An interesting article in the new yorker magazine on ereaders. I read it, and disagreed with most of it. Originally I was just going to post a link on fb, but I realised I had more thoughts on it. Not many, but a tiny bit more than just a 1-2 liner that accompanies a link.

The author references, and I think is trying to debunk, a recent WSJ essay that, inter alia, postulates that as more people use e-readers, reading may one day be a social networking activity.

As you read, you will know that at any given moment, a conversation is available about the paragraph or even sentence you are reading. Nobody will read alone anymore. Reading books will go from being a fundamentally private activity — a direct exchange between author and reader — to a community event

I like that idea. Already I know i search online in blogs or amazon reviews if I want to buy something, or have an idea. I love reading comments for posts and articles and get disappointed if an article (in, say, the online version of the NYT) didn’t have comments turned on. The idea that I can click out of a passage in an ebook and see comments from readers is simply fascinating.

But Thessaly La Force at the New Yorker doesn’t share my enthusiasm. He sites the example of the Project Gutenberg books, and how much discussion there are [not] on the books. Well, I counter that the books there aren’t of sufficient interest to elicit discussion. All of the books there are in the public domain, and are either a) obscure or b) books we’ve read in school. I looked at them, and frankly dismissed them. I still have 50 books from the free Sony classics library I am entitled to get, but I don’t care either way if I forfeit my right cos I know I’ll not read them.

The other point made in the article, that e-readers aren’t as sexy as real books,

that guy reading an electronic device at a restaurant by himself? He just looks busy. The same guy reading a crumbly paperback? Attractive and approachable

I dunno. I disagree with that too. When I was flying back from LGA, I had my 700 out in the plane happily reading away while the rest of the plane got on (advantages of boarding first, heh) and I got noticed! A couple commented “is that the Kindle?” and I said no, it’s the Sony and we had a quick chat about the difference. A young guy and his girlfriend just behind them chimed in and expressed interest. They had to move on cos they couldn’t block up the aisle. My point is, the ereader does get you noticed. Perhaps as a gadget, but increasingly other people who have an ereader or are thinking of one, will bond over this common interest. And that’s how social interactions start, right?

In many articles about ereaders, and where authors bashed the kindle, sometimes there’s a comment about whether the authors themselves own, or have used extensively, these devices. Yes of course at the back of my mind I long for an Apple e-reader (just like I want an Apple netbook) but I’m happy with my Sony right now. I recently cancelled a book order on amazon cos I decided to get the ebook instead. I have a big feeling this is the way forward and there’s no turning back.

Less than 2 weeks from the opening of the one film I’ve been looking forward to all year, the New York Times tells us that Chris Carter has a message for us.

CHRIS CARTER, the creator of “The X-Files,” has a message for anyone who, some time during the show’s nine-season run, threw up his hands trying to figure out exactly what was going on with the extraterrestrial abductions, the black-oil aliens, the metal sinus implants, the Syndicate, the Cigarette Smoking Man, Mulder’s sister, Scully’s baby, Mulder’s father, Scully’s cancer, the colonists, the Lone Gunmen, Deep Throat and all the rest of the show’s staggeringly complex and often murky mythology:

You can come back now.

I love that all the players are back. The producers, the stars, the back-to-early-seasons standalone type story. Great article. Must read.

Mark Wilson wrote a surreal, horrifying personal account of an encounter with a tornado on giz.

Maybe this was just a bad rainstorm.

Then, almost on cue, three funnel clouds dropped from the dark mass, flittering in the sky. It was almost beautiful.

They didn’t reach the ground; the storm was almost toying with us. While my stomach dropped and my eyes began to well, the former hodgepodge of frightened travelers in the window became a paparazzi shooting gallery armed with digital cameras and cellphones, as if Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were slam dunking their baby in the parking lot. Naked.

In among the near death experience, people were gathered next to the glass windows shooting videos for youtube, or getting weather updates from their cellphone.

Yeah, surreal.

An interesting article by Keith LaFerriere on A List Apart: Why did you hire me — the intro caught my eye cos I can so relate to it.

Congratulations! You won the gig (or new role, for you internal folks). Now you’re ready to begin the roller-coaster ride of a new endeavor.

Remembering why you were hired—and identifying whether or not you belong—is just as important as getting the gig. To sustain career and mental health, you must work within your means and know how to navigate ambiguous workplace situations.

The “strategy” is to ensure both you and your employer get the most of, well, you.

1. right rate — money is never an incentive but will become a disincentive if not right
2. structure — project manage the job: list out deliverables and mission, keep yourself on track and not end up directing traffic instead of being innovative
3. information is power
4. know when to exit

I think about why I go to work each day, and the conclusion is pretty consistent. At this stage and if I’m careful I don’t need to work, so that provides a very cushy safety net. I guess if the job ever becomes not fun and I’m becoming too stressed out, I have to be sure to find the courage to walk away.

