There are two kinds of people that you need to surround yourself with: People that pay you, and people that cost you. Ideally, more people should pay you rather than cost you.
People that pay you
I'm not talking about pure monetary transactions, but rather the ability for people to pay you intellectually, emotionally, and physically (and any other **-ally characteristic). That means someone who pays you in information (no, the Internet does not count), like someone who mentors and guides your life and career.
People that pay you in emotions are those that support and guide you. They are the good friends, best friends, and those that you enjoy having fun with.
Physical payers are those that help your physical needs like work out partners, spouses, inspirational people.
Identify those that pay you, and spend more time with them.
People that cost you
People that cost you are the ones you spend giving out your information, emotions, and the like. These are the people you help build up and create. They also include the ones that can drain you. Those that cost are also anoynomous in nature. Meaning you may not know who is costing you directly. Samples of these people include trash-talking Internet users- those that get you worked up on Facebook, YouTube, or message boards. Or in my case, idiot drivers.
Look at those around you, and see who costs you the most. You want to limit your obligation to protect the pay/cost benefits.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Stupid is as stupid does
Of the news stories I've had the unfortunate occurrence to read/skim, here's my synopsis/one-line recall:
TSA idiot throws coffee at pilot who asked her to mind her language and the N-word.
Toddler drowns in washing machine when mom leaves it for a second.
Multiple traffic violator mother of 3 arrested when texting and hold a baby while driving.
Multiple stories of fast-food rage where the obese "customer" charges an employee, jumps over the counter, or drives their vehicle through the restaurant, just because the eatery is out of chicken nuggets or something just as retarded.
Horrible, horrible decisions made from unfortunate adult advertisements posted on Craigslist.
What I want to know is: What the NERFHERDER is wrong with people? Are they truly that stupid, or has the information age pulled the curtain back, exposing us to the stupidity our society is capable of?
Monday, April 9, 2012
Drivers make me want to punch a bunny.
Why are there people that can't figure out how to drive? It isn't that hard once you have a few years of driving under your belt.
An old man in an Audi A8 takes a wide left, moving from the inside lane to the outside lane on a two-lane left turn lane. No signal, no look, nothing.
Teenage girl moves into the far right lane over a solid white line where the new lane is. Nevermind the fact it's my lane, and I'm there. She doesn't check and crosses right over, and I had to slam on the brakes. If I had an old crappy car, I would've let her crush the front end of my car and promptly flip her on her lid.
More often than not, in my experience, crappy drivers aren't always driving crappy cars. They have nice ones. The new Acura TSX/TL/MDX, Mercedes Benz SUVs, BMW 5/7 series, etc. I've come to expect crappy cars will be driven horribly, because they're crappy cars. But with nice luxury cars I've never expected to have horrible drivers. But now I do.
An old man in an Audi A8 takes a wide left, moving from the inside lane to the outside lane on a two-lane left turn lane. No signal, no look, nothing.
Teenage girl moves into the far right lane over a solid white line where the new lane is. Nevermind the fact it's my lane, and I'm there. She doesn't check and crosses right over, and I had to slam on the brakes. If I had an old crappy car, I would've let her crush the front end of my car and promptly flip her on her lid.
More often than not, in my experience, crappy drivers aren't always driving crappy cars. They have nice ones. The new Acura TSX/TL/MDX, Mercedes Benz SUVs, BMW 5/7 series, etc. I've come to expect crappy cars will be driven horribly, because they're crappy cars. But with nice luxury cars I've never expected to have horrible drivers. But now I do.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A favorite quote of mine
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.." - Ian Malcom, Jurassic Park
I love this phrase from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. In context, a mathmatician (or chaostician, if Ian had anything to say about it) argues that scientific power requires no strong disciple for using that power, just because it's available. To apply it to today's standards, sure, you can definitely post that video of last week's party on Facebook and YouTube, but should you?
That's an example of gross oversimplication, because the should/could argument can apply to very complex decisions. And it's something that is grounded in some morality, not just pure discovery. Just because we have the technology, ability, and knowledge, to create something, that does not mean it's something that should be done. Our goals, morals, and laws dictate the should/could decision. In absence of laws, our own morality will provide direction.
