Hidden iPhone Pictures
2.24.2007
Here's a good video detailing hidden features of iPhone that Steve Jobs didn't discuss in
his keynote.
Labels: Internet, Technology, Videos
posted by Jdavies @ 2/24/2007,
,
WSJ: The Internet Allows...
11.29.2006
By email:
By WILLIAM M. BULKELEY
November 29, 2006; Page B1
The Wall Street Journal
Excerpt.
- Photography and publishing companies shouldn't be surprised when digital technology upends their industries. After all, their business success relied on forcing customers to buy things they didn't want.
- Photo companies made customers pay for 24 shots in a roll of film to get a handful of good pictures. Music publishers made customers buy full CDs to get a single hit song.
- Marketing 101 says success comes from selling things people want. But advanced marketing calls for companies to leverage the relationship to get the buyer to pony up for other products -- or at least for extra product. --
When customers find a way to avoid buying the excess baggage, they change quickly.
- Now, it turns out customers really didn't want all of the little four-by-six prints they stuck in shoe boxes. Shutterbugs today store their pictures in computers or post them on MySpace without ever printing them out.buys almost all her music from iTunes.
- Readers get what they want by selecting articles or time-shifting shows. Advertisers get what they want by paying only for searches.
posted by Jdavies @ 11/29/2006,
,
Borat, a copycat?
11.09.2006
A Turkish man who briefly became an internet celebrity in 1999 has accused British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen of "copying" him using the Borat character.
Mahir Cagri, 44, is travelling to London to seek an apology and some of the profits from Cohen's surprisingly successful film.
Turkey's internet celebrity, Mahir Cagri, 44, poses with a dog in Aegean resort city of Izmir in this undated but recent file photo provided by him (AP) via CBC.ca
Read more in this link: Borat a copycat, former Turkish celebrity says
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 11/09/2006,
,
Oh Gizmo's a-Piggin
11.08.2006
Andrew of OhGizmo says, "Moving on, this 21st century piggy bank not only has a slick polished silver finish but it will actually keep track of the money that’s been deposited. As you insert coins a running total will be displayed on the LCD screen and the bank will also tell you the total. (Plus many other “fun” voice responses.) To make a withdrawal instead of reaching for your trusty hammer all you have to do is press the pig’s nose to retrieve your coins."
My old piggy bank is a plastic and porcelain, around the 80s days. Incidentally, keeping your lose change in piggy banks or personal vaults is REALLY BAD for the economy.
With less money in circulation, the multiplier effect is lessened by having less savings available to other people.
Labels: Internet, Technology, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 11/08/2006,
,
Wired Nose Job
Over at Wired Mag's Blog:
Madison Avenue wants your nose.
That would be thanks to ScentAndrea, a company dedicated to adding
smell to the sensory routes exploited by advertising. The company also makes an odor-emitting mouse to add a similar olfactory dimension to your Internet shopping experience.
Go Figure!
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 11/08/2006,
,
Magni's Campaign
8.31.2006
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 8/31/2006,
,
Kids' Media Literacy
5.04.2006
Warc posted the following in their website:
UK media regulator Ofcom has published the results of detailed research to assess the extent of children's media literacy in Britain.
The watchdog defines media literacy as the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts.
The audit focuses on the four main digital media platforms - digital television, digital radio, the internet and mobile phones. More than 1,500 children aged eight to 15 and their parents were interviewed for the research.
The key findings of the survey were...
Of children aged 8-11, 35% watch television mostly on their own.
I would bet a similar or higher percentage for Filipino kids.
Over seven in ten parents in cable or satellite television households have not set controls to restrict their children's access to television channels. Some 15% of parents of 8-11s and 39% of parents of 12-15s said there are no house rules about watching television.
Would it not be higher in the Philippines? Or are parents here less responsible in what their kids watch? Consider that in recent times even elders encourage their kids to gyrate like the Sex Bomb Dancers or their counterparts. Noon time shows or not, Filipino kids are exposed to R-18 material: Uncensored images of blood and gore (kudos to ANC for blurring the images), no-excuse announcements for rape news, and showbiz gossip about sex scandals, affairs, fights and similar news, among others.
Some 40% of 8-11s and 71% of 12-15s say they mostly use the internet on their own at home.
I think the Philippine rate here will be 60-40, in favor of outside the home. I think this part is mostly done with "online gaming", which to date is 'unrated'. I wont push for censorship since I'm a gamer myself, but providers should be pro-active in advising their games to be for a particular age group. Fault here possibly lies in Internet Café owners who don't ban kids paying with their allowance; parents not keen enough to set parental control in their home PCs, and content providers themselves who entice crowd but provide little restriction.
Around half of internet households have no software installed to limit children's access to certain types of websites.
How True.
Two in three (67%) children aged 12-15 who use the internet at home said they trust most of what they find on the internet.
How Sad.
Some 78% of children aged 12-15 feel that news programmes are either always true or true most of the time whereas 54% say this about current affairs programmes and 33% say this of reality TV programmes.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Girls aged 12-15 are more likely than boys to have a mobile phone (87% compared to 77%), use the internet (63%, 54%), listen to the radio (54%, 40%), and read newspapers or magazines (49%, 36%). Boys in this age group only exceed girls for playing console or computer games (66% compared to 51%).
Possibly the same range here in the Philippines at least for the A-B crowd. In the lower economic classes I would suspect the data to be mostly aspirational, rather than actual. That is, if you'll replace the questionnaires asking "Do you play..." with "Would you, given the chance..." the same numbers should be seen. Just a guess.
Ofcom partner Tim Suter comments: "The report provides important insights into a generation whose media experiences, attitudes and preferences are markedly different from those of their parents. There are challenges and opportunities for all involved."
Undoubtably, this data can be used positively. Consider how you can create learning modules in schools that take advantage of these psychographics? We can expect children to respond better and learn better. On the extreme end however, these data can be an indicator of the risk that the kids face as far as growing up is concerned. Do they learn the right values? How does this affect parent-child relationships? Interesting times we live in.
Data sourced from Ofcom; additional content by WARC staff
Italics, mine.
Labels: Internet, Local, Philippines
posted by Jdavies @ 5/04/2006,
,
Judas: Traitor or Pawn in God’s Plan?
4.12.2006
From the same discussions on the Gospel of Judas, I got this article from Svelte I would like to share without permission
from the author, (who is said to be a Jesuit). I am posting this because I believe an article on issues of faith
deserves exposure.