The New York Times featured an excerpt from “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker,” by Steven Greenhouse, a Times reporter. The book, published by Knopf last week, examines difficulties faced by workers at companies like Fed Ex and Wal-Mart, and points to Patagonia and Costco as models for corporate America.

In his job at a Wal-Mart in Texas, Mike Michell was responsible for catching shoplifters, and he was good at it, too, catching 180 in one two-year period. But one afternoon things went wildly awry when he chased a thief — a woman using stolen checks — into the parking lot. She jumped into her car, and her accomplice gunned the accelerator, slamming the car into Michell and sending him to the hospital with a broken kneecap, a badly torn shoulder, and two herniated disks. Michell was so devoted to Wal-Mart that he somehow returned to work the next day, but a few weeks later he told his boss that he needed surgery on his knee. He was fired soon afterward, apparently as part of a strategy to dismiss workers whose injuries run up Wal-Mart’s workers’ comp bills.

Immediately after serving in the army, Dawn Eubanks took a seven-dollar-an-hour job at a call center in Florida. Some days she was told to clock in just two or three hours, and some days she was not allowed to clock in during her whole eight-hour shift. The call center’s managers warned the workers that if they went home, even though they weren’t allowed to clock in, they would be viewed as having quit.

The book opens with damning examples of unfair worker treatment, painting a bleak picture of how actual earning power for lower skilled workers in American has decreased as the economy boomed, and corporations raked in the profits.

Corporate profits have climbed to their highest share of national income in sixty-four years, while the share going to wages has sunk to its lowest level since 1929. “This is the most pronounced several years of labor’s share declining,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard. “For as long as we’ve had a modern economy, this is the worst we’ve seen it.” Very simply, corporations, along with their CEOs, are seizing a bigger piece of the nation’s economic pie for themselves, leaving the nation’s workers and their families diminished.

America has never had the concept of lifetime employment like Japan. However it seems that if someone were to work for an employer, they should expect at least a basic level of reward for their time and effort. Is it 8 years of a business-friendly government? Or simply corporations becoming more greedy? The bottom line, shareholder value and P/E ratios have completely taken over any humanity in corporations, and there seems to be no sign of this stopping.

I found the excerpt of chapter 1 interesting. I’m not sure it’s a book I’d buy, but I could think about getting it from the library.

Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty? asks the New York Times Magazine this week as they cover the work of Jan Chipchase, an anthropologist-designer working for Nokia whose job is to live and understand how cellphones means for people in Tibet, Uganda, Ecuador etc — in other words the other 4 billion people on earth who don’t have access to a mobile network.

Yes, ultimately the likes of Nokia and Motorola are there to make money but what strikes me as inspiring is that they are making an effort to learn about unique local needs in the developing world. These are potential customers for whom a cellphone isn’t just another gadget or device .

Something that’s mostly a convenience booster for those of us with a full complement of technology at our disposal — land-lines, Internet connections, TVs, cars — can be a life-saver to someone with fewer ways to access information. A just in time moment afforded by a cellphone looks a lot different to a mother in Uganda who needs to carry a child with malaria three hours to visit the nearest doctor but who would like to know first whether that doctor is even in town. It looks different, too, to the rural Ugandan doctor who, faced with an emergency, is able to request information via text message from a hospital in Kampala.

Given resources and the right motivation, people are fantastically inventive. That’s why some humanitarians favour the bottom up approach to aid rather than top down — empower and encourage entrepreneurship rather than telling aid recipients to wait for money to filter down through bureaucracy or corrupt agencies. An example is what Grameen Phone Ltd in Bangledesh offers:

Women use microcredit to buy specially designed cellphone kits costing about $150, each equipped with a long-lasting battery. They then set up shop as their village phone operator, charging a small commission for people to make and receive calls

In the Philippines, pre-paid cards double as currency and gives an alternative way of sending money to far away relatives. Monks in Mongolia are unbelievably tech savvy. In India locals want cellphones to tell them about the weather because they have no access to TV or radio. In Ghana locals are given a chance to test some new Nokia designs:

“Hellllloooooo,” Chipchase said, smiling broadly.

“Helllllooooo, Brudda,” she said back in English.

“We work for Nokia. You know Nokia?”

The woman said nothing, but reached down and from the folds of her wrapper produced a Nokia phone. “Not good,” she said, shaking her head disparagingly. “You call. It switches off.”

