My friend Emilie forwarded me this opinion piece from the NY Times. In it, the former first lady of Peru argues that ~350 artifacts recovered from Maccu Picchu in the early 20th century and that are currently housed at Yale should be returned to Peru. Basically, the artifacts were only supposed to be on a 1.5 year loan, but here we are over a half-century later and Yale doesn't want to return them. It's interesting the level of negotiations involved, too... US Senators, Peruvian ambassadors, and even the National Geographic Society (which sides with Peru... yay!).
This sort of thing is a common occurrence... colonialism saw the extraction from the developing world of not just material wealth but cultural wealth as well. And usually the rich countries who now house those artifacts don't want to return them. I believe there's a long-standing row between Egypt and England over this very topic.
As for as I'm concerned, why not scan the originals, make replicas for your exhibits, and then send the originals back home? That way you don't disrupt your current exhibits, and the indigenous folks get some of the artifacts of their heritage back. That seems fair to me. Hell, why not create an active research partnership between (in this case) Yale and a university in Peru (Cuzco or Lima), and conduct some joint studies? That way everyone has access to the artifacts, and Yale can ensure that they're properly cared for, and local archaeologists can get facetime with bigwigs at an Ivy League school. Seems like a fair solution to me.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Blu-Ray wins the VHS-Beta fight of this century
FYI... in case you've been sitting back and wondering whether to spend $500 on that new HD-DVD player or $500 on a PS3/Blu-Ray... wonder no more. The format war that's been raging for the last few years around the next generation of DVDs has ended. Toshiba's HD-DVD is giving up, conceding victory to Sony's Blu-Ray.
A full story can be found on zdnet here: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6230960.html.
A full story can be found on zdnet here: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6230960.html.
Damn taxes
So I did my taxes yesterday... I know I know, you're wondering where the real Graeme is and what I've done with him, since I never do anything ahead of the last possible minute, and it's still 2 months before taxes are due so what the hell is going on... but I did them. Get over it.
If it's any consolation, I haven't actually filed them just yet... I don't like the results so I want to go back over them in a couple days, but not until I've donated money to charity, and saved some drowning puppies, and pulled 40 nuns from a burning schoolbus. I figure a lightning-fast karma arms race might serve to re-align the tax stars and get those amounts I owe down to a more reasonable level.
So yeah... I paid $10k in tuition out of pocket for Presidio last year (ok, I actually took out an unsubsidized Stafford loan, but that's still effectively out of my pockets), but none of it is deductible. I can't take the Lifetime Learning credit of $2k/year, either. Instead, I owe a net of $1k to the US and Cali, mostly because of ESPP sales. Though I made those sales at a profit, so really I still came out on top. But you forget you have to pay taxes on that stuff a year later, and lord knows I never set aside the amount in anticipation of having to do so... so it's a surprise, even though it shouldn't be. Blah.
But I think the reality of it all is that I do well for myself, and I can afford to pay my taxes AND pay for tuition. And I'm still able to sock some away for my future family, and to help take care of my parents and sister and cousins et al, if needed... so... thank you engineering undergrad and University of Illinois for getting me where I am today. Oh, and the public school system. =P
So in the end, I'm not going to complain. The US needs the money more than I do... sorta... minus the war in Iraq.
If it's any consolation, I haven't actually filed them just yet... I don't like the results so I want to go back over them in a couple days, but not until I've donated money to charity, and saved some drowning puppies, and pulled 40 nuns from a burning schoolbus. I figure a lightning-fast karma arms race might serve to re-align the tax stars and get those amounts I owe down to a more reasonable level.
So yeah... I paid $10k in tuition out of pocket for Presidio last year (ok, I actually took out an unsubsidized Stafford loan, but that's still effectively out of my pockets), but none of it is deductible. I can't take the Lifetime Learning credit of $2k/year, either. Instead, I owe a net of $1k to the US and Cali, mostly because of ESPP sales. Though I made those sales at a profit, so really I still came out on top. But you forget you have to pay taxes on that stuff a year later, and lord knows I never set aside the amount in anticipation of having to do so... so it's a surprise, even though it shouldn't be. Blah.
