Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Cool optical illusion



How many colours do you see? There is orange, magenta, and green. NO BLUE! It is hard to believe but the blue stripe and the green strip are actually the same colour! (And sometimes I see two different magenta/purple/pink colours too - one of which is actually the orange.)

(On my LCD screen it looks pretty freaky if I scroll it quickly.)

Full details available here.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Opposing points of view

A couple of geeks (one that actually codes) with very different points of view:

Chris Pirillo
"When you believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."
Jeff Atwood
talent is far less important than enthusiasm (Jeff's blog post on the subject)

So which is correct?

I suspect some of both. I've certainly seen the enthusiasm approach succeed in all kinds of areas - many of which have nothing to do with computers (the RMC recruit obstacle course comes to mind). On the other hand, I've also seen enthusiasm run into roadblocks that only new skills can overcome. Notice I did not say improved skills? That's because I've seen enthusiasm produce improvements. I've seen tasks (now I'm thinking of in the classroom) tackled where the participants definitely did not have the level of skills needed when they started. Enthusiasm gives them the courage to jump in and improve the skills they have - to the point where they succeed. They do not lose these skills after and can continue to use them for new challenges as they arrive. They do need some base level though (I don't think Jeff was really advocating that no skill can be overcome

In fact I think that is part of teaching - engendering the enthusiasm so that the students can learn on their own ...

Monday, July 6, 2009

Story of Stuff

This video (click picture for video) is a little over the top (for example implying that every use of flame retardants is evil) - but includes some real important points too. The big point is that we (it's American, but I'm including all of the "western world") consume too much instead of simply using items longer. Currently we cannot survive economically without growth. Many items are manufactured to fail (planned obsolescence) while many others are designed for us to simply "think" that something needs replacing (perceived obsolescence). Fact (I didn't check up on it): 99% of materials trashed within 6 months!

It's long been my opinion that the Western World's premise for economy cannot continue. Here in Canada we like to trumpet some of our social programs (IMO deservedly). However, most of those programs (like social security/old age pensions) cannot continue to be funded at current rates without continuous population growth. In fact, the Canadian birth rate isn't high enough to ensure this so we require immigration to support this. I am in no way against immigration, but I am saddened that this would be a reason for it. Many other things in our society also require the continuous growth. Watch the business news (occasionally - it's too boring to watch every day :-) and you will see stories of companies that are perceived to be worth less, simply because they failed "grow." They may have made excellent profits while offering useful products but since they only sold the same number as last year (last quarter, last month, last whatever) they aren't considered any good anymore. This is a clear example of how we force products into obsolescence. Obviously these companies MUST create a throw away product, just so investors want to own them.

The requirement for growth is much more widespread than many realize. My own employer is currently in a deficit position. The solution to that deficit is growth. With more customers, profit margins will increase and we can balance our budget. While I am aiming criticism here, it isn't at my employer per se. It doesn't have much choice in the current funding climate. It too is being forced into this situation by the overall strategies of government and economy.

How do we change this. Sadly I feel like most attempts are typical "tilting at windmills" examples of futility. Certainly supporting sustainable development is part of this. Simple things like recycling and re-use are very important but currently it is cheaper to throw away and get new stuff. Somehow it needs to become more expensive to replace with new. That statement smacks of government intervention which is something I dislike. An example that seems to work is the deposit on beer bottles (Ontario has a 95%-99% rate of return on beer bottles). I don't think that is extendable to every product we use though (what would the deposit on a car or house be?). My sadness comes from the thought that we will need some sort of crash (resource crash) to turn things around. Have you ever read "The Sheep Look Up"? A very scary book. Recently we have seen a large increase in interest in renewable energies and efficient vehicles. How come? In a large part because oil got expensive. Not because of some altruistic reasoning by the population. :-(

(Link to The Sheep Look Up search)