Chipchase enlisted the interpreter to explain that her problem sounded like a network problem and not a Nokia problem. Shrugging, the woman went on to inspect the prototype phones, testing their weight in her palm, pressing them against her cheek, punching buttons. She pooh-poohed the stylus phone but said she liked the one-button model if it meant she didn’t need to use a lot of numbers. “Brudda, how do you charge it?” she asked. From his bag, Burns pulled another still-conceptual design, this one a thin metal cylinder with a whirlybird antenna on top. He showed the corn seller how to rotate the cylinder in small circles, causing the antenna to swing, which, he explained, in 15 minutes or so would generate enough power to charge her phone battery.

The woman picked up the futuristic gizmo and began to swing it; the antenna whipped around and around. She let out an enthusiastic whoop. Then a friend of hers who’d been sitting in the shadow of her umbrella started to laugh. Another woman, a spice seller perched on a stool next to small mountains of turmeric and cumin heaped on canvas cloths, began to laugh also. “Very nice,” the corn seller said to Burns and Chipchase, swinging the antenna like a toy. “It’s good!”

I posted this on the kb recently, and vacillated at posting it here. Why? Not because I want to distance myself from issues, but because I’ve always felt uneasy about being too controversial or too political here on the website. I’ve had a couple of days to think about this, and I haven’t been able to cast it from my mind. Which is a sign, I think.

I read this Advocate article (full page version) by Thomas Beatie, who is carrying the child he is expecting with his wife. Scientifically it is possible because Thomas is transgender, but in his own words, had

decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights

when he transitioned FTM. His wife, a natural female, is unable to carry children due to a prior illness.

What I felt touched was the mature, quiet tone of the article, as well as the couple’s commitment. Their rejection by the medical establishment and their own family must have been heartbreaking. Facing a life-threatening situation after a failed first pregnancy, and then to try a second time, is an act of true courage.

What I also realised, is a confirmation that gender is fluid. Even myself, I have to purposefully stop making any judgmental reaction to the article until I’ve finished and absorbed it. It took a few rounds of churning in my head before I got it, and where I got to the point where I was thinking, “this is a good thing.”

Too often, we confuse gender with sexuality. And too often, we want to categorise and label people. It’s understandable, because there is so much going on in the world, so much information to absorb, so many changes in society’s views and culture and we have to sort things out somehow. It can’t be helped. But when someone wants to push out of those confines and be their own, there is no reason why they should suffer other people’s prejudices. It’s a co-incidence perhaps that the New York Times had an article last week on

gender nonconforming

college students. May be it wasn’t a co-incidence. May be it’s time to bring these issues out to the open.

I found the Advocate article through metafilter and I was so blown away by the tide of support offered by the mefi community. Whether or not this will make a difference to the Beaties’ life, and that of their child, will remain to be seen. Oddly enough, once the pregnancy is over and the controversy has died down, they will revert to a “conformist” image of dad, mom and kid. I challenge anyone to say this is wrong…because for sure, it is 100% not.

Here’s an interesting New York Times article about the difference between first class and economy class travel. First, I’m thinking the author is talking about US domestic flights. Oh gosh, those first class seats! Compared with business class in European or Asian airlines, first class seats on US airlines fail miserably.

I know I’m privileged. I’ve been flying on business so often lately that I am completely spoiled. The lounge access, the priority check-in and boarding, the personalised service, better food and of course the bigger seats. Interesting point made in the article:

But here’s the puzzle. Such shameful feelings do not arise in hotels with concierge floors, in trains with business-class cars, in traffic jams where S.U.V. drivers five feet above me glare down.

Could it be the blatant arrogance at which business class passengers rub it in the faces of the sheep/cattle class that occupies the after cabins? The envious looks as they trudge down the aisles to the back of the plane on boarding … I’ve seen plenty of those. It’s like, “who are you to have this luxury while I’m gonna be stuck in a middle seat fighting two armrest battles?”

And the worst?

It’s that insubstantial curtain that is drawn after we reach altitude, the one that pretends to protect decadent first-class activities — it cannot be lap-dancing, orgies or the tango — from the purportedly covetous eyes of the rest of us. What that curtain really does, its sole purpose, believe me, is to keep us from using the toilet up there.

You know what, that is so true. Many a thick-skinned economy passenger has dared push aside that curtain and sneaked into a toilet they don’t have the right to go into. No matter that there are 4 toilets in business for 30 people and 6 toilets in economy for 200. Too bad.

Here’s a secret. Business class toilets are just the same as economy class toilets. They aren’t plated in gold; nor do they have massagers or individually wrapped soaps. They are cleaner and have a few more towels and lotions, but the riff-raff are not supposed to know this.

Loved Encyclopedia Brown as a kid, loved loved loved. Via metafilter, a modern day re-telling, with a twist. Nice stuff, must read.

