines of “if you could travel faster than the speed of light, then time travel might be possible”

    Of course that is probably the same as him saying “… and it is also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt …” – but you know, it is entertainment not “hard science.”

    While I’m at it

    The “time traveler” in HG Well’s “The Time Machine” explains traveling in time as travelling in another “dimension” – since humanity had created machines to let us travel in the other dimensions (up, down, side to side – e.g. length, width, height) then travel through “time” would just require a new machine.

    That “time travel device” just becomes an element of good storytelling – i.e. best practice is to tell what it does and NOT spend a lot of time explaining HOW it works.

    Doctor Who and the TARDIS (“Time And Relative Dimensions In Space”) get a short explanation when required – and they added the ability to travel instantaneously through time AND space, probably both as storytelling device and as a nod to Mr Einstein’s “space-time” concept.

    “The Planet of the Apes” (1968) used the basic “twin paradox” idea – but then “something happened” and rather than landing on a distant planet they end up back on earth.

    In the 1970 sequel “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” the “rescue team” has followed the first group – and this time they say they were caught in a “tear if the fabric of space time” or something. Of course they conveniently land in the same general area as the first crew and everyone speaks English.

    There were three more “Planet of the Apes” sequels – they travel back in time in “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” (1971) – I don’t think they bother to explain how the got back, but I haven’t been able to sit through “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” recently.

    I think “Planet of the Apes” (2001) was a victim of a writer’s strike – it isn’t particularly re-watchable for any number of reasons – not least of which is that they jump through illogical hoops to have Mark Wahlberg end up back in the present with a monkey Lincoln memorial.

    The Andy Serkis as Caesar “Planet of the Apes” trilogy doesn’t bother with the “time travel” trope – substituting a “engineered virus” that (unintentionally) kills most of humanity and makes the surviving humans less intelligent.

    “The Final Countdown” (1980) has an aircraft carrier go back in time to 1941 just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The movie revolves around the “can/should they change history by intercepting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor” question – you can watch it for free on Tubi.com if interested.

    This time around the time travel is a “finger of God” sort of thing – as I remember it a mysterious storm just appears and the 1980’s era aircraft carrier ends up in 1941. I’ll just point out that it is “plausible” but won’t spoil the ending …

    Fred Ward had a long career as a “character actor” that died in 2022. He tried to make the move from “grizzled nice guy co-star/sidekick” to “leading man” multiple times in the 1980’s. He appears destined to be remembered as Kevin Bacon’s co-star in “Tremors” (1990) – he was one of those “instantly recognizable faces but you might not be able to recall his name” actors.

    Mr Ward starred in several movies that qualify as “cult classics” (i.e. well made movies that didn’t find a mass audience at the time of release but continue to be popular years later). Mr Ward’s “time travel” movie was 1982’s “Timerider: The Adventure of Lyle Swann” – which isn’t available streaming, but has a blu-ray release which probably illustrates the “cult classic” concept better than anything

    As I remember it (I haven’t see the movie in years) – Mr Ward is a dirt bike rider that accidently gets sent back in time (1870s American West) by “secret government experiment” of some kind which he accidently stumbles into — the memorable part is that they manage to slip in a version of the classic time-travel “grandfather” paradox.

    Normally the “grandfather” paradox is similar to “Back to the Future” where the time traveler does something to keep their ancestors from meeting/reproducing/whatever. “Timerider” is the other option – where he ends up being his own great-great-grandfather – enjoying the movie doesn’t revolve around that point and it looks like the movie is still being sold on blu-ray in Italy and Spain, so …

    The whole “time travel machine” trope got called for its inherent silliness with “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989) – the movie is funny on multiple levels, and it is safe to say it skewered the whole “travel in time and change events” movie genre — “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey” (1991) takes the joke even further but it suffers a little from “sequel-itis” …

    I’ll finish with a nod toward “Land of the Lost” both the 1974-1977 kids tv show and the 2009 Will Ferrell movie – where they “slip through” rips in time or something.

    I suppose the “science” behind the movie/series is similar to “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” where it is implied that there are “rips in time” or something that can be predicted and then travelled through.

