Battling the Bad

I like common scars... I think that most people do. We are social animals, after all. We like anything that can connect us with our fellow plodders. My favorite common scar to talk about is the belly button because it makes the perfect example. We all have a belly button, none of us really remember any of the trauma associated with our belly-button's existence. But it is a bona fide Scar! The result of a gross flesh wound so grievous that the scar will be there for your entire life.

I find that I have another common scar with a lot of people....

   I like Apple products.

....God damn it..... Somtimes I even like Apple. Despite the whole grossly over-sized monopolistic multinational conglomerated bullshit. (Their painful "store", however, turned me all the way off.)

It's a rather painful admission to me because, for the most part, I don't have a very good reason to like apple products. I don't need an Apple TV (no one does); I don't need a smartphone (or want one); I don't need any of their crap.

But it's all pretty.

It's pretty. That's the bottom line. Apple is damn fantastic at design and that is what floats the whole bloated company.

I have always done pretty good at ignoring cultural crap that I don't need. I don't even buy candy bars. I don't need a new computer, so I don't go out and get a new one because it'll stream movies just a little bit better. I don't need a car because (they are vile/I can walk/they are expensive/evil/crime... sorry) I live close to work and friends. But recently... I found an iPod. A little iPod touch. It was current, when I found it, pretty slick, slightly broken, and pretty much the fanciest thing I own to this day.

And now, for an inexplicable reason, I want the new one. I want to replace my cracked screen with a whole new, gen 5, unnecessary Apple thing. It's not gonna be that much better. (...but... maybe it'll be faster), it's not gonna be anything else (...well... it has a better camera... And a Flash!), it's not going to make me feel better about my self (could give you status.), why would I need it? (it fits more apps on the screen!).

I think it's Satan talking in the parenthesies.

I have always been strictly ethical in my purchases. I believe rather firmly that our consumerism is the best control we have over the corporate power structure, like voting is supposed to control democracy. And I don't like buying anything new. Recycling is so much better for the world. It requires so much less mining. But now- I wanna buy the new one! Satan tells me, it can't be that bad. Everyone is doing it.

I retort that, it can be that bad.

"No. Not really. It's just one out of a million very small things."

"But I have never been part of that million."

"It'll get you out from under Verizon! I know you don't like th--"

"Oh, sly. But keeping the old one is good enough."

"You're parents need one to get out from Verizon. Give them yours and get the new one!"

".... well... that's not NO. I can get a used old iPod for them too!"

"You could... or you could get something NEW!"

Testing.

... a sad admission: I will vote for Mitt Romney.

Under the following circumstances.

First, we need to get our priorities straight. It is phenomenally difficult, I realize, when bombarded by a multitude of false information laced, so deceptively with truth. From so many different points of view, from so many different sources, with so many different spins and purposes.

Question: do we want things to change? Or would we rather have a media market every two to four years. Do we want to make some headway, or would we rather bicker and argue? There are a lot of conflicting ideals in this bubbling country of ours, but one most people would agree on is: we need to deal with the tribulations of the present and the future and, as well, the past.

Politicians play games in office. Neither side can agree with the other, for obvious reasons. Some are petty, but many are ideological. And most are theoretical.

Which brings me to science. Which we all believe with increasing certainty. In order to test a theory, you need to collect some data. At the moment, we have a more democratically controlled government. We've had a democrat president for only four years and most of his presidency has actually been governed by the presidents before him. If we really want to know if the current theory is correct, we need to pursue it for at least 12 years. 16 would be better.

After 16 years of democratically managed country, and it is not working, I will try a different theory willingly. And even vote for someone who, I think, is utterly bizarre.

Design and Function

I like design. And systems. Creating controlling systems. When I was younger, I imagined video-game controllers because that is what I did. I still think of them sometimes... And I still think I've got a good one in my head. But I have to admit, I didn't have the creativity to make the leap the Wii controller was.

But I did improve on it.

....in my head....

