Solipsist: I know what I'm getting you for your birthday!
WOS: What?
SOL: Well, Justin Bieber has a new perfume!
WOS: (Sigh.)
SOL: You don't want to smell like Justin Bieber?
WOS: No, I don't want to smell like Justin Bieber!
(Pause)
SOL: Well, actually, you wouldn't smell like Justin Bieber, you'd just-
WOS: Smell like something he'd like to smell, yeah, I got that. No, I still don't want the perfume.
(Pause. SOL begins to look annoyed.)
WOS: What's wrong?
SOL: Nothing.
(Pause. SOL continues to look annoyed.)
WOS: What's wrong?!?
SOL: Nothing! It's just. . .
WOS: What?
SOL: Well. . . I remember reading something about Justin Bieber, and I remember it mentioned some stupid nickname that his fans were called. . . and I was going to call you that. . . but I can't remember what the nickname was.
WOS: Oh.
SOL: Yeah.
WOS: Can't help you there.
SOL: Yeah, I know. It's really annoying me.
WOS: Well, that's what you get.
SOL: Yeah.
(NOTE: For the record, WOS is most emphatically not a Justin Bieber fan. That's what makes it a funny funny joke. Just wanted to clarify that.)
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Ghosts of Facebook Past
In my writing class, we had a textbook with an exercise designed to help students identify problems with audience and tone--or maybe it was just meant to be humorous. Anyway, this exercise featured sentences from (supposedly) actual job application letters, all of which demonstrated problems. The students were supposed to explain where the applicant had gone wrong. The problems ranged from misspellings and grammatical mistakes to inappropriate comments (e.g., "I don't do well working in groups"; "While I have held fourteen jobs in the last two years, I have never been fired"; and so on). One of the inappropriate lines I always appreciated was: "References: None. I have left a trail of destruction behind me."
Now, I understand why the textbook authors included this sentence, and I get why it's technically inappropriate. But I have to say, if I were an employer, and I got a cover letter with that sentence, I would want to meet that person. After sifting through piles and piles of standard, inoffensive, perfectly appropriate applications, I would be intrigued by this person who is either a complete idiot or someone who took a chance on a fundamentally unconventional approach. Either way, it would make for an interesting interview.
All of which, I guess, is basically my way of saying, Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
I thought of this today as I was reading about Facebook's new "Timeline" feature, which will apparently allow you--and, by extension, anyone who has access to your profile--to view everything you've ever posted on the website. Many people are up in arms either because (A) some people have made a hobby out of complaining about any changes to Facebook--which is kind of stupid because it's a free site; (B) they worry about privacy issues--which, again, is kind of stupid because the things you post on your Facebook are, well, things that YOU post on YOUR Facebook; or, (C) because they fear repercussions when, say, potential employers or sexual partners can look at things you posted five years ago when you were younger and stupider and which make you look bad now.
That last concern is understandable, especially for people who first joined Facebook as, say, hedonistic college freshmen and who are now applying for jobs in the Republican Party. OK, bad example, but you get the point. Remember, though, that employers are people, too, and they will come to understand that a few youthfully indiscreet photographs posted years ago are simply examples of the kind of rambunctious shenanigans in which anyone might take part. Indeed, they might become wary of applicants with suspiciously innocuous online personalities.
Remember, employers, you may have to live with this hire for some time. You might consider going for people who seem like they'll be fun around the water cooler.
Now, I understand why the textbook authors included this sentence, and I get why it's technically inappropriate. But I have to say, if I were an employer, and I got a cover letter with that sentence, I would want to meet that person. After sifting through piles and piles of standard, inoffensive, perfectly appropriate applications, I would be intrigued by this person who is either a complete idiot or someone who took a chance on a fundamentally unconventional approach. Either way, it would make for an interesting interview.
