Convenience: a specious generalization and a specific rumination, joined by the caprices of my mind

Convenience is the problem.

When humans had to run after giraffes in a hunt or wander around all day gathering nuts and berries we had motivation; there was no option other than an active lifestyle (applying modern terms).  I doubt humans stood in place performing exercises in order to stay in shape.  They may have practiced the techniques used while hunting, but that wasn't because they felt they needed to lose a few pounds.

Now our food is brought to us from industrial farms on trucks and we only need make occasional trips to the supermarket, with the only exertion involving lifting the bags from the cart to the car, and then from the car in to the kitchen.  Heck, we can even place an order and have food brought to us without even having to leave and lift bags in and out of the car.  It's entirely possible to make a living with a sedentary lifestyle.  Heck, to make a living with a physically active lifestyle tends to indicate one makes less than some of those with the aforementioned sedentary kind.

And yet, somehow contemporary humans live much longer than our prehistoric ancestors, in large part to the work performed by those leading the less-active lives and the advances with science and medicine.

That, and we don't tend to be attacked by wild animals as much.

~

Convenience is the solution.

Back when I had a CD Walkman my method of listening to it while riding the train was as follows:  At the beginning of the trek I'd attach the headphones, start it playing whatever disc I had in it, then put it in a small case and set that down in a pocket of the bag down below the seat, by my feet.  The cord of the headphones was long enough to stretch from my ears to near the floor (at least when I was seated), but occasionally it would catch on something or I'd turn my head too far and either my head would be pulled back or the cord would come out (and I'd need to go and re-attach it).  If the volume of a song was too loud I'd have to reach down, pull the case from the bag, pull the device from the case, and adjust the sound.  If later songs were then too low… well, you get the idea.  If the train operator made an announcement and I needed to stop the disc, same deal (generally I could only remove the headphones quickly enough to hear).  If the disc playing reached the end, again it involved going down in to the bag.  And if the batteries on the player died, it involved taking everything out—including the CD itself, as the battery compartment was underneath there.

Now I have an iPod Nano that I keep in my shirt pocket.  If I need to change the volume I can swipe the wheel through the fabric without even taking it out.  If I need to pause, that too can be done through the shirt.  And there's always more songs than I can listen to in a commute.

I like that.

And I admit:  It's convenient.

I'm not saying iPods are perfect or anything, but generally I am pleased with the aforementioned aspects of their operation, especially relative to the corresponding functionality with portable CD players.

Bravo, technology. In this one particular instance.

Idling

One morning last week, as I walked to the office, I passed a car parked by the curb with someone inside. The motor was running. I couldn't tell what the occupant was doing, but the car did not move the entire it was in sight.

The reason this is at all noteworthy: On the side was the logo "AQMD." That is, it was a company car for the Air Quality Management District, sitting there, spewing pollution.

Just something I idly noticed.

Pushing it out: Feeling better by feeling worse

Something that years of being involved with the implementation of new software on the computers of hundreds of people in the organization where I work has suggested is this:  Unless the new thing is flawless, is without any issues, is in every possible way better than what they had before, then people will want to keep what they had before.  No matter how problem-ridden the previous application had been, people will complain about the new application that replaced it, even if the new one has marked improvements and fewer problems.  In short, people take comfort in the imperfection with which they are familiar; it is to what they are accustomed, and with what they can deal, even if dealing with it required extra work.

The other thing that the long view of experience has shown me:  After the change has been implemented and time passes and people get used to the new stuff—and accept it for what it is and not complain about what it is not—there will come a time where that itself needs to be replaced again; a new version comes out, or the company that made the old one goes out of business, or outside circumstances change sufficiently that the process of change must occur again to accommodate the way the larger situation has developed.  And when that time comes where that second thing that replaced the first thing is to be replaced by a third thing, the people who complained about the second thing back when it was new will be its staunchest defenders; much as they despised the second thing when it replaced the first, after having no choice but to give it a chance and then getting used to it, they will then complain the loudest about having the second thing taken away when the third thing replaces it.

The other lesson:  These complainers may be the most vocal, but ultimately they are a minority; the majority just want something to get the job done, and will just roll with the changes as long as they don't actively interfere with getting the job done.  Those who are inclined to complain will complain; it's what they do.  That's not saying their complaints are completely invalid, or should be dismissed out of hand, but they should not be considered as representing the majority.

~

What made me think about the above was not a particular incident at the office but seeing the way the debate regarding the proposed changes to the health care system, and the way that those protesting vociferously get the most attention in the media.

It sort of strikes me as something we've heard before, and, years from now, when the universal health care bill that gets passed will be amended or revised to account for changing times, will be something we'll hear again.

Hawaii in photos

In case you haven't checked out the photo site recently (and after I posted essentially nothing in June or July who could blame you?), I wanted to take a moment to alert readers who may want a break from all this text that a number of new posts have appeared over there recently. And what did they feature?

Hawaii!  (click on the link to see the entire series). Or to be more accurate: Hawai'i! The Big Island, to be specific. (That's where the wife and I went on our honeymoon, and believe it or not, there were some photos taken that could be shared with the general public. Or at least with you.)

There were a few shots of green sea turtles, like this one:


And a series of posts from our trek through the middle of the island along what's known as Saddle Road, starting from the western part.

And then detouring up the Mauna Kea Road, through the clouds...