But I think the reality of it all is that I do well for myself, and I can afford to pay my taxes AND pay for tuition. And I'm still able to sock some away for my future family, and to help take care of my parents and sister and cousins et al, if needed... so... thank you engineering undergrad and University of Illinois for getting me where I am today. Oh, and the public school system. =P
So in the end, I'm not going to complain. The US needs the money more than I do... sorta... minus the war in Iraq.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The moral relativism of Sustainability
OK, the following is a post I made in my school forums for my Operations class. It was written in response to an article written by John Ehrenfeld in Vol 44, No 2 of the October 2000 publication of American Behavioral Scientist, called "Industrial Ecology: Paradigm Shift or Normal Science?," from which I've also drawn the inserted Figure 1 (which I will pull if requested by the author or his agents). The reason I like my post is because of the moral relativism argument I make about the current sustainability movement. Now, to be fair, I'm a full-fledged member of said movement and I absolutely advocate freezing the world at its current state (or even rewinding a couple decades). But my points are still valid... I've just made peace with the selfishness of my choices. ;)
So from here on out is my post...
I want to focus on the two components of the article that really impacted me. The first was the 4 graphs he used to illustrate fundamental behaviors of complex systems. I thought this was absolutely fascinating. I respond well to formulas and graphs, because they methodically illustrate a point that can otherwise be difficult to explain. Ehrenfeld uses those 4 graphs to explain how fundamental characteristics of a system can drive the exact same starting conditions into 4 wildly different results. And when you use those graphs to model our macroeconomic system, it becomes clear how critical it is that our economy be properly constrained to avoid a catastrophic crash (akin to his point on extinction).
He talked about how the system has to have signals that can be recognized quickly enough by a control system that can react quickly enough. If the signals are too slow or are unclear, or the control system is too slow to react, then the system will crash out. And this is exactly what we at Presidio fear is happening. We can see that signals aren't clear enough to drive unanimous action by society. And even if they were, our control systems (governments, corporate boards, NGOs) are too slow, too divided, or too powerless to react quickly. And on top of that, there are enough people who believe our macroeconomic model fundamentally looks more like any of the other 3. So most of us here at Presidio might look at all of this and think, oh great, we're screwed. And screwed we may be, but hey, at least we've got a great way to represent it all graphically.
The other neat part of the article was Ehrenfeld's discussion of what he saw as a radical paradigm shift, which he eventually suggests is embodied by industrial ecology. It's not the idea itself that industrial ecology is the new paradigm that I found intriguing. No, instead I was drawn in by this discussion of the very definition of sustainability. He makes it clear that sustainability isn't a technological or economic state of being, but actually a moral choice made by the agglomeration of moral actors in society (e.g. all of us). Some people may react with a "well, duh." But I'm not latching onto the superficial definition of morality here. He's talking about something far deeper than making a moral choice to not drive a car, or to eat vegan, or to never brush your teeth again so as to avoid wasting plastics and toothpaste.
No, he's stating that we are making a moral choice about the kind of world we want to persist indefinitely. Ultimately, as the only self-aware beings on the planet with the ability to effect massive global change, we can choose the state in which we want the world to exist, and then we can freeze it there indefinitely. When we talk about sustainability today, we talk about preserving the world as it stands, with its polar bears and spotted owls and temperate Europe and unflooded coastal zones. But that's a moral choice. We've already vastly impacted this planet; why would we choose to freeze it as it is now? Why not try to rewind to a pre-industrial America and freeze that? Or fast-forward to a Europe covered in glaciers and freeze that? Or ride it out for 500 more years and then freeze whatever post-apocalyptic wasteland exists at that point?
The point is that we're making a moral choice to freeze things where they are today. Is it the right choice? To us it seems like it is. But Native Americans, buffalo, and North American elms and chestnuts might disagree. They'd likely all prefer a world frozen at year 1400 development. And people who own property at 50 ft above sea level might really prefer we wait until the ice caps melt before we freeze things. And on top of all that, there are people who won't want to freeze at all, because it's too hard, or because they just don't care if the world as it exists persists indefinitely, because they place no moral value on future generations, or assume that those future people will adapt and live just fine with whatever they've got (just as we have!!).
So all of us trying to push for a freeze should be aware of exactly what it is we're doing: we're making a very selfish moral choice. Our decision to sustain our current world is not an absolute in the realm of morality. It is highly relative. It's relative to our personal preferences, our personal histories, our personal biases. We don't want to roll back North America to the year 1400 because we live here and don't want to leave. But we do want to freeze the world as it is now because we like Florida and our coastal cities, and we like polar bears and spotted owls and forests and a de-iced Europe. But the cold hard truth is that there's nothing inherently more valuable about any of the things we like than there is about the unspoiled Great Plains or the un-touched Great Northeastern Forest.
So think about that. Get comfortable with your selfishness. And then go out and save the world that you know and love, and say goodbye and that you're terribly sorry to all of the infinite other possible worlds whose existence you're denying. For all you know, they're better than the one you're choosing. ;)
So from here on out is my post...