Related post: "A Question of Faith".
The publication of the text of the recently discovered Gospel of Judas is seen by some as a sensation. Supposedly this text offers new insights into the life and especially the circumstances of the death of Jesus Christ. According to this "gospel" Judas is the true and privileged disciple of Jesus. Jesus teaches him separately from the other disciples the secrets which no one has ever seen. He predicts that Judas will rule over the generations and that the star of Judas will lead the way. Why is Judas praised so much?
In the Gospel of Judas Jesus himself gives the answer to this question: "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me" (the quotes of the Gospel of Judas are taken from the English text available on the internet). In a first reaction to the Gospel of Judas some claim that Judas is presented here as acting as a pawn in God's plan of salvation and that Jesus tells Judas to hand him over to his opponents. Thus Judas is no longer the traitor, but someone who did what Jesus himself asked him to do, someone who in so doing became an instrument in God's plan. What is going on here? This may well be a way of saving Judas from his age-old reputation as an evil person. But does this explanation do justice to the core of the Christian message?
We need to be careful not to be deceived. The so-called Gospel of Judas is neither a gospel nor by Judas. The specialists have no doubt that the historical Judas could not have written this text. This "gospel" rather originated in the second century; for it is a Gnostic text, another point on which the scholars seem to agree. And Gnosticism is a movement which really only came of the ground in the second century. The text is not a gospel in the strict sense of the word; for it does not deal with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The time frame is rather during a week three days before Jesus celebrated Passover. Jesus is described as revealing secrets to his disciples and particularly to Judas. At the end of the "gospel" Judas hands Jesus over to the scribes for some money.
The text of the Gospel of Judas is characterized by tensions and inconsistencies. The first sentence presents the "gospel" as "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot". The first part of the "gospel" is focused on the disciples, not on Judas. While the narrative is framed three days before Passover, at the end the narrative time suddenly switches to the time of the arrest of Jesus, i.e., shortly after the Passover meal. Despite this time frame, in the gospel itself, Jesus is frequently said to be appearing and departing and thus suggest a post-Easter perspective. This is rather confusing for the reader. Even these appearances are curious. The "gospel" tells us: "Often he did not appear to his disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child".
It is frustrating for the reader that at the crucial places in the Gospel of Judas words and lines are missing in the original, i.e., the parts which are missing in the original or which were so badly damaged that it was impossible to reconstruct the text. The statement where Jesus predicts that Judas will hand him over to his enemies is preceded by a passage most of which is missing. Thus is it impossible to understand this statement in its literary context and it becomes for us an isolated saying. How does the Gospel of Judas understand what has long been called the betrayal of Judas? The Jesus of the Gospel of Judas does not speak of betrayal. Judas is not presented as a traitor. Jesus rather uses the verb "sacrifice", thus giving Judas' deed a positive theological interpretation. Judas did not hand Jesus over to his enemies for money, but he had a deeper religious motivation when he did this. For in the description of the sacrificing, a typically Gnostic distinction is made between the body as clothing and the soul. Judas did not sacrifice Jesus, but only his body, the part of the human person which Gnosticism despised as evil matter. Obviously the Gospel of Judas considered Judas as a hero for sacrificing the body of Jesus, as he liberated Jesus' soul from the prison of the body.
But does Judas according to this "gospel" really act according to a commissioning by Jesus or the plan of God? This might be suggested by the positive presentation of Judas and the prediction of Jesus concerning Judas role in his arrest. But there are no explicit statements to that effect in this "gospel." The idea of Judas as a pawn in God's plan is rather projected onto the Gospel of Judas by contemporary readers as a result of a centuries-old theological tradition. This theology of the cross assumes that according to God's plan the world could only be saved if someone died. According to one strand by Jesus' dying on the cross the ransom was paid (to the devil) in order to liberate humanity that was enslaved to sin. According to others the offense against God which sin entailed demanded capital punishment for the sinner. Jesus is seen as undergoing capital punishment on the cross in place of human persons in order to save them from having to be punished. Moreover there is another interpretation which claims that Jesus had to die to prove to human persons how strong God's love for them was. This understanding assumes that people will come to faith if they realize how much God loves them. It is driven by the hope that love will bring forth love in return.
Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church did not canonize any of these interpretations of why Jesus died on the cross. But the idea that God is the ultimate reason why Jesus had to die on the cross, i.e., that according to God's plan Jesus was sent to the world to die on the cross is still on many peoples minds. Recently it has been reinforced by the rise of Christian fundamentalism which considers the "doctrine of substitutionary atonement" as one of the five fundamentals of the Christian faith. For some contemporaries this theology of the cross is still a source of hope, others have turned their backs on the Christian faith precisely because of this teaching.
However, the death of Jesus should not simplistically be presented as being demanded by God. The Christian God is a God of life and love, goodness and joy. God's plan was to save the world through Jesus' life and not through his death. Jesus' crucifixion was a criminal act which human persons executed against God's will. Humans thwarted God's plan to save the world, but the resurrection shows that God did not allow them to destroy his plan to save us. Jesus death on the cross was an execution for which humans, not God were responsible. Human persons have a tendency to run away from this responsibility and to look for scapegoats. They found scapegoats in (the Jew) Judas and then in the Jewish people. Interpreting Jesus' death on the cross as God's will, is a way of completely shunning human responsibility. Even a strictly historical interpretation runs the risk of passing on the responsibility to the Jewish authorities or the Roman leaders of 2,000 years ago. Jesus' life ended on the cross because he undermined the privileges of the powerful by his way of speaking and acting, by his care for the marginalized, by calling into question traditional religious and social practices which were hurting people. If Jesus were to live again in this way among us, he would certainly not die on a cross. But our society would also find ways of eliminate him in one way or another. In fact, this is already happening to people in our midst who try to live as Jesus did.
It does not make sense to present as will of God a criminal act orchestrated by human persons. It is also dangerous. One of the most effective ways of perpetuating human suffering in the world is to interpret it as willed by God. Only when we unreservedly dare to accept that suffering always goes against God unconditional and complete commitment against human suffering becomes necessary and possible for Christians. We need not look for explanations, legitimations or scapegoats for suffering. All that is needed is to fight against suffering and to alleviate the existing suffering.