Tomorrow I’ll be on a plane, going to Las Vegas to meet up with Car, her Mom and her Grandmother. It’s exciting for me since I’ve never visited Vegas, and I’ve always wanted to. With the restrictions on luggage it’s gonna be more of a hassle, so I plan to get to the airport early. I’ve checked in already — got there just after the check-in window (48hrs before flight) opened — my ref is 0001. Whoo hoo!

Anyway, can’t bring water on the plane, and I’m taking a risk with carrying small portions of toothpaste, mouthwash and face wash. Really need to maintain basic hygiene. If they say no, I can always ditch them. I even put them in a clear ziploc bag for easy inspection. I hope the TSA website is right and they keep their word to allow travel size toiletries in carry-on luggage.

Came across a funny article, originally from the Economist, about how in-flight announcements are not entirely truthful. The Economist article is only available to subscribers, so I’m glad the poster reposted it on her website. Among the funniest:

Your life-jacket can be found under your seat, but please do not remove it now. In fact, do not bother to look for it at all. In the event of a landing on water, an unprecedented miracle will have occurred, because in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero.

The purpose of these refreshments is partly to keep you in your seats where you cannot do yourselves or anyone else any harm.

Cabin crew, please make sure we have remembered to close the doors. Sorry, I mean: ‘Doors to automatic and cross-check’.

Some of that actually make a weird sort of sense.

From booman tribune and progressive independent via boing boing

Boy am I glad I don’t live in Indiana. If this is real it’s a joke. The “lawmakers” there are drafting legislation that requires potential parents who want to become pregnant via assisted means such as IVF and sperm / egg donation to be married. Performing an unlawful artificial reproduction procedure is a criminal offense.

okay, that means unmarried people who conceive by means other than regular sex are criminals?

One of the readers commenting asks the interesting question: does that mean that the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit will be hauled up before the courts, cos the conception of Jesus was definitely “assisted” and definitely “by means other than sexual intercourse.” Mary may not have been given a choice in the matter, which bodes even worse for the

Imagine being handcuffed while still holding your turkey baster. LOL.

Here’s the original article

The Crime of “Unauthorized Reproduction
by Laura McPhee

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a “petition for parentage” in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the “gestational certificate” that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the “gestational certificate” will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent “who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure” without court approval, “commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.” The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit “unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction.”

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for motherhood and criminalizing “unauthorized reproduction” was introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly’s Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this month.

Republican Senator Patricia Miller is both the Health Finance Commission Chair and the sponsor of the bill. She believes the new law will protect children in the state of Indiana and make parenting laws more explicit.

According to Sen. Miller, the laws prohibiting surrogacy in the state of Indiana are currently too vague and unenforceable, and that is the purpose of the new legislation.

“But it’s not just surrogacy,” Miller told NUVO. ” The law is vague on all types of extraordinary types of infertility treatment, and we wanted to address that as well.”

“Ordinary treatment would be the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm. But now there are a lot of extraordinary thing s that raise issues of who has legal rights as parents,” she explained when asked what she considers “extraordinary” infertility treatment.

Sen. Miller believes the requirement of marriage for parenting is for the benefit of the children that result from infertility treatments.

“We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children,” she explained.

When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be a requirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill’s intention, Sen. Miller responded, “Yes. Yes, I do.”

ETA: Looks like the proposal was dropped. Still, it’s scary that it was out there at all.

Disney has been on our minds a lot recently. So it was interesting to come across an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about how "Disney has colonised the imagination of the world's children ... without the aid of God."

This is from a new book, The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust and Pixie Dust by Mark Pinsky, who argues that Disney has managed to convey the message that good will always prevail over evil even though Disney's animated features are (perhaps deliberately) devoid of religious figures and themes. And even goes as far as subverting orthodox Christian views on magic, paganism and promoting other religions.

According to his daughter, Disney himself was very religious, but “he did not believe you had to go to church to be religious.” Interestingly, the films' theme of self-reliance, compassion and loyalty has often been used by the church in its teachings.

The Disney gospel is all about “me, my dreams, my will. When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true.” It's as simple as that. May be too simple. The review on amazon says that “the book bogs down amidst the massive Disney canon”, and Pinsky “seems torn between admiring Walt's dream to communicate lessons to children across cultures, and debunking its uplifting, family-friendly fare as a sentimental notion — naïve at best and disingenuous at worst.”

Say what you will about the corporation, profit-minded, self-righteous, and according to Southern Baptists, subversive (they tried to promote a boycott of Disney products after the company introduced equal rights for gay employees and their partners). It's a global corporation, its aim is to make money and generate profits. If in the process it has managed to entertain people, taught children about being self-belief and promoted world harmony, then it should be left in peace to continue what it has been doing for over 50 years.