So it has been with some interest that I have been watching the evolution of Google's organizational system. They have built themselves into a quandary  They have so many varied systems, being used in such a variety of ways, that it is difficult to make a streamlined thing that would work for everyone. Some people (fewer and fewer by the day, I think), like Google Reader. Others just use their classic search. Many use their email or docs ("Drive", whatever - at least the old url still works: docs.google). What should go first? Where should they go?

I offer some pro-bono advice. Though if they like it, they should hire me for part of their design staff. I've got more of them.

Nesting. Basically, a lot of my idea comes down to nesting. And integrating their header system with Chrome. Redundancy is also a good policy: a few different straight-forward ways to get to the same place. But also the ability to speedily chose what one wants in all of those directions. The options on the top? Combine images, news, whatnot into one "search" heading. Have a simple "search" button, and on the side the "list" button to see the other options. And I think it'd be pretty cool if I was signed into Google on someone else's computer running ol' and shitty Explorer if I could still see my bookmarks... What an interesting system that would be. (Of course, that should only be an option for those with computers that could handle such a system.) The main thing in their toolbar should remain the search bar. Acting like the omni-box of Chrome. If you type in: alligatormagazine.com - it just goes there. If you type in imdb.com *tab* then you are set to search imdb.... or at least let that work for Google's own services (image *tab* and you will search images; plus *tab* and you search plus; maps *tab* and you are searching maps)


Whew. That's just a dump of crapp information. Let's break it down a bit. Here's my basic idea:

Google's homepage could look pretty much like Chrome. I like Chrome's set-up. It is clean as Mac, really, and more customizable, and easy to use even for those who don't tinker with their computers endlessly. Replace the navigation tools (back/forward/reload/etc) on the left side of the "OmniBox!" with their logo; replace the tabs on the top with their services, similar to what they have now: +you, search, images, etc.... Under the search, are your own bookmarks (provided you are logged in and want them, on the right are the google sharing tools and options/settings menu. It is ever so slightly annoying to me that my name is in one place, separated by "share", and then some little logo that is supposed to represent me. If I click on my name, it is the same as clicking on the symbol, yet they are far apart... Instead, where +you is, there could be your logo. And that dialog when you click on it. Combine the dialog of Chrome and that of general Google. Next to it, is your name, and that would take you straight to Google Plus.

Within the search box there could be a little box telling you what you are searching. Google? Images? Plus? Contacts? Mail? Drive? Docs? Calendar? All of that. If you click on it, then you get a drop down menu of options. What search engine do you wish to use? It should always be there, to tell the user what is being used currently. If they type a new engine and press tab (ala Chrome), then it will change. But they could use their mouse as well. This would remove the need to have a bar on the left full of the search type options. That screen space could be used for something else. Yay, small screen computing. The search engine that would be used would be where you are. And they could be ordered with what that user uses most.

I notice that the search bar is gone here on Blogger. That breaks the consistency.

There are two versions of Google Contacts - one in mail, and one independent. Why?

Calendar could be integrated with Plus and events, but have those two ways of looking at them.

Elegance is important. So it would take a little fine-tuning. But if it is integrating and unifying, the effort would be well worth it.

Anyway, hope you're listenin', Google.

I wanted to draw a picture, but, well, I'm running out of time. It's pretty clear in my head, but my description is pretty rambly. If there is anyone out there who would like clarification or to discuss it.... well, like I said, I just kind of think of control systems.

I've got one for Apple too, and their calendaring and reminding system if they want to give me an offer!

Negative Reciprocity

I was walking past the world trade center the other day. It's monolithic black and chrome lettering and fountains and beauty in the middle of Denver.

It occurred to me how baffling it is that people don't realize that negative reciprocity not only exists, but is soundly understood by, well, anyone who wished to study it.

Economics can be described by several different systems. Some of them are called "reciprocal" and some of them are not. While it is nice to think, "anytime people trade, both get richer and the world gets richer therefore!" that is awfully unrealistic.