Reimund Bieringer,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis,
Faculty of Theology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Related post: "A question of Faith".
posted by Jdavies @ 4/12/2006,
,
US-vs-Iran: Think Again!
4.14.2005
An update on the US-vs-Iran posts --- Here's what Yahoonews via Reuters says about t:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States will decide this summer whether to pursue a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Thursday
Nobody wants war. Not me, not them, not you. Well, maybe some do. Still, even the past Pope warned about the war on Iraq did he? If he is still alive, he will be against an invasion of Iran, too. "Never again war," he says. How apt.
We are in the midst of a propaganda war, a friend of mine observes. Isn't this how it has been since Desert Storm? If you know the story of CNN you know what I'm talking about. Interestingly, strides in technology and the advent of the Internet created new methodologies for misinformation and counter-propaganda.
I have seen websites from both sides (US and Iran) arguing on the capabilities of both sides. I have even read a war scenario document. While these are largely speculation from theorists, pseudo-historians or mere hobbyists, they cannot be counted merely as so. It seems to this author that all these are part of a propaganda similar to the Mutually Assured Destruction initiatives during the cold war. Never again war, it will be too costly. Even if there is business afterwards, the political backlash on the domestic front - and on a global scale (not to mention how History will judge the Bush administration and that of Iran) even that is on the table now.
The choice: either back down in the name of diplomacy. Stop the pissing contest and go back to the negotiation table. Avoid loses. Avoid casualties. Avoid political problems. Or did I get it wrong ??? Is this a bait to see how Iran reacts?
I wouldn't know I guess. All I can say is --- as if this is a battle of two tough guys -- Cool it! Relax... have some beer.
Labels: Internet, Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 4/14/2005,
,
On Pope John Paul II
4.09.2005
I have never seen the the late Pope John Paul II upfront.
In fact, I have not seem in person at all. If not for the TV, pictures from newspapers and magazines, or the Internet, I would not have seen the man at all.
Such is the irony of his passing that I feel. I withheld this post up to his burial precisely because of that. His impact on world affairs and morality issues changed history. His presence lingers even after his death. His contributions to humanism, despite the conservative stance is undeniable. His liberalism on the role of the Church and the Papal office on modern society is unquestionable.
I have been most affected, and yet, I have not seen him at all. If he becomes a saint my generation will venerate him. In fact even non-catholics and non-believers cannot discount his contributions to humanity.
My philosophical self had this to say: He may not be the complete humanist in the philosophical essence of the word, but he is the best humanist that ever lived.
He is to me, the best poem I have experienced even if I have not seen him at all.
posted by Jdavies @ 4/09/2005,
,
Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?
2.26.2005
I got this email and I just had to say something about it! Warning: you must be a geek or a total nerd to appreciate this post.
Here goes:
The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
============================
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at Which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls Enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore extinct ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which Explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"
====== MY REBUTTAL ======
Since I am a geek...forgive me for saying But I think there is something wrong with the guy's proof. Let me point out where he is wrong and in effect, let me lay out my answer on the same question about hell...even if the kid is undeniaby witty I really think he is wrong...If there is anything wrong in my proof please let me know...
He assumed souls have mass and Hell exists :-) that means his explanation is valid only with a 25% probability. If souls were without mass, then Hell will not be affected by Boyle's Law no matter how many souls enter or at whatever rate it comes in.
Combined Gas Law should be used instead of Boyle's Law since it is not certain whether Hell is expanding, constant in volume or shrinking...additionaly, if a soul does not have mass then it must be energy, or anti-matter. (since it follows that without mass then it is not matter, under what we know in physics at the moment. )
If it is energy then by E=mc2, it gains mass exponentially as souls enter Hell. It wil become more saturated and will exhibit the opposite of entropy, by increasing energy. If the Hell space is finite, or rate of entry of souls is higher and this continues for all eternity , Hell will behave like a star and then progress like a black hole and will collapse on itself due to the ever-increasing gravity that additional souls generate (assuming there is either infinite supply of souls or a
critical point is reached).
Therefore hell will exist only for a finite amount of time, until a new hell is created out of Heaven (because souls will have energy too and Heaven will be as filled as Hell is).
This means Heaven and Hell are interchangeable, depending on what time of the Universe your soul is accepted. Unless of course both implode at
the same time.
Additionally, during the time that Hell or Heaven exists and it will absorb souls and yet it will produce energy by itself too ---- thereby proving Reincarnation and recycling of souls = since energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Interestingly, if souls are anti-matter, then the mystery is if souls are in the body - a matter, why do we exist and not explode? There must be a reason why not ( a quantum physics definition of God as an observer and definer of sets in which we exists, mathematically of course).
The assumption too is that change in one form of energy to another is never a 1-1 relationship, and entropy is that, heat energy is always a by-product. If souls entry into hell does not result in heat enrgy then it cannot be inferred if hell will produce an excess of heat energy to be exothermic, neither can it be inferred to be endothermic if changing from one soul to another is a perfect change without
entropic problems.
Or more realistically, souls may not be anti-matter. If souls as energy cannot be detected, then this means that it must be somthing else and everything we have for foundations is false. Or simply put, souls do not exist, nor heaven nor hell. :-)
Therefore the question of endothermic or exothermic is irrelevant, and the teacher just wants a cool question for an exam. I'll get an "F" and I can tell the teacher "go to hell". By then, I would have proved Hell's existence metaphysically and I can say I will be as exothermic in as much as the teacher will be.
Hehehehe.
=== Addendum, posted 27-Feb-2005 ===
Such I am such a geek, last night I was thinking about my theory just before I sleep. yes it did pre-occupy me that I used it to get myself drowsy!
My proposal that souls do not have mass comes from the assumption that there is no detectable disparity between the mass of a dead person and a living person, and the definition of soul to be that which leaves the body after death.
I realized that I should clarify that my concept of soul as energy is in the assumption that it is pure energy (something which the current state of physics cannot yet produce artificially.)
If energy is contained in any matter or within atoms or even sub-atomic particles, it will possess a slight mass and my proof will crumble because Hell will have mass, and will tend to become exothermic at first but then progress toward the black hole concept... once it nears implosion (I think ...), it will start to cool down. When it does, it can behave endothermically, unless the system is not stable that it will collapse... creating a big bang of another universe on the other side of the the current universe (This is the Bubble Universes theory wherein our universe is just on of the bubbles created from the "Big Bang" which is just a black hole sucking in space from a bigger universe and creating a universe within it in effect.