Then up to the area around the Mauna Kea Visitor Information Center.

Where they had a telescope set up, pointing at the sun.

More to come...

The Per-since-tence of Memory: The "50 Concerts" meme

The Facebook note in which I was tagged included this opening text:
"OK, here are the rules. Test your memory and your love of live music by listing 50 artists or bands (or as many as you can remember) you've seen in concert. List the first 50 acts that come into your head. An act you saw at a festival and opening acts count, but only if you can't think of 50 other artists. Oh, and list the first concert you ever saw (you can remember that, can’t you)?"

To which I must reply: I'm amazed I can think of any concerts I went to (many of which were around 20 years ago), off the top of my head, but recalling which one was first would require consulting records, which the rules forbid, so pardon the hell out of me for being old.

While I'm following that "first ones that come to mind" rule, I twisted those rules to list some concerts with multiple artists; the title was "50 Concerts," not "50 Bands You Saw In Concert." Frankly, the people who start these memes really need to put a bit more effort into naming them, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, that said, here's what I came up with in a little over 10 minutes of concentrated effort one night this past week while riding the train home, in absolutely no particular order:

Anthrax
Afghan Whigs
Nirvana
Screaming Trees
Soul Asylum
Red Hot Chili Peppers
The Replacements
Paul Westerberg
Old 97's
Rhett Miller
Alice In Chains
Lilith Fair (really; yeah, I went with a woman; no, I wasn't the only male)
Gin Blossoms
Luka Bloom
Deacon Blue
Edie Brickell & New Bohemians
Beat Farmers
Mojo Nixon & Skip Roper
Pixies
The White Stripes
Tori Amos
New Model Army
The Waterboys
Love Battery
Robyn Hitchcock (solo and with the Egyptians)
Jimmy Buffett
Buddy Guy
Long Beach Blues Festival
Ramones
R.E.M.
Neil Diamond
Neil Young
Mudhoney
The Monkees
Weird Al Yankovic
The Kinks
The Who
The Jazz Butcher
Love & Rockets
The Godfathers
Phish
Feist / Spoon
Dramarama
The Smithereens
The Dickies
Dinosaur Jr.
The Damned
Al Green
Sonic Youth
U2 / Public Enemy / Sugarcubes
X
Oingo Boingo

p.s. Yes, that's 52.

~

Now that I've delineated a list of artists I saw play live for a Facebook meme about that, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between going to a concert and happening upon a band. Going to a concert implies intent; you were going to the venue with the express purpose of experiencing the artist's live show. That's different from going to a bar or coffee house or restaurant or record store and there happening to be a live band playing; the point of your venture was to drink or eat or hang out, and the music was coincidental. If your story is "Yeah, we went to this bar and so-and-so was playing, and it was a great show," then you didn't see a concert. If you went to the bar because you wanted to hear music performed but had no idea who would be playing, you didn't see a concert. At least not for what could be included in this list.

That's the restrictions I placed on myself, whether it was necessarily required or not. The only "rules" noted implied one not to take too long composing the list. I'm not sure whether that was supposed to make it a test of one's memory, or whether there was some kind of psychological conclusion one could draw from which concerts one remembered, or if the person who came up with the idea knew that establishing a time limit might make it more likely people would participate; it wouldn't seem too daunting a task. People will squander tremendous amounts of time online, but asking them to devote more than 15 minutes of concerted effort toward such a task conceivably could elicit an I-don't-have-time-for-that reaction.

The point of the memes (to the extent I can discern one) is to interactive participation, presumably trying to draw in those who don't otherwise bother by expressly soliciting their input (that is, by "tagging" them, so they get a notice). As to what one is to gain from looking at a mere list of artists' concerts a friend attended, but without indications of where the concerts were, or how many times the friend may have seen the given artist, or which shows were good or not-so-good, or hearing any stories about the shows, I'm not sure. Maybe the list is intended as a first step. I suppose it could be more a matter of supplying the raw data and allowing others to react to it as they will. In comments left or other notes those details could come out.

Me, I learned my lesson about trying to get people to participate in a way that would be seen by a bunch of others—others who come from disparate parts of my social life.

~

Years ago I used to send out occasional emails to pretty much everyone in my address book (obviously before the days of even Friendster). I'd only do it a limited number of times a year (and, for the inexplicably curious, or those wishing to go down Memory Lane, those messages are archived here; check out everything listed from 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003). Generally, if I sent a message to 100 people I'd get well over half of them to reply back with at least a hello. (That's way better than any blahg post or Facebook status update has ever gotten.)

Then one time I sent out a message where I asked people to just hit Reply and type the first thing that came to mind for one minute. No stopping to think, just typing (even if gibberish) and then hit Send.

However, I threw in: "If you're feeling daring, hit Reply To All." (Yes, I had all the recipients in the To line.) And some people did just that.

Suffice it to say, the first thing that came to mind was… not exactly for public consumption, especially when some of my older relatives were in the mix.

That was the last time I sent out a message where I didn't BCC all the recipients.

~

Facebook sometimes seems like having all your friends and family in the To line.

I suppose people tend to grasp the more public nature of what they may post on another's wall with that forum, rather than blithely clicking one button on an email—especially when essentially dared to do so—but nonetheless I don't solicit that sort of thing in the time I spend logged in to the site.

And I sure as hell wouldn't tag anybody. As previously noted, that is, quite literally, asking for it.