The simple concept of profit is, really, the opposite of that. We cannot have a concept such as Profit and not realize that someone is not becoming richer. Someone is getting a lot more rich than someone else. Our economic system is, by definition, a Negative Reciprocity system. By design, there are winners and losers. There are those who profit and those who are taken advantage of. It is designed so that everyone tries to get the most possible profit from every transaction as possible. Not for their own well being, not so that they can stay alive, make other trades, and keep the system going. But so that they can get more than their trading buddy.

That is profit. That is negative reciprocity. That is the system we have.

And that does, actually, mean that people get screwed. Sorry.

Adam Smith's model trade where both profit is defined as a "Reciprocal" economic system. Which is usually exemplified by bartering. Usually. In this system, both trade for what they need, both benefit. No one comes out with "more" than the other person, per se.

We Are The 47% (And so are You)

I was a little tired this morning; almost slept in so long that I didn't have work... but I got up, hurriedly ate breakfast, and got out the door. But between stepping out of my bed and stepping out of my home, I read the big graphic on the front of the newspaper:

"I know some believe government should take from some to give to the others. ...I think that's an entirely foreign concept." read the quote in the Denver Post. Attributed to that famously wealthy tax-exempt presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

I couldn't help but smile and laugh. That's my reaction to a lot of life. I shook my head, of course it is a foreign concept!

Robin Hood was not an American. Prince John was not the phony king of Boston. Yet both of these archetypes took money from one type of person to give it (or "redistribute" it) to some other type of person. Robin Hood (strictly speaking not "government") took from the fabulously over-wealthy and gave it to the suffering poor. Prince John created the suffering poor by hoarding all the wealth in the nation...

I cannot help but be struck by the modern parallel. Robin Hood is a good parable for our modern world. And perhaps France would not have had their bloodshed in the 1790s if they had paid more attention to the Robin Hood myth.... Or maybe that's just my own fanciful thinking.

It may be a foreign concept, but 'wealth redistribution' (as loaded and veritably anti-understood as the term is) has as much application in America as it has everywhere. It has application everywhere. Every when, even. With exception to tiny, family-size societies--where everyone knows everyone else more intimately than most people know their children--there has been a government which manages things such as "wealth"

That is what a government is For!

When I read stories in the newspaper and listen to the antics of our people ("I love our country!" cries the patriot "It's the government I can't stand!" ...?), I wonder.  "What the hell do people thing Government Is?"

What is it? Is government just some strange sports game we play every two years or so like the Olympics? Is it a nuisance? Should we have one at all...? Perhaps not, if we can't even remember what it is there for.

Anyone?

The answer I always thought is that government is there to manage. It is there to keep people acting as a family even though we do not know each other. Even though we don't have any closer relation to each other than we fit within the imaginary boarders of our country. It is for banding us together to face common obstacles, to give our common point, to help us utilize the power of our own being in the face of a global population exceeding 7 billion now.

Next challenge question: Is there a Government in the History of the World that hasn't done some redistributing? I challenge anyone to find one. Wealth Redistribution is NOT about stealing from the wealthy, it is about responsibility. No one lives and works in a vacuum. No one is alone. No one is entirely self-made.

No one.

We need each other no matter how much anyone seems to think they are better off alone. The sad thing is that so many of the people you depend on in your life are very far away and most of them you will never meet. But they have helped make a world you and I can survive in. We are not alone. Give thanks and be a little humble. And all those comments that float around about businessmen not building alone are only mean that. The United States of America isn't old enough to have come up with redistribution, so, yes, technically it is a "foreign concept." One could argue that it is an alien concept.... for what religion on earth doesn't charge people with giving and sharing. All those wonderful lessons from Kindergarten.

And once again, we must remember The L Curve.

....I could go on, but I would arrive at ranting stage and no one would want to continue reading what I have to say. But every argument tends to circle back on each other, so I'm sure I'll talk more about it again.

Probably tomorrow.