In this sense, Hell, if it is a physical plane, can exist on multiple universes or in multiple planes... Hence the several versions of Hell... Interestingly, if space can be folded, according to Einsteins theory, you can now have one Hell existing in a different Time and Space and multiple Hells (or Heavens) in different spaces and times, or worsed, Hells interconnecting like a network but spanning Time. That makes Hell exist outside of the dimensions of our space-time...
Hehehe.
Interestingly, if Hell is a blackhole, the experience within a blackhole may resemble literary sources about Hell. The circular motion of sucking in space stabilizes the walls of the black hole and this may create a certain view of space plastered along these spinning walls of space-time... it could contain images of perhaps one's past among other images of life - stretched and morphing, ala Dali... (if souls can "see" without using light). The souls experience is that of being twisted and stretched and mashed and with so intense a pressure perhaps gazillions of pascal per square nanometer even more...
Interesting huh? Well, everything is arbitrary at best here...
posted by Jdavies @ 2/26/2005,
,
Bandwagon Dole Out:
Pissing Contest
1.06.2005
I have long been absent from the blogging community ever since I had refocused my attention on my first and favorite craft: poetry. That means I owe so many people my comments, and the internet community my views on world events - and most notably those here the Philippines. Of course it doesn't matter if not everybody reads it; I just like blabbering about Hahaha...
Now going to the matter at hand: Bandwagon Dole Out on the Tsunami Victims in Asia - That daily pissing contest of who can give more. Look, I'm not against charity. Give it when you can. What I don't see morally right about it is when giving generously is paired with econopolitik.
Let me get straight to the point - do we really need to have so many dead bodies displayed on our TV screen before first world countries try to outdo each other with the millions of dollars of commitment? Since after America's initial pledge of $35M was branded as stingy (and deservingly so) as compared to Japan's surprising $500M, while many other countries topped the list, say Britain's $40M (if I'm not mistaken) - upped to $95M, the USA had a 100th fold increase as if to say I can do better - while behind the camera seems to have meant - I will not let China's $37M top ours! It was a mistake in decimals: it's $350M helllo not $35M - you forgot the zero!
Now Germany has promised $674m, while the UK says its aid will go up from $95- to - $100m to several hundred million over the next few weeks. Australia seems to exclaim $765m - as if to proclaim a certain legitimacy is attached to a government's capacity to help as to policing the region. Again, I am happy to hear everybody is helping and in the end the victims will be of better life. What's distressing is to think what will happen over the next years to these regions - will these countries hold sway to that which they helped? Wil this be a debt of gratitude that will forever hold sway in a sovereign countries future decisions in bids to come? I have seen it happen in the Philippines - how a helping hand is seen as a savior. It's philosophical repurcussions are scary because it rings social significance that will only be felt several generations after. I pray this is just an unfounded fear that I have.
Meanwhile, let us go back to philosohpy: I think it is best to remember the nature of giving is unidirectional. Non-recipcrocal, as love. It should be infinité. No holding back, non-demanding. I wonder if half these donations are that. I am certain those from private individuals and certain organizations are truly altruistic. In fact statistics will have shown that public opinion swayed governments to giving more - if not for that the braggarts of high posts will not shove their pledges. The nature of the human person is to be compassionate hence the quick outpouring of private individuals concerns and aid. Institutions however, were always late to react - more appropriately the governments who as far as I see it an opportunity to flex muscle, and show off their phallic symbols.
Even the Philippines, beset with our budget concerns would have to do its share: bring them our best exports doctors since we can't afford the millions. You think if there's not any media mileage here aid will reach $3 Billion proportions? It's econopolitik, as always.
I wonder if these leaders have thought of helping so many people who suffer daily even without calamities and natural disasters. Was there any billion dollar concerted effort to alleviate humanities ills once and for all? Utopian yes, but $3B in so short a week shows us it is possible. We do not need a disaster to help humanity.
I wonder if that will catch on: which country can help the most improve the world without anything in return - and helping humanity as is without any political gain. Perhaps just add a pissing contest.
Labels: Internet, Local, Philippines
posted by Jdavies @ 1/06/2005,
,
On Dan Brown, The Philippines
and my Theology
11.23.2004
I sent this email to a good friend:
I'm posting this reply to my blog coz I thought I made it long enough and its a good way to mark myself in time (re: when I bought the illustraded edition of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code)... My friends posts that there are just too many questions out there that challenge the faith and she doubts if they can be answered. Dan Brown has been such a phenomenon in the Philippine reading public that I thought it best to share this thought I have --- owning to the unique background I had with my 16 units of Theology, and being school with the Jesuits and yet reading Gnostic Christinity details which is the main holdage of info that Dan Brown drew upon his fiction.
Read on 'cause here's my take on the issue:
My First Email: When The Celestine Prophecy and the tenth insight was such a phenomenon in early 1997 because it encourage new age thinking and mysticism... (even as its devoid of any literary substance it was onthe NY bestseller list for 98 weeks!) It also ellicited reaction from the conservative religious side who are closed minded about their faith. Dan Brown's fiction --- remember --- it's historical fiction --- similar to the manner Michener etc. writes... in fact Dan Brown wasn't the first to write this way --- i think he was just at the right time since the new age phenomenon reached its peak and spirituality was at the center of media talk re: Gibson's the passion, etc... PLUS the mythos that was lacking in our generation (as joseph campbell laments to be missing in contemporary soceity --- had a ressurgence) that is to say zeitgeist
is that yearning for more detail about spirituality that the church
has kept unexplained.
For instance, much as the concept of mystery has been explained in Canon Law, not every catholic knows what it means, or why the heck they go to communion? Not everyone appreciates the sacraments and rituals and other Church things because most are too metaphysical to be discussed in catechism... thats where the church has faults --- not every Catholic or perhaps christians for that mattter know about it. .. I needed 16 units of theology to finally understand many question I had about the church --- and still I have questions ! This makes my spiritual journey most wonderful thus, because I am not lost, instead I am finding truth slowly revealed in many ways. I had that education so I am able to ask the right uestions perhaps, or know where to find some anwers and yet I still have questions...