I want to focus on the two components of the article that really impacted me. The first was the 4 graphs he used to illustrate fundamental behaviors of complex systems. I thought this was absolutely fascinating. I respond well to formulas and graphs, because they methodically illustrate a point that can otherwise be difficult to explain. Ehrenfeld uses those 4 graphs to explain how fundamental characteristics of a system can drive the exact same starting conditions into 4 wildly different results. And when you use those graphs to model our macroeconomic system, it becomes clear how critical it is that our economy be properly constrained to avoid a catastrophic crash (akin to his point on extinction).
He talked about how the system has to have signals that can be recognized quickly enough by a control system that can react quickly enough. If the signals are too slow or are unclear, or the control system is too slow to react, then the system will crash out. And this is exactly what we at Presidio fear is happening. We can see that signals aren't clear enough to drive unanimous action by society. And even if they were, our control systems (governments, corporate boards, NGOs) are too slow, too divided, or too powerless to react quickly. And on top of that, there are enough people who believe our macroeconomic model fundamentally looks more like any of the other 3. So most of us here at Presidio might look at all of this and think, oh great, we're screwed. And screwed we may be, but hey, at least we've got a great way to represent it all graphically.
The other neat part of the article was Ehrenfeld's discussion of what he saw as a radical paradigm shift, which he eventually suggests is embodied by industrial ecology. It's not the idea itself that industrial ecology is the new paradigm that I found intriguing. No, instead I was drawn in by this discussion of the very definition of sustainability. He makes it clear that sustainability isn't a technological or economic state of being, but actually a moral choice made by the agglomeration of moral actors in society (e.g. all of us). Some people may react with a "well, duh." But I'm not latching onto the superficial definition of morality here. He's talking about something far deeper than making a moral choice to not drive a car, or to eat vegan, or to never brush your teeth again so as to avoid wasting plastics and toothpaste.
No, he's stating that we are making a moral choice about the kind of world we want to persist indefinitely. Ultimately, as the only self-aware beings on the planet with the ability to effect massive global change, we can choose the state in which we want the world to exist, and then we can freeze it there indefinitely. When we talk about sustainability today, we talk about preserving the world as it stands, with its polar bears and spotted owls and temperate Europe and unflooded coastal zones. But that's a moral choice. We've already vastly impacted this planet; why would we choose to freeze it as it is now? Why not try to rewind to a pre-industrial America and freeze that? Or fast-forward to a Europe covered in glaciers and freeze that? Or ride it out for 500 more years and then freeze whatever post-apocalyptic wasteland exists at that point?
The point is that we're making a moral choice to freeze things where they are today. Is it the right choice? To us it seems like it is. But Native Americans, buffalo, and North American elms and chestnuts might disagree. They'd likely all prefer a world frozen at year 1400 development. And people who own property at 50 ft above sea level might really prefer we wait until the ice caps melt before we freeze things. And on top of all that, there are people who won't want to freeze at all, because it's too hard, or because they just don't care if the world as it exists persists indefinitely, because they place no moral value on future generations, or assume that those future people will adapt and live just fine with whatever they've got (just as we have!!).
So all of us trying to push for a freeze should be aware of exactly what it is we're doing: we're making a very selfish moral choice. Our decision to sustain our current world is not an absolute in the realm of morality. It is highly relative. It's relative to our personal preferences, our personal histories, our personal biases. We don't want to roll back North America to the year 1400 because we live here and don't want to leave. But we do want to freeze the world as it is now because we like Florida and our coastal cities, and we like polar bears and spotted owls and forests and a de-iced Europe. But the cold hard truth is that there's nothing inherently more valuable about any of the things we like than there is about the unspoiled Great Plains or the un-touched Great Northeastern Forest.
So think about that. Get comfortable with your selfishness. And then go out and save the world that you know and love, and say goodbye and that you're terribly sorry to all of the infinite other possible worlds whose existence you're denying. For all you know, they're better than the one you're choosing. ;)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Cute Overload
I'm not sure why I haven't been sharing these before... CuteOverload.com has some of the cutest freaking animal pictures I've ever seen. So prepare yourself... you're about to get blasted with cuteness. Though... the ones I find cute might be a departure from your own cuteness standards. =D
First off, though... I want to share the following pic. This thing has been cracking my shit up all week... I've even got it as my desktop image right now. Everyone I've shown it to has at least feigned laughter, so I ask that you have the courtesy to do the same (well, the CIO guy didn't... but he seemed pretty humorless and pissy in general so fuck him).