All of which, I guess, is basically my way of saying, Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
I thought of this today as I was reading about Facebook's new "Timeline" feature, which will apparently allow you--and, by extension, anyone who has access to your profile--to view everything you've ever posted on the website. Many people are up in arms either because (A) some people have made a hobby out of complaining about any changes to Facebook--which is kind of stupid because it's a free site; (B) they worry about privacy issues--which, again, is kind of stupid because the things you post on your Facebook are, well, things that YOU post on YOUR Facebook; or, (C) because they fear repercussions when, say, potential employers or sexual partners can look at things you posted five years ago when you were younger and stupider and which make you look bad now.
That last concern is understandable, especially for people who first joined Facebook as, say, hedonistic college freshmen and who are now applying for jobs in the Republican Party. OK, bad example, but you get the point. Remember, though, that employers are people, too, and they will come to understand that a few youthfully indiscreet photographs posted years ago are simply examples of the kind of rambunctious shenanigans in which anyone might take part. Indeed, they might become wary of applicants with suspiciously innocuous online personalities.
Remember, employers, you may have to live with this hire for some time. You might consider going for people who seem like they'll be fun around the water cooler.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Thursday Trendwatch
It occurs to me that anyone who needs Yahoo! to tell them that HOLIDAY CARDS (10) are currently a trendy topic probably isn't trendy enough to be on the interwebs in the first place. The same could be said about FORECLOSURES (9), except for the refreshing news that foreclosures are down significantly from the same period last year. Whatever refreshment one feels, though, is tempered by the realization that the main reason for the slowdown was the fact that banks were pretty much forced to cease and desist after the uproar over "robo-signers": robots from the future that came back in time to authorize foreclosures and kill Sarah Conner. It looks like foreclosures will shoot up again next year--unless, of course, we find out that banks have engaged in even more recklessly illegal activities. So, y'know, it's a 50-50 kind of shot.
Morning people--at least morning women--seem to be at lower risk for DEMENTIA (8), according to a new study. People who are more active in the morning were significantly less likely to develop signs of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. They also displayed greater worm-catching abilities.
A grotesque ELEVATOR ACCIDENT (7) claimed the life of a woman in New York City the other day. In what sounds like a sketch for a scene in the next installment of "Final Destination," the 41-year-old was killed after she stepped onto an elevator that suddenly, unexpectedly, and violently shot up, pinning her between the elevator and the wall of the elevator shaft. Investigators are trying to figure out what went wrong.
From the tragic to the. . . inane?. . .HOWARD STERN (6) will replace Piers Morgan as a judge on NBC's "America's Got Talent." I guess NBC wanted to class things up a bit. And speaking of people who have fallen out of the national consciousness, ANNA CHLUMSKY (5) of "My Girl" fame has made the trendwatch in recognition, I guess, of her ability to grow from an attractive tween into an attractive adult. (Well, at any rate, far more attractive than you would expect something called "chlumsky" to be.)
Still marveling over holiday cards? Well, hurry down to number 4, where you will find UNIQUE GIFT IDEAS. The top three unique gift ideas are as follows: a vial filled with the ebola virus; ocelot cutlers; and a lifetime subscription to "The Solipsist" (including an official Solipsist, "I'm With No One" t-shirt. If you'd rather go with a gag-gift, you could always buy your friend GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS (3) tickets.
Someone keeps putting ZOOEY DESCHANEL (2) on the trend list, and I can only assume it's to annoy me. It won't work! I'll just ignore her and zip on down to the number-one trendiest topic of this moment in the space-time continuum, SOFIA VERGARA, who received a Golden Globe nomination for her role in "Modern Family." On the show, she plays a stunningly gorgeous Latina with a funny accent. I have no idea how she manages to pull that off.
Morning people--at least morning women--seem to be at lower risk for DEMENTIA (8), according to a new study. People who are more active in the morning were significantly less likely to develop signs of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. They also displayed greater worm-catching abilities.
A grotesque ELEVATOR ACCIDENT (7) claimed the life of a woman in New York City the other day. In what sounds like a sketch for a scene in the next installment of "Final Destination," the 41-year-old was killed after she stepped onto an elevator that suddenly, unexpectedly, and violently shot up, pinning her between the elevator and the wall of the elevator shaft. Investigators are trying to figure out what went wrong.