What more those who are not as interested in religiosities like these? This is what I suggest to Filipinos reading Dan Brown for now:
Gnosticism is an interesting subject. Search this in the internet if you want to go deeper into the rabbit hole: check "Nag Hammadi Library", THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY ..... I encourage brave readers to check it out and try understand it objectively. If you can be interested in Theology then its best to read up on them! See, the Church is not as backward as it is, it is just slow but it is reaching out...
More things will be found soon and Science and History as a tool of the Church is quite new and ONLY more recently used by the church so expect more things about the church --- it took them 400 years to accept evolution - but now The Pope has his resident astrophysicist, historians and advisers among others... interestingly, the catholic Church by the way is prepared in any case life outside of the earth is found --- it will not affect canon law, instead the metaphysical messiah takes precedence, and the concept of a savior, re: Jesus, or by any other name will be welcomed.
Now thats why I like Joseph Campbell so much and old school speculative fiction and philosophy :) --- and the church has to change because by canon law it has to... re: Ecclesia Semper Reformanda (the church must always change) I like how dan brown excites readers into questioning --- it helps in spreading info, you see?
Catholics for one by Canon Law, should take Dan Brown positively, the Opus Dei of course will say something else but as far as my theology is concerned, I think there is no conflict here... Salvation by law, is outside the Church, and the Church, slow as it is, doesn't deny its faults. What makes controversy is when the line between truth and fiction is blurred and thats where Dan Brown is good.
Anyways sorry I had so much to say about this... but hey... its a cool subject.
On the 'too many questions issue" here is what I have to say:
I actually think most questions can be answered - we just have to ask the right people, see if we do not even attempt to ask or we just gossip around the same people with the same questions we won't learn anything. Unfortunately for the Catholic Church that is the problem in their organization - catechism is not much as a priority in as much as it is in Christian Churches. In fact, I think the far worse a problem is that the clergy is not as good as it should be - not all priests even know or can answer or explain quite well the usual theological questions --- much less give the sermon or homily justice by giving the correct exegesis of a given Sunday gospel... try to ask a priest to explain the concept of sacramentality and why tradition is put in high regard by the Catholics and I'm sure you'll hear different answers.
I should confess that when I go to any Church for mass and I dont like the way the priest addresses the people by his homily - if I feel he is not as capable as explaining the corret exegesis of the gospel --- then its worthless listening to him. It's a cofession I made to Jesuits and they are saddened by my revelation... see I was used to listeing to jesuits being able to explain the theological
siginificance of gospels... and all --- when I hear politics in the
pulpit and relating the same to say, financial concerns of the Parish? I find that distasteful...
I like books that challenge my Faith because I can ask more questions and try to find answers for them (Donations of old books will be welcomed - just email me!) - in effect enriching my own spiritual growth, not merely to justify any doubts I have about the Church. It's the existential angst being filled in with a drug for me --- unlike other people who with their idelogical disorientation is using as validation for their doubts abut their faith. (Don't get me wrong coz I also read The Celestine Prophecy ... Hehehe!)
There the line is drawn, That is the difference between some readers of Dan Brown and perhaps serious Catholic readers like me. I seriously think Da Vinci Code is a good companion reading for indoctrination and theology and it's a good appetizer for the man asking about his faith. However, reading it without reading further about say historicities of the gospels, theologies and exegesis, and philosphy of man and institution (re: sartre) would be not as an enriching experience.
The assumption is as long as the church remains a human institution,
it will exhibit human faults. This is the same with the Muslim
Community and other religions.
Before I get any detractors, please find below a list of people that
have influenced my Philosophy so that my views are expressly framed
along the right lines: (this is a mix of agnostic, philosophers,
mystics, sci-fi writers, atheists, and doctors of the church.) ====
Emmanuel Levinas, Immanuel Kant, Jean Paul Sartre, Joseph Campbell,
Soren Kierkegaard, Saint Thomas and Saint Augustine, Gabriel Marcel,
Arthur Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, James Redfield, and
readings on Gnostic Christianity + lots of infusion from the
Jesuits... good thing I wasn't UA&P re: opus dei -- although a friend of mine shares the same sentiment --- that even opus dei-schooled people should like it and appreciate how Dan Brown makes a great literary device of manipulating truth of ritual versus truth of fact... anyways......thats it for now.
posted by Jdavies @ 11/23/2004,
,
Interesting Read
9.09.2004
Excerpt from Conrado de Quiros on piracy, and why he draws the line between patronage of DVD's of Hollywood movies, and that of local artists:
... well, do you want to keep this country ignorant? Education is its own justification. The United States itself did not mind pirating British books to enlighten its nationals before 1776. If it hadn't done so, it might still be a British colony. I personally do not mind being reproduced all over the place (which I am), if that will improve people's minds. I'm shareware entirely, the spirit that happily still rules the Internet.What can I say? Interesting, huh? I've just watched Brian de Palma's Scarface, a third time last night. Now I can say "fuck you" in the best way possible and in so many ways --- beyond the fact that - that film is about an immigrant and his (Al Pacino's) obsession with the American Dream - which in the end ruined him. It's fine to carry that dream - but to be obsessed with it is another story.
The explosion in DVD titles, which now include Hollywood classics as well as movies from other countries, is particularly welcome. My own take there is that this should help the more serious makers of local movies by enlarging the scope of their market. Currently, they have to cater to a market whose taste has been molded by Hollywood "blockbusters" and B action movies. The availability of the classic movies should raise the Filipino taste several notches higher, which should boost the chances of the Lino Brockas and Ishmael Bernals of this country peddling their wares.
Now going back to DVD's and piracy - I'm happiest now because 5 years back only a handful of people can talk film with me and share insights. I said the best film-noir I've seen - besides Humprey Bogart in Casablanca is King Kong (1933) which I first saw on TV, next on Beta and Laser Disc !!! De Quiros may be right thus --- people can now appreciate a good movie from the other! Besides that, I think now people can appreciate the technicals of a movie as well and the art of it all --- plus audiophiles are being made of Filipinos. Finally more and more people are able to discern what is good with what is not. Believe it or not, but I don't suppose there is a huge percentae of people from the middle and lower class that understands what stereo is in this day and age!
The availability of DVD's changed that.
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 9/09/2004,
,
An Open Letter
9.05.2004
Sassy has forwarded me an email that was so successful that it shocked me. I believed others would have gotten this email ahead, but this is my first time to read it. I am, to this moment am in denial that it is true but immediately I have felt the urge to email her back, and post this open letter. As for whatever that email contains I'll make it my next post.
