Disclaimer: Chris Leonard is not an engineer, but he plays one on CR4.
Actually, I'm what you would call a "technology professional." I'm an editor and technical writer by trade.
I'm interested in the dissemination of information, especially in relation to "Web 2.0", "Nu Media," etc., what ever you want to call it.
I'm going to use this blog to investigate the big questions in the ever changing media landscape: How do we in the early 21st century communicate with each other? What tools do we use? How is language evolving?
How can two people read the same sentence and draw two completely different conclusions?
I also have a soft spot for Cryptozoology and Urban Legends, so I will likely write about them from time to time.
81.
2% of US households have DVD players, 79.2% - VCR machines Top Christmas gifts this year: digital cameras, cell phones, MP3 players Video ads market shares: Yahoo! - 24%, TimeWarner - 14%, Microsoft - 11.
4%, Viacom - 8.5% These numbers are not small trends, they signal that a major shift has already taken place. Electronics, video-on-demand, mobile communication are all an accepted, normal part of life.
Not just that, they are pervasive. For me, I'm on my home computer (after work) 2-3 hours, I order movies from NetFlix (no more video store), I watch videos on YouTube for entertainment, and I haven't touched a newspaper in six months, but read more news than ever before..
.But very little of this has to do with "work".
So how does this carry over into the workplace?
Not as much as you would think...
With the trends above, the familiarity that the normal worker has with technology, and all the talk of Web 2.0 and people based media; you would think that there would be more advancement. I throw this question out to the CR4 community, because as technical professionals, we should be pacing this change.
Why is the technical market so slow to adopt Web 2.0 practices? How can this expansion of technology use be refocused to improve the technical market and the workplace?
I saw this weekend. It was a very thought provoking movie about obsession, illusion, and the depths to which two men will sink to perpetuate revenge upon each other. In the movie, Rupert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) play rival magicians in turn of the century London.
My aim here isn't to review the movie, but to talk about the portrayal of Nikola Tesla and science. Now I have to admit that I am not particularly knowledgeable about Tesla, but he is painted in stark contrast to the "magicians" of the time. Both Angier and Borden work to perfect their respective versions of their great trick, "The Transformed Man", but in both cases, it isn't magic that they use, but sleight of hand and showmanship.
Tesla (as portrayed by David Bowie) on the other hand is presented as a true magician. It is through his scientific knowledge that the magic flows; his ability to electrify Colorado Springs, or illuminating a field of lightbulbs without wires, to the disconcerting crackles of energy produced by his "Telsa" coils. Yet at the same time, he is obsessively driven by science in the same way that Angier and Borden "live" magic.
And his own rivalry with Edison is demonstrated as a counterpoint to that of the two magicians, with similarly destructive results.
So is science, in the end, magic?
Hollywood would have you think so, as the machine Tesla builds for Angier; upon which the final act turns, simply cannot exist.
So has anyone else seen The Prestige? Even with the Tesla character as a science fiction creation, I would give it a thumbs up, B+, a fresh tomato, whatever rating system you use as a scale.
I just picked up a few pounds of high quality marinated chicken breast at a local butcher.
I paid just $1.99/lb for them. Since this was an especially good deal, I told a few co-workers about it and we got to talking about how inexpensive chicken has been of late.
One of my knowledgeable co-workers stated that the increased demand for chicken wings served during football games (American Football that is) brings down the price of the rest of the chicken.
It makes sense, since each chicken only offers up 4 wing pieces and most restaurants serve them by the dozen. For every dozen wings served, 3 chickens meet their maker.
When I watch the Colts with three of my friends on a given Sunday, 6-8 dozen wings are devoured; that's 18 to 24 chickens that have to be processed just to make wings for us.
Keep in mind, the lowly wing was once a cast away piece of meat, usually meant for the stock pot. It wasn't until the mid-1960s that the "chicken wing" as we know it was born.
Prior to this, (actually prior to the 1980s when chicken wings really caught on), the wing was really inexpensive and the number of slaughtered chickens in the US easily covered the demand for wings. The market has apparently reversed.
So,
1) Can anyone verify the claim of lower chicken prices during football season?
As above, I was able to produce a rationale, but not necessarily proof.
2) Can anyone think of a similar situation where a once throwaway item becomes more important than the premium commodity, thereby driving down the price of the whole (or at least requisite parts)?
A British version of the board game Monopoly will no longer come with fake money.
Instead, each player will be given . Instead of having a "banker", players will simply swipe their debit cards to add or subtract from their accounts. US-based Hasbro, Inc.
, is planning a similar change in the not too distant future.
Although it makes sense in today's society (I admit, I rarely use paper money), I'm saddended to hear this. There is value in teaching children how money works, especially the act of personally counting money to cover costs and exacting change.
Simply swiping a card removes the most valuable educational aspect from the game.
And the game will certainly lose something, with no one imaginatively stating "wouldn't it be great if all this money were real!"
In another life I worked as a wine importer, taster and distributor.
If not for a paranoid, significantly insane boss, with little sense for business, I may not be involved with CR4.
I'm well aware of the "mood enhancing" medicinal value of wine, but have always been skeptical of claims that it is truly "good for you". We've been told that the skins of red grapes are great for lowering cholesterol, thinning blood, staving off cancer, etc.
, but I just don't buy it.
Apparently, humans aren't the only ones for whom wine is beneficial. According to a spokesman from the Budapest Zoo, .
No hard science (or even soft) presented. Simply that it's "good for them". No doubt, they're happy monkeys, especially since they have tea time as well, but healthier, well.
..
GlobalSpec, the GlobalSpec logo, SpecSearch, The Engineering Search Engine and The Engineering Web are registered trademarks of GlobalSpec, Inc.
CR4 and Conference Room 4 are service marks of GlobalSpec, Inc.
News RSS