Here are some additional pics... first up, a rat drinking some two-buck chuck. I love rats!!!
Next, a bird and a kitteh making friends. awwww.
Next, some deer trying to convince a cat to let them into the house and out of the snow.
And last, both for me (cause I love squirrels) and for Gretch (cause she hates them), here's a squirrel havin some Mr. Pibb at some guy's desk at work. =D
First off, though... I want to share the following pic. This thing has been cracking my shit up all week... I've even got it as my desktop image right now. Everyone I've shown it to has at least feigned laughter, so I ask that you have the courtesy to do the same (well, the CIO guy didn't... but he seemed pretty humorless and pissy in general so fuck him).
Here are some additional pics... first up, a rat drinking some two-buck chuck. I love rats!!!
Next, a bird and a kitteh making friends. awwww.
Next, some deer trying to convince a cat to let them into the house and out of the snow.
And last, both for me (cause I love squirrels) and for Gretch (cause she hates them), here's a squirrel havin some Mr. Pibb at some guy's desk at work. =D
Monday, February 11, 2008
Writer's Strike Ends!
Ahhhh... this is such good news for tv lovers (like me!). I was getting so freaking sick of reality shows being the only new fare on the tube.
The Writer's Strike is over!! According to the AFL-CIO: "Television and movie writers ended a three-month strike with a new agreement that addresses their key demands: They get paid fairly for their work distributed over the Internet and other new media. The contract also prevents rollbacks to pensions and health care benfits. Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East, and Patric Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West, attribute the strike’s success to the writers’ “physical resolve, determination and perseverance.”"
That's awesome. In most strikes I'm apt to side with the workers, because they're the ones actually doing the work, and meeting their demands usually means little to the bottom line of the parent company in the long run. That's not always true (airlines are a good example), but even in such counter-cases the parent company likely needs to make peace with the fact that it has a labor-intensive cost base and it has to pay fairly if it wants to continue delivering quality services. And some businesses just aren't going to have high margins, by their nature.
But entertainment is not one of those counter-cases. Entertainment has huge margins (as well as colossal failures), and it's just asinine that the major production houses didn't want to share their non-traditional revenue sources with the very people who drive their business. Writers are the heart of it all, and they deserve to share in the massive wealth pulled down by the actors and management. And it looks like that's what they're getting, which is fantastic.
So... yay for the writers! I'm happy 30 Rock and Medium and Eureka and BSG and everything else I love to watch will be coming back. I know it'll be a little while before new eps are ready, but me and my tivo will be waiting, Hollywood! So get on it!!!
The Writer's Strike is over!! According to the AFL-CIO: "Television and movie writers ended a three-month strike with a new agreement that addresses their key demands: They get paid fairly for their work distributed over the Internet and other new media. The contract also prevents rollbacks to pensions and health care benfits. Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East, and Patric Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West, attribute the strike’s success to the writers’ “physical resolve, determination and perseverance.”"
That's awesome. In most strikes I'm apt to side with the workers, because they're the ones actually doing the work, and meeting their demands usually means little to the bottom line of the parent company in the long run. That's not always true (airlines are a good example), but even in such counter-cases the parent company likely needs to make peace with the fact that it has a labor-intensive cost base and it has to pay fairly if it wants to continue delivering quality services. And some businesses just aren't going to have high margins, by their nature.
But entertainment is not one of those counter-cases. Entertainment has huge margins (as well as colossal failures), and it's just asinine that the major production houses didn't want to share their non-traditional revenue sources with the very people who drive their business. Writers are the heart of it all, and they deserve to share in the massive wealth pulled down by the actors and management. And it looks like that's what they're getting, which is fantastic.
So... yay for the writers! I'm happy 30 Rock and Medium and Eureka and BSG and everything else I love to watch will be coming back. I know it'll be a little while before new eps are ready, but me and my tivo will be waiting, Hollywood! So get on it!!!
Slacker!!
So I've totally been slacking on this blog thing, eh. And there's been so much to talk about!!! The primaries alone... oy vey, so much crap I could dish. And my personal life... I may have met my future husband, for one (no big whoop, right)... and I've got the plague again... and work and school and life in general... sheesh.
Anyways... I'm gonna try to get back to it... there may be a bit of a flood this week as I push through the backlog of interesting shite to share... but hang in there and I'll work my way back to what's apparently the norm of like a post every couple days. =D
Anyways... I'm gonna try to get back to it... there may be a bit of a flood this week as I push through the backlog of interesting shite to share... but hang in there and I'll work my way back to what's apparently the norm of like a post every couple days. =D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