    Yes, I am ignoring the various “multiverse” shows out there – simply because they are just modern “duex ex machina” plots. Worth noting because they reflect humanities desire to be able to go back and “fix” the past, but they quickly wore out their novelty …

  • Mr Warhol and photography copyrights

    Since Andy Warhol died in 1987 – the Supreme Court was probably/technically ruling against his “estate” in their recent decision.

    Mr Warhol had used a photograph of Prince (“The Artist”) in a 1980’s painting (“Orange Prince”) – money changed hands among the concerned parties back in the early 1980’s so there wasn’t any problem until Prince Rogers Nelson died in 2016 and the Warhol image was used in some publications

    the crux of the issue was that back in the early 1980s Mr Warhol had paid for “one time use” of the photograph – SO was using Warhol’s painting in a magazine 30 years later a violation of the photographers copyright?

    Obviously the issue was convoluted enough that it ended up before the Supreme Court – so I won’t try to summarize it here – short form: the Supreme Court said “yes, the usage violated the copyright holders rights”

    Wait, what about Prince…

    now, ordinary folks might ask – what about the estate of “Prince Rogers Nelson” shouldn’t they have been involved somehow? well, again, the case was about COPYRIGHT – so it is the COPYRIGHT holder that was seeking redress

    SO when Prince’s music was played (assuming his estate still owned the copyrights) – THEY got paid, but the copyright holder of the photograph was/is the photographer.

    Just like in the music industry where “every time the music is played, SOMEONE gets paid” because of copyright – in the photography business “every time the picture gets used, someone gets paid” i.e. the copyright owner.

    Of course there is also the concept of “work for hire” – e.g. when Perry White sent out cub reporter Jimmy Olsen – the pictures Jimmy took belonged to the newspaper because they were paying young Mr Olsen to do a job.

    Peter Parker on the other hand was a freelance photographer for the JJ Jameson at the Daily Bugle – so Mr Parker got paid for his photographs and probably retained the rights to his work.

    I suppose if we could find a real copy of the Daily Planet the copyright notice on a picture Jimmy Olsen took would say “Copyright YEAR Daily Planet publishing” but a real copy of the Daily Bugle with a picture from Peter Parker would say “Copyright YEAR Peter Parker”

    In either case Superman or Spider-Man weren’t getting paid because they were performing in the public arena. Maybe they would have been received a “session fee” if they arranged a time and intentionally posed in front of the camera – but you get the idea …

    Public Photographs

    just in general if you are a “public person” doing your thing “in public” then photographs taken of you “in public” are the property of the photographer – e.g. this is how “paparazzi” make a living

    if you go to a Taylor Swift concert and take pictures of the performance – then YOU own the photographs and can do what you want with them.

    which means that it is possible for an artist to violate the copyright law by using a picture of themselves without the permission of the photographer. It happens on a regular basis.

    of course there is also the “Dave Chappell” solution where the performer can prohibit phones/cameras at the performance as a condition of entry — but that is an additional expense and MOST of the time performers want the publicity when they are “performing.”

    when they AREN’T performing is when the “negative” side of fame becomes an issue – but that is a different subject.

    Copyright

    The point of having “copyright laws” is to allow artists to profit from their creative work.

    There are folks out there that will argue that copyright laws “stifle creativity.” Well, you don’t need to be a student of history to see through that strawman argument.

    Consider Mr Shakespeare – writing 400+ years ago before “copyright laws” – how did he make “money?” Well, his “acting companies” had “benefactors” – which was why they were the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” and then when King James I became their benefactor in 1603 thy became “King’s Men.” Then they also received money from performing productions/ticket sales.

    The idea of “publishing rights” back then was non-existent. The moveable type printing press had only made it to Europe in 1455 – so obviously “copyrights” were not an issue.

    Which means there were no “professional writers” back then – maybe a lot of “playwrights” and folks that had time to “write” as a hobby, but it was not possible to “make a living” as a “writer.”

    “If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    It should be pointed out that Mr Franklin made his fortune as a PRINTER. Ol’ Ben was obviously a gifted writer – but he made money by printing and selling his writing – so he understood the need for “copyright laws” as a profit incentive to creatives.

  • In Memoriam 16

    … then THIS poem is directly about Arthur Henry Hallam — “who died suddenly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Vienna in 1833, aged 22.” (Thank you Google and probably wikipedia)

    Published in 1850 – which is the same year Alfred Tennyson married Emily Sellwood. Arthur Hallam’s death would have been 3 or 4 years earlier – so the “love” being lost was his best friend.