Sassy,
I will try to post this reply in my website as an open letter. Forgive me if I would feel that I have to, but with so little time for blogging it will be best to have something posted with teeth in there after my stagnancy. I have been too preoccupied with my many private concerns that blogging and the political mind had to give way to business matters. It is sad that with so many things I can say about how it is here in the Philippines now, I had to defer to more pressing concerns.
It saddens me though that it took me up to reading this email to find out that the political concern demands urgency.
Sucks to know the truth. It hurts more to know that these are our problem solvers. So much more hurt, than knowing that we have problems that are seemingly unsolvable. I will not argue in length to the accuracy of these charges nor ask for the sources. The sad truth is not in what is said in this email about our leaders, but what we believe in as a people. The fact that our leaders elicit such jokes is alarming enough; the fact that we just can laugh about it is even more disturbing. Have we as a people forgotten that this country's independence was won by lives lost, and dreams deferred or shattered?I would not want to sound self-righteous, for I have in many occassions dismissed responsibility when I could have done so much more. I am at fault everytime the pragmatist in me takes charge of the idealist. But what am I but a blogger that posts what I think, speak what I mean and chat with taxi drivers about the debate that is the Philippine situation. Is it that each of us Filipinos would have felt the same in one moment or another? In moments knowing we could have
bettered on ourselves, and moments of looking back where we could have done more. Each of us perhaps want so much change but have opted to defer these for more personal gain. We all perhaps dream about making that ultimate sacrifice - a similar planned twist on death - a conscious effort to be a hero like Rizal. But like everybody we are afraid. I am like many others am afraid to do more and I do not hide that my heart pounds in fear everytime I think about the future of this country.
More than a hundred years ago the Illustrados were the movers of intellectual thought in this country. Even as they disagree something is common in them: the passion to make this nation great, and the desire change the system. Even as their goals and means to their ends are to this day remain debatable if right or wrong - history cannot judge them negatively for their efforts. We as bloggers, and I do not mean to boast for what I have done will not amount to what others have done before me in the blogging community --- but we are one of the few that encourage free-thinkers in this country, perhaps at least the untainted ones. I know many in the academe and in other organizations desire the same but the internet, the bloggers --- Ours is a new movement - perhaps it will be recognized in history in the future, but not till we can do more than we do now.
I do not know if I am right, or if I hit it head on - what I know is that there are many others like me, who dream. Filipinos everywhere who forward emails like these, Filipinos in message boards and online groups desiring for better, the movement is unnamed, and unorganized, and to date unidentified. But is it this unknown something that is spontaneous in the Filipino that moves so many like you and me? Everytime something is wrong we rise up, and in our many moments in history of failure I have known Filipinos to fight on. Was there a moment in our history that we have not all together felt that something - all at the same time?I invite to experts to name it - to name this feeling that I know is not limited to me and the many others. Because ... when I read this email from you, I did not need to verify if is true. Merely reading it made drunk with a cocktail of emotions - so many that I can only list some now: dismay that there is nothing more, anger that it could be true, felt betrayal that it could have happened, doubt that it was true, concern that lawmakers are not as good as we think they are, apathy for I have my own concerns, a slight smile on a joke, a wandering mind off to nowhere, perhaps one dreaming - off elsewhere, frankly even one with migration in it, desolation and forlorness in apprarent defeat, a minuscule moment of euphoric dreaming that the Filipino can be triumphant in the end, deep breath and sighs in between each thought that I may just be romanticizing all these...
I have high hopes - I am always boastful in my peer that I have the highest threshold of things and that I can live with so little - or that I can handle more than the usual pain, the hurt, whatever you throw at me. When I feel this whatever it is I am feeling now, I wonder what many others with less would have to say. Perhaps none, perhaps more. I still have hope, some of it, and the last thing I want is for that to hope to be gone.
Thanks for the email Sassy;
it made me think about so many things.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Jardine Davies
If you are intrigued by the contents of the email, I invite you to read this.
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 9/05/2004,
,
Search "Philippines"
9.01.2004
I have been experimenting for some time what will come out as the top search result everytime I search "Philippines".
Google comes up with WOW Philippines as the top result. Good. CIA Factbook comes in as the second most popular result. I found that funny, see... the Government's own website Gov.ph is at 6th. I hoped it would have been at second with an "fact about the philippines" tag next to it. I also half expected NSO to come as the third, but it was instead the 10th in the list.
Vivisimo.com comes up with more relevant results clustered into topics: Hotels, Travel, Map, Events, Reviews etc. Altavista comes up with the same results - almost the same list. Try Saudi Arabia and instead you will get Saudi's information resource.
Well my story is I search "Philippines" in Yahoo! News and while before I got news of the de la Cruz kidnapping --- now I get our fiscal crisis instead. Not to say that search engines and news portals give the best information about our country but more like we have to be wary of the news that we give the world. See, Greenspan effect is to financials while the internet is to our reputation as a country. Saudi Arabai for instance has paid banner ads that try to explain its case versus terrorism, and what the 9/11 commission has to say of it's non-involvement. I am certain other countries have the same programs and perhaps even the Philippines has the same too --- through the Wow! Philippines program. With the way Filipinos are spread all over the world, and with each global pinoy having the same access to the internet I shas never had so much power to influence what comes up in search engines as before. Not to say that we should as bloggers fake it or mass link to something so negative or crazy as to influence things but more so --- I mean that each now should have a bigger sense of responsibility of what we post in the net. Let's make people here what we hate about the news, what we need to change, --- that in effect they know despite our fiscal crisis and the many ills before us - we are not standing blindly and doing nothing.
Labels: Google, Internet, Politics, Technology
posted by Jdavies @ 9/01/2004,
,
The Changing Sexuality Profiles of the Filipino
8.23.2004
I will not present a fine-flowing article today. I think I'm not in the mood to be coherent and concise. Instead, let me go straight to the observations:
- While 20 years ago access to porn is limited to beta tapes and assorted magazines brought home by the OFWs and balikbayans, all fancies, assortments, toys and kinks are now easily available in stores in Manila, both legal and illegal, included.