From the tragic to the. . . inane?. . .HOWARD STERN (6) will replace Piers Morgan as a judge on NBC's "America's Got Talent." I guess NBC wanted to class things up a bit. And speaking of people who have fallen out of the national consciousness, ANNA CHLUMSKY (5) of "My Girl" fame has made the trendwatch in recognition, I guess, of her ability to grow from an attractive tween into an attractive adult. (Well, at any rate, far more attractive than you would expect something called "chlumsky" to be.)
Someone keeps putting ZOOEY DESCHANEL (2) on the trend list, and I can only assume it's to annoy me. It won't work! I'll just ignore her and zip on down to the number-one trendiest topic of this moment in the space-time continuum, SOFIA VERGARA, who received a Golden Globe nomination for her role in "Modern Family." On the show, she plays a stunningly gorgeous Latina with a funny accent. I have no idea how she manages to pull that off.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Kaj Vi Thought Esperanto Estis Stulta
Today's word is "Conlanger," a "person who constructs new languages." (I can't help but wonder if the presence of the word "con" has any significance.) Apparently, the field of conlangering is one of the nation's fastest growing professions, right up there with nurse and Republican presidential candidate, because of the proliferation of science-fiction and fantasy films and TV shows that want to add a bit of verisimilitude to their productions by incorporating the native tongues of various alien or otherwise mythical civilizations. No longer is it acceptable for Klingons, Romulans or other alien entities to enter our quadrant of the universe from an intergalactic wormhole, de-cloak their starfighter, teleport aboard the Enterprise, and proceed to vaporize redshirts with handheld photon blasters, all the while speaking perfect English.
Because it's the fact that they speak ENGLISH that makes the whole thing unbelievable.
And it's not good enough simply to throw together a bunch of random syllables, hoots, and warbles. Today's discerning science-fiction nerd--uh, fan--will see right through that. Instead, today's producers hire linguistic specialists to construct full-fledged languages, complete with grammatical rules and expansive vocabularies. In other words, these are languages that people can actually learn and speak--and a handful of people do. According to an estimate Marc Okrand, who invented Klingon and must therefore be considered the Isaac Newton of Conlangers, approximately 20 people worldwide are completely fluent in Klingon (for the record, Okrand is not one of them). At the same time, thousands of people know enough Klingon "to get by."
I'll end today's column here so you can ponder the ramifications of that last phrase.
Because it's the fact that they speak ENGLISH that makes the whole thing unbelievable.
And it's not good enough simply to throw together a bunch of random syllables, hoots, and warbles. Today's discerning science-fiction nerd--uh, fan--will see right through that. Instead, today's producers hire linguistic specialists to construct full-fledged languages, complete with grammatical rules and expansive vocabularies. In other words, these are languages that people can actually learn and speak--and a handful of people do. According to an estimate Marc Okrand, who invented Klingon and must therefore be considered the Isaac Newton of Conlangers, approximately 20 people worldwide are completely fluent in Klingon (for the record, Okrand is not one of them). At the same time, thousands of people know enough Klingon "to get by."
I'll end today's column here so you can ponder the ramifications of that last phrase.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
School for Scoundrels
Last week, while reading an article about the lobbying efforts of for-profit education providers and growing steadily angrier, I was brought up short by the following:
Let's talk about these "second-chance students shunned by traditional academia." Certainly, not everyone possesses the intellectual chops to flourish at Harvard or Berkeley or the University of Chicago. Indeed, even lesser institutions of higher learning prove daunting to students who may well have struggled through high school or GED programs. But there is an option for these students--an option that doesn't require students to take out massive loans or receive huge taxpayer-financed subsidies: It's called community college.
As I've mentioned before in this space, a student at a California community college can currently complete an entire associates degree (60) units for a little under $1,800; tuition costs are scheduled to increase, but a 60-unit associates degree will still cost under $2,500. More to the point, many of these "second-chancers" pursue not degrees, but certificates--certificates that will enable them to pursue employment in the very vocational fields like automotive repair and culinary arts in which many of these for-profit schools specialize. A certificate is typically about 18 units--or less than $800 in tuition, even taking into account the new, higher costs. Compare this to the thousands of dollars typically charged by a for-profit institution. Even an at-risk, second-chance student can do that math.