I've often thought of many things that fall in the should/could bucket. I've been involved with should/could decisions. Inside me I knew what the right choice was, even though others around me didn't. Too many people focus on the "we could" because it can be new, thrilling, and something "no one's done before!" Perhaps no one has done it before because it's not something that should be done.
I love this phrase from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. In context, a mathmatician (or chaostician, if Ian had anything to say about it) argues that scientific power requires no strong disciple for using that power, just because it's available. To apply it to today's standards, sure, you can definitely post that video of last week's party on Facebook and YouTube, but should you?
That's an example of gross oversimplication, because the should/could argument can apply to very complex decisions. And it's something that is grounded in some morality, not just pure discovery. Just because we have the technology, ability, and knowledge, to create something, that does not mean it's something that should be done. Our goals, morals, and laws dictate the should/could decision. In absence of laws, our own morality will provide direction.
I've often thought of many things that fall in the should/could bucket. I've been involved with should/could decisions. Inside me I knew what the right choice was, even though others around me didn't. Too many people focus on the "we could" because it can be new, thrilling, and something "no one's done before!" Perhaps no one has done it before because it's not something that should be done.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I see what you did here.
From IMDB.com:
Whoever thought that Watchmen would pull huge numbers is not bright. Watchmen isn't a comic book that's been around for decades with multiple iterations. It's not a franchise like Superman, Batman, or X-Men. It's one graphic novel. From the 80s. With limited readers. There are no generational ties with Watchmen. At least not to the extent of said comic books.
Trying to compare Watchmen to 300 isn't justified either. Same director, sure, but did movie heads compare Schindler's List to Jurassic Park just because they were directed by Steven? No. While 300 was a technical achievement, Watchmen isn't. There isn't anything groundbreaking in Watchmen; it's just another adaptation.
Also, Watchmen was presented as a superhero tale, very dark, and very violent. I would venture a guess to say the general populace saw the previews and thought, "Hmm. Looks like an X-Men rip-off movie. That's dumb."
Lack of identity with the characters and source material should have been the first clue to the movie heads. Throw in the non-Watchmen movie goers who don't really understand the theme, and you have more non-recommendations.
Watchmen: When A Win May Be A Loss
Although it took in $55.2 million at the weekend box-office, the news for Warner Bros.' Watchmen wasn't all that good. After reports came in of heavy pre-opening ticket sales on Internet sites, a theater count of 3,611 and a screen count of about 7,500, analysts had expected it to come close to or even exceed the $71-million opening gross for the previous Zach Snyder fantasy thriller 300. Moreover, sales fell off precipitously on Saturday and Sunday (the movie took in almost half its gross on Friday, including midnight screenings), and some pundits saw the result as an indication that the movie's appeal was limited to young adults who were fans of the graphic novel on which it was based. (Warner Bros. said that 65 percent of the audience was male and 54 percent older than 25.) They predicted that the movie, which some said had cost as much as $200 million to produce, would take a big tumble next weekend.
Whoever thought that Watchmen would pull huge numbers is not bright. Watchmen isn't a comic book that's been around for decades with multiple iterations. It's not a franchise like Superman, Batman, or X-Men. It's one graphic novel. From the 80s. With limited readers. There are no generational ties with Watchmen. At least not to the extent of said comic books.
Trying to compare Watchmen to 300 isn't justified either. Same director, sure, but did movie heads compare Schindler's List to Jurassic Park just because they were directed by Steven? No. While 300 was a technical achievement, Watchmen isn't. There isn't anything groundbreaking in Watchmen; it's just another adaptation.
Also, Watchmen was presented as a superhero tale, very dark, and very violent. I would venture a guess to say the general populace saw the previews and thought, "Hmm. Looks like an X-Men rip-off movie. That's dumb."
Lack of identity with the characters and source material should have been the first clue to the movie heads. Throw in the non-Watchmen movie goers who don't really understand the theme, and you have more non-recommendations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)