- Pirated DVD and VCD videos are easily available in the streets - and the sad thing is that they are in the main streets that kids pass through with their families. I will not be a hypocrite, I have watched these material, but access to these have to be limited to adults. I won't even question whether it is legal or not, thing is it has to be available only to those who want it. Example: Playboy comes in black plastic covers and inserts that disguise it as another magazine - not just because it hides itself from nosy people but more because it shouldn't be seen in public. Filipinos don't have that --- instead you have tabloids and magazines splattered on the streets ready to be seen by any passing dad and 7-year old kid in hand right under the train stations or major intersections.
- FHM (Well this is my opinion, ok?) is much more lewd and fueled by sex than Playboy is. I know because I read both. See, you don't have to show both breasts to see both, or have to show bare pictures to be lewd. FHM's attack on sex in it's articles is not always the most tasteful. Playboy's articles are more discrete and damped. What's my point? I think sex is not being given it's fair share of its wholesome side. What you produce instead of responsible consenting adults are hormonally-charged Filipinos out to score and no sense anything else.
- Primetime TV wreaks of sex - from songs, to dancers, to jokes, to just about everything that sells on TV. Hve we Filipinos grown more accepting of these things or we have been numbed already that we can't draw the line?
- More importantly textchat on TV and internet access makes this so easy for kids to access. Is there any show left on free TV that doesn't talk about sex or relationships - the news included?
- Have we Filipinos been more sexuality open --- see today it seems we have grown to accept same sex couples, even as Religious groups don't approve it, our society seems to have been more tolerant. I am not saying it is bad or good, but I am saying we have gone beyond thresholds it seems, as a society.
- I do not have a study to back me, but it seems virginity is no longer a word that matters.
- In 1991, Maganda magazine featured a story about the history of sexuality of Filipinos and focused on how the manongs - in the early 20's-30's have been the horny brown devils in America and how the whites have looked at them as competition. Back then we thought to be better than Latin Lovers. The article continues to explain that slowly the Filipino male is subjugated and lost it's charm as capitalism expanded and Filipinos have been stunted to grow into other jobs. It finishes by encouraging us to regain that virility. Is this progression towards sex a natural consequence of decades of repression of that vigor? Or more because we have been irresponsible as a society that these has transpired?
- Have I grown older that sex talk is more candid, or is it because of media and Sex and the City? That said, is this updating of sexual profiles more of a global phenomena than one limited to the Philippines? I would surmise it maybe, only that things may have been too fast for comfort here in the Philippines.
The double-meaning songs for instance, and the many denials that they do not mean anything else but kiddie rhymes, these and other bubble gum songs as early as Barbie Girl by (Aqua ? in 1997?) have been happening elsewhere. The change may just be a shock because we have not been fast enough to adapt to it - or more because we are a conservatively Catholic country that is filled with horny brown devils. Either way I don't know, but these things I present maybe good points for studies, or may have in fact been done already by now but have not been published yet. We maybe changing, but we need to be sure we change toward the good things. Like teenage pregnancy, we need to be sure .
posted by Jdavies @ 8/23/2004,
,
New Layout! Let's hear it Elvis!
8.02.2004
I got tired of the old layout that looks like just about every other bloggers' blog. So I opted for a big change! (Not to mention my picture which just hangs there feeling pogi)... It's good that the internet has such wonders as free CSS tutorials and reviews online, now I don't have to fret and whine about politics and looks just rather usual :)
I found the best css style tips on this website: mandarindesign.com It's a very good site. I even found this: Play it good Elvis!
And did you know this:
Bingo Guerrero
DZSR 4th Floor
Philippine Information Agency Bldg.
Visayas Ave.
Quezon City
I found this over the net: Club message: We have our own 2 Elvis Radio Programs: DZSR -918AM band "Elvis Sunday Special" Sundays 8-10am (probably the longest running Elvis program in the world -22 years and running!); DWWW 774AM band "Elvis is Alive"- Fridays: 11:30am to 1:30pm
Wow. If this is true - 22 years and still got the elvis blues? I'm darn proud of these guys. Such passion. I'l check it out one time, See how it goes.
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 8/02/2004,
,
Will Cockroaches Rule the World after a Nuclear War?
7.14.2004
There's an always exciting discussion that follows after a hefty exchange of ideas. Specially when the topic is Iraq and the US war, it's a guaranteed feast of opinion. While the Internet has produced a new medium of exchange which allows for faster debate through commenting, and thus giving more freedom to users, (discussed in my old post: musings on long comment threads) I have to breathe a sigh that the humor such off-topic discussions and passionate debating does get on my head.
Following Sassy's commentary on why the prison garb of the Filipino Hostage in Iraq is orange and Ayatollah's accusation that it is a western plot, a long thread followed. I had to post that it is a funny remark coming from Iran, after all, Nick Berg's father did blame Bush for the death of his son, not Abu Gharaib. Now, a certain 'Vitamin E' had to say that it wasn't anything funny at all. He posted:
vitamin E's comment:
To suggest that the Americans are behind those kidnappings & killings of foreign nationals in Iraq is just ridiculous and it’s not funny Jardine!
(07-13-04 at 08:26 PM)
I understand his concern that it is not a laughing matter, however, I do not appreciate such a personal attack, especially if he missed my point why I think it is a funny post. After all, conspiracy theories, are funny, but may be true, and it's that glimpse possibility that makes it even more hilarious.
I had to respond:
Jardine Davies's comment:
It is funny Vitamin E. That’s my opinion. In case you don’t know humor by its first name, and can’t take it, then its a hard life to live for you when you don’t see the mundane in the most serious. I kinda wonder what life you live without laughing Come on give me a break man! Think Happy thoughts.
Conspiracy theorists only thrive when there is too much or too little information. If everything is clear and black and white, there is no room for speculation.
I know and believe speculation is dangerous, and it is worst when we pass it as gospel. I do not believe it to be true either, I have always wished America is as great as it should be, but funny thing is how such a serious matter as how to tackle terrorism is being approached like a farce.
YOU want me to explain the joke to you? Here goes: It’s funny that both sides are using outlandish propaganda (Bush versus Dr. Evil, Children of God versus Zion) it’s funny that they can go to this great lengths and bomb the hek of each other when there are many other more pressing problems out there, it’s also funny if its true because that means the world is filled with fools that believed in Bush (that means me and you Vitamin E), it’s also funny because if it is not true it is about how two peoples could never undertand any other nation beyond their noses. It’s also funny because it’s something that can be so ridiculous like you said, and at the same time possibly true as well.