Market fundamentalists need to accept the fact that there are some things that for-profit enterprises do not do well. One of those things is education. There is an inherent contradiction in the mission of an organization that needs to maximize profits while providing a service that--if done right--may dissatisfy its clients. And there is a problem when private profits are generated by the provision of public funds: The whole reason those lobbyists are lobbying is to ensure that their clients can continue to offer financial aid packages including federal student loans.
In the case of for-profit education, you get far less than what you pay for. Stick to the public schools, and you'll get far more.
"In a coordinated approach that also included Capitol Hill protests, petition drives, newspaper ads and more, industry advocates stressed that jobs. . .would be lost if the institutions were put out of business. They questioned why nonprofit schools were untouched. And they accused the administration of highlighting some abuses to stigmatize an industry that educates second-chance students shunned by traditional academia."Right! Pity the poor unfortunate students cast aside by the unfeeling guardians of the ivory tower!
("With Lobbying Blitz, For-Profit Colleges Diluted New Rules")
Let's talk about these "second-chance students shunned by traditional academia." Certainly, not everyone possesses the intellectual chops to flourish at Harvard or Berkeley or the University of Chicago. Indeed, even lesser institutions of higher learning prove daunting to students who may well have struggled through high school or GED programs. But there is an option for these students--an option that doesn't require students to take out massive loans or receive huge taxpayer-financed subsidies: It's called community college.
As I've mentioned before in this space, a student at a California community college can currently complete an entire associates degree (60) units for a little under $1,800; tuition costs are scheduled to increase, but a 60-unit associates degree will still cost under $2,500. More to the point, many of these "second-chancers" pursue not degrees, but certificates--certificates that will enable them to pursue employment in the very vocational fields like automotive repair and culinary arts in which many of these for-profit schools specialize. A certificate is typically about 18 units--or less than $800 in tuition, even taking into account the new, higher costs. Compare this to the thousands of dollars typically charged by a for-profit institution. Even an at-risk, second-chance student can do that math.
Market fundamentalists need to accept the fact that there are some things that for-profit enterprises do not do well. One of those things is education. There is an inherent contradiction in the mission of an organization that needs to maximize profits while providing a service that--if done right--may dissatisfy its clients. And there is a problem when private profits are generated by the provision of public funds: The whole reason those lobbyists are lobbying is to ensure that their clients can continue to offer financial aid packages including federal student loans.
In the case of for-profit education, you get far less than what you pay for. Stick to the public schools, and you'll get far more.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday Miscellany
What, exactly, does Dr. House do with all of his time? In a typical episode, he'll brainstorm with his team for about five minutes, banter with Wilson for five minutes, see a couple of patients in the clinic, and maybe--maybe--spend a few minutes in his patient's room. What does he do with the rest of the day? Even if he writes a daily entry in a mordant, self-absorbed blog, that would only account for another seven minutes.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The 24/7 Rat Race
Today's Times featured a front-page story about high-flying traders--you know, the type who destroyed the world economy a few years back--who get up in the wee small hours of the morning to get a jump on the day's trading: They don't want to sleep through the opening bells in the euro zone, you see. I imagine some of these folks probably alter their sleep cycles to keep pace with markets in Asia.
Does it make me a bad person that I take some satisfaction in knowing that the sleep debt these guys--and they are mostly guys--rack up will probably lead to a great deal of personal suffering and, perhaps, premature death?
Turn off your Bloomberg terminals! Go to sleep! Maybe you'll dream of a way to do something productive with your lives!
Does it make me a bad person that I take some satisfaction in knowing that the sleep debt these guys--and they are mostly guys--rack up will probably lead to a great deal of personal suffering and, perhaps, premature death?
Turn off your Bloomberg terminals! Go to sleep! Maybe you'll dream of a way to do something productive with your lives!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)