3.9.09 by Cypy + 2 comments!
I have always been fascinated with the way things around me worked. As a child, I wanted to take everything apart and look inside to see the gears. Fortunately for me, there were plenty of broken appliances around our house that I could peer inside. Our piano was old and falling apart, so I was able to open the front and play with the mallets and strings. I replaced a nightlight bulb twice: first by unscrewing the lamp and taking the cover off, and second (years later) by cutting the metal cover that encased the bulb, and bending it out of place. Apparently I forgot there were screws on the side. Just recently I disassembled an old printer and several old telephones. I also remember taking apart a stuffed animal (carefully, with a seam-ripper) removing his stuffing, and re-filling him with other things.
In the “good old days” (cliche alert!), everything was made to be taken apart and fixed. Now, more and more products adopt circuit boards, batteries, and seal their insides with glue instead of screws. Even computers, which have always had circuit boards with tiny chips, have become more difficult to disassemble as they have gradually shrunk in size. I’d be a fool to attempt to take apart my laptop without breaking it.
I am concerned that the more “advanced” our products become, the less we will understand them, because if you can’t open it, you don’t own it.
3.5.09 by Cypy + 77 comments!
The way our economy works, consumers buy products from privately owned businesses, and these businesses try to make money. One way for a business to make as much money as possible, is to sell as much of their product as possible. To ensure that people buy their product, businesses tend to make what consumers want, and they also tend to compete with each other for the better product. Competition and quality products are both good effects of our economic model, but, unfortunately for consumers, there are other not-so-friendly ways for businesses to make money.
For a moment, think about large appliances: refrigerators, ovens, washing machines. All of these appliances have long lifespans, so people tend to buy them less often than more disposable products such as toothbrushes. Businesses make more money if they sell more products, so from an economic standpoint, it is good to make products that have short lifespans, and that people will buy more often. This seems to encourage disposable and short-lived products. At first thought, it would seem that a business that makes junky products that only last half as long as their competitor’s would not survive, but the methods businesses maximize the frequency that their products are bought are sometimes difficult to detect.
Take, for instance, the computer business. Computers are relatively short-lived.
Why?
Because older computers can’t run the latest software, and thus aren’t compatible with newer ones.
Why?
Because newer software runs slowly on old computers.
Why?
Because newer software has high resolution graphics that requires computers to be faster.
Why?
Because without fancy graphics, not as many people would buy the new software, and no one would buy new computers because the new software would run just dandily on their old ones. Computer companies need to sell software that takes up more space, and requires fast computers, or they won’t be able to make money off of computer hardware.
Another example of a frequent-purchase strategy is the printer business. Printers are very cheap. Printer companies actually sell them for LESS than they are worth, just to compete. A $100 printer, might cost Canon or HP $120 to manufacture. How do they make money this way? Simple: they sell ink. Printers cost a lot of money to make. People don’t buy printers very often. People usually only have one printer. Ink is very cheap to make. People buy ink all the time. People usually need to buy more than one ink cartridge. The printer companies capitalize on this by selling very small amounts of very cheap ink for very high prices. They can still compete with each other by lowering the cost of the initial investment: the printer itself. Buying a printer is like subscribing to a cellphone service. The company is willing to give a phone away for free, simply so they can have another customer paying monthly bills. The money isn’t in the long-term machinery of the printer, but printer companies have made a disposable-product business out of ink.
1.19.09 by Ruth + 66 comments!
It was published in the New York Times Yesterday, so it must be true.
Apparently, policy change in Washington is all “Yes we can!” and making money in New York is like “No we can’t!” and, as election results prove, people prefer “Yes we can!”
In other interesting news, Bernie Madoff’s frat brothers don’t even remember him.
1.11.09 by Cypy + 94 comments!
Recently, I was cleaning off some bookshelves and I found a treasure trove of old papers I had written back when I was very young. I found one in particular that is fascinating because I spelled almost every word phonetically when I was first learning to write; my parents didn’t emphasize my spelling “properly” until I was about 11, but instead, let me spell words how I wanted. I traveled up to KU with one of my home schooled friends, Walter Morris, and our assignment was to write a story about a painting that featured some morbidly obese people. Here is what I wrote (verbatim):
the pinzon family by Fernando botero
wuns ther wus sum bulbous pepel and a bulbous dog thay wer very hapy then sudently thay relisd that thay shood stort eteing mor leen food but thay wor so udiktid to ther ushuwol ritchuwol that thay nevr did win thay got to fat to wok thay got srvins to kery them but thay soon got way to hevy and thay got even hever so thay had to mak ther flor much stroingr but befor thay kud do ineething thay got so fat thay fel rit aslep
the end
In case you had trouble with any of those words, here is a translation:
The Pinzon Family by Fernando Botero
Once there was some bulbous people and a bulbous dog—they were very happy. Then, suddenly, they realized that they should start eating more lean food, but they were so addicted to there usual ritual that they never did. When they got too fat to walk they got servants to carry them, but they soon got way to heavy (and they got even heavier) so they had to make their floor much stronger, but before they could do anything they got so fat they fell right asleep.
The End
If you are curious, here are some examples of Fernando Botero’s paintings:
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/A-Family-I.html
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/A-Family-Una-Familia.html
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/A-Family-II.html
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/A-Family.html
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/A-Family-III.html
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/Colombian-Family-1999.html
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Fernando-Botero/Family-Scene-1969.html
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=4934
1.5.09 by Ruth + one comment!
I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “In Defense of Suburbia.” I would link you to it here, but the WSJ isn’t free online, which is another reason to prefer the New York Times. The article argued the American culture has a scorn for suburbia (Exhibit A: Revolutionary Road) which is completely unwarranted. The author is right in that we do have a scorn for suburbia, but it isn’t true that it is unwarranted.
The author of this article only caught the superficial objections to suburbia. He correctly observed that although suburbia is visually unnerving, the people who live there aren’t cyborgs. He also noticed that suburbs are also associated with traditional and bad social structures, but they are also fairly compatable with better ones, although he didn’t word that as strongly as I did. He did also say some other stuff, but none of it was memorable enough for me to remember it. So he really made only one good point, which is that suburbanites aren’t cyborgs, which really isn’t that interesting because nobody thought they were really cyborgs anyway. Duh.
However, since their residents aren’t cyborgs, I need another reason to object to the suburbs. That reason is that the suburbs are boring. The suburbs physically seperate people from the things they do, which has more importance than just the gas they waste. In the city I can go shopping or see a movie or ride my bike along the river or any number of other things, and if I want to, I can do them RIGHT NOW. In the suburbs, the most convenient activities are less active, less social, have less potential for adventures, and more likely to be watching television. In the suburbs, you have less reason to walk around the neighborhood because there is nowhere to walk. You need to make a point of it to meet your neighbors. So, author of the article on suburbia whose name I can’t remember and who is probably not out there reading this, that is why I scorn suburbia.