Hey is it not historical that conspiracies are created of the CIA? It’s zeitgeist, read some Joseph Campbell man, The mythos of the modern world is conspiracies, and it’s funny that we are allowing that to progress. Either way, serious or not, I find it funny too that I had to explain the reason to you as well. And you are so pikon.
Harharhar. You’ve just been baptized with Pinoy Humor. Harharhar (Laughs out Loud).
(07-13-04 at 09:15 PM)
After that, a certain 'Miel' had this to say to me: Whew! Happy to see that Jardine clarified that she sees this as “outlandish propaganda”. As if to insunuate that I am on the wrong side of the debate. Well let me explain why I find it even funnier that a poster would refuse to understand why the Conspiracy is Funny:
Outlandish Propaganda from both sides, ok people let's divide the world a little more, and bomb the hell of each other till only cockroachesremain in cold nuclear winter:
1. Those for us, and those against us (funny, i'm scared. quite despotic of bush... felt like hitler. It's either he's that of a dullhead, or he makes us all think he's that dull when in fact he is so clever to have ridiculed the UN by his monstrosity of a decision to invade Iraq based on cracked intelligence. If those CIA honchos listened to Manila's finest there's no 9/11, mind you.)
Did anyone in the world ever studied Being? C'mon how can you categorize things in the absolute? How can Bush divide good and evil in such absolute terms under an uncertain agenda, over a cloud of indistinct war, over an enemy he could not even define. Hehehe he got lost in translation I guess.
2. Well let's make it fair --- Even Ayatollah has his funny side: he's provoking the US... and crafting conflict with his own juice. When everyone else can live in peace he's highlighting a defensive stance, much like N.Korea so that if the US attacks, the US is painted as the bad guy who's on a roll and keeping score on all the virgins in campus. Bullying is something we all don't like. But similarly Ayatollah is hosting discord with such a statement.
Thing is, since nothing is ever clear, everyone else is an instrument of this global destruction. What are we gonna do? Are we going to choose sides? Who would go for 1. Bush (maybe coz you think you are safer or with the winner) or with option 2: Iran, coz you got the Muslim world and the unseen enemy to back you???
That's ridiculous if you choose 1 or 2. That's what we bloggers are saying, there are choices beyond an insipid America that Bush cooks, and a Fundamentalist/extremist state Ayatollah paints. Are we going to be agents of either? I say lets blog on and try to stop a non-sensical war based on any one man's ambition of a New World Order. (search that in google and you will see both sides)
Who wants cockroaches to represent this planet in Galactic congress? Star Trek Fans, anyone? I wouldn't want that. Meanwhile I'l blog and rant on and laugh my heart out of those who chose the coackroaches. Harharhar :)
As for the question Will Cockroaches Rule the World after a Nuclear War? Evolutionary biologists think so, their exo-skeleton protects them possible radiation, and may evolve thicker armor. Only microwave and extremely low temperatures will kill them, when nobody is left to squish them or spray insecticides. Fortunately, their nook and crany habitat will have saved them from extinction, including their highly protected nesting grounds and eggs. They reproduce quite fast, and are all over the world, second only to ants. One other thing: they are highly adaptable because their diet is 'everything that has carbon' that means you and me, and every organic matter. Before they start becoming sentient, and think about eating me and you, I think it's good time to stop any war that will make them lord us over. ;-)
Labels: Google, Internet, Iran, Iraq War, Politics, Technology, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 7/14/2004,
,
Musings On Long Comment Threads
6.30.2004
Having closely followed fan sites and NBA trade rumor forums, fad sites among others, I am no alien to long comment threads and long rants and raves on one small issue. However when the rage in those that presented the wrong arguments morph into vengeful shame, the absurdity of debates becomes comical and laughable. It disheartens me that the web media has created commenting and forums as a new medium of debate without much modal control. The post-modern takes over and the absurdity of heckling and attacking the person, instead of the issues begin to take its toll. Sooner or later, the entire thread of discussion becomes a virtual battleground of hard-headed persons refusing to balk down. By the end of the discussion, where it becomes humorous, one stops reading it, it becomes entertainment more than a source of information.
This is why I am amazed that despite all these, there are some discussions worth taking, and, quite intellectually, amusing enough to read all. Consider this link. Quite an intellectual exchange. However, it did not lose some comedy too, but mostly, it is most informative. There are crazy ones though like this one link that starts with discussing how rich Bill Gates is, but then develops into the most hilarious thread I have ever read. You can read it here.
There was once a time when orators graced the Congress of the Philippines with their presence, and eloquence was a quite common occurence. There was also a time when debates are needed to ferret out the truth. I do not profess to be a good one, but like most people I know good debates when I hear it. Such is a continous argument-counter-argument, rebuttal after rebuttal game, wherein sources are cited, and at best mentioned to be quite known popularly that footnotes are not needed. But when people debate and starts other issues beyond the topic, or act weird, and exclaim 'shut-up' like that guy we know as Digs that is something else. Better just check the Black Eyed Peas and the real shut-up, shut-up tune.
More seriously, this brings to mind how the Internet, and the freedom that it gives has created a most unique arena of intellectual exchange that if used properly can lead to enllightenment, but when allowed to proliferate without control, can be nothing but a chorus of undecipherable voices. Are we to allow a crazy bunch of wackos participate in a debate and infuse it with some off-beat arguments, unverified presentations and illogical assertions?
Off course we should. It's ice breaker --- Keeps the debate going by fueling the fire of angst for those that have something to say. Besides, it's funny isn't it?
Labels: Internet
posted by Jdavies @ 6/30/2004,
,
The Author
J.Davies
Jdavies lives in Quezon City, Philippines and has been blogging since 2002. A brand manager in a leading technology company and a freelance new media/web strategy consultant, he has refocused his blogging from personal, political & sociological observations, to marketing-related efforts and Internet trends that are relevant to his career and branding advocacies.
About This Blog
This blog is a depot of thoughts and observations on marketing trends which remain personally relevant to the Author as far as his marketing career is concerned. Having evolved from the personal blog of Jdavies, much of the earlier work contained herein are laced with personal speculation, political views, and similar advocacies. These posts are being kept for posterity's sake and for no other reason. No effort is being made to claim that the author will not contradict himself from his previous positions or that such advocacies are absolute.
Contact
Request access to my Linked-in Profile