    The English has a LOT of words – and also a LOT of meanings/connotations for single words. SO “love” gets used a lot in different contexts – allowing for multiple interpretations.

    Any “close reading” requires a consideration of the society in which the author is writing – e.g. ancient Greek men talking about “love” is much different than Victorian England men talking about “love.”

    An internet commentary speculated that Arthur Hallam and Alfred Tennyson were such close friends that if Mr Hallam hadn’t died that Alfred Tennyson may never have married – which is simply ridiculous.

    Yes, they were very close – but any sense of “modern homoeroticism” is being inserted by modern readers. Arthur Hallam was engaged to Tennyson’s younger sister (obviously before his untimely death). Alfred Tennyson wouldn’t meet his future wife for a couple years after Hallam’s death – as mentioned earlier.

    For MOST of human history the idea that it possible to “love” someone in a “non sexual manner” has been a given. Obvioulsy “love” and “sex” are NOT synonyms – so if Arthur Hallam had lived Tennyson probably wouldn’t have written “In Memoriam” but he still would have married Emily Sellwood.

    Now you can argue about which form of “love” is strongest if you like – but the point (here at least) is that it is possible to love a “best friend” one way and a “romantic partner” another way.

    ANYWAY – what I really learned from reciting this poem is that I have no rhythm – or maybe my “rhythm” is from 1950/60 crooners (Crosby/Sinatra/Darin) and not Victorian England 😉

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjT6k8BGjEM

  • Tennyson – Ulysses


    I got around to recording a version of Tennyson’s “Ulysses” ….

    also learned how to add subtitles with Davinci Resolve – which is not complicated but is time consuming. I’m sure there is a better way to create the subtitle file for youtube upload – e.g. there is “markup” in the subtitles which I didn’t intend.

    The picture is where Tennyson lived from 1853 until his death in 1892. officially it is “Farringford House, in the village of Freshwater Bay, Isle of Wight” — the house is now a “luxury hotel” – which means it isn’t really open as a “tourist destination” but if you have the resources you might be able to stay there …

    Tennyson wrote “Ulysses” in his early 20’s after the death of a close friend. The “narrator” of the poem is supposed to be “old” Ulysses after his return to Ithaca – maybe 50-ish –

    ANYWAY – the “Iliad” is about the end of the Trojan war – with the story centering around Achilles (who gets named dropped near the end of Tennyson’s poem).

    The “Odyssey” is a “sequel” to the “Iliad” telling the story of Odysseus’ (original Greek)/Ulysses (Latin/English translation) journey home from Troy – which ends up taking 10 years (after the 10 year siege of Troy)

    classical “spoiler alert” — Achilles death and Odysseus coming up with the “Trojan horse” idea allowing the Greeks inside the wall of Troy — happen “off screen” between where the Iliad ends and the Odyssey begins

    Odysseus returns home alone (he was King of Ithaca when he left to fight against Troy) – and promptly kills all of the “high ranking suitors” that were trying to coerce his wife (Penelope) into marriage (you know, because Odysseus must have died – since everyone else returned from Troy 10 years ago).

    some versions of Homer’s “Odyssey” have Ulysses taking care of business and then the “gods” have to intervene to establish peace – some modern scholars argue for various “alternate endings” e.g. it may have ended with the reunion of Odysseus and Penelope —

    Tennyson’s Ulysses picks up the story a couple years (“three suns” might be “three years”?) after the Odyssey. With his family taken care of and his son firmly established as the next ruler, Ulysses wants to go on one last adventure.

    Now, if you want to nit-pick – the “mariners” mentions were obviously NOT under Ulysses command on the return from Troy (remember, he loses everything – ship, crew, clothes – EVERYTHING – on the way home). However, that doesn’t mean that they hadn’t all fought together during the (10 year) Trojan war …

    I’ll point out (again) that Tennyson was in his early 20’s when he wrote Ulysses. Tennyson wouldn’t meet Emily Sellwood until his mid 20’s (whom he would be married to until his death 42 years later) – so maybe faithful Penelope should get a better treatment than just a passing reference as an “aged wife” – but that is just me nit-picking 😉