WiredAtom

I got a call from the Embassy of China in response to a letter I sent them regarding the possibility of a Taiwanese “citizen” to obtain a passport of the People’s Republic of China. The caller was extremely polite, patient and well-mannered, a drastic departure from the personalities I encountered during my last trip to the embassy.

She explained to me that the Embassy is not authorized to provide passports to Taiwan residents due to the “unique” political situation between China and Taiwan. Since additional background checks and other materials would be needed, I was advised to apply for such documents in Mainland China instead. When inquired about those “other materials”, she blurbed out something like “significant proof of investment in China”… etc.

Of course, money talks. Even a U.S. citizenship, arguably the most sought after citizenship in the world, can be bought for a handsome half of a Mill via an investment visa… So I guess that eliminated the option of the possibility of “betraying” my Taiwanese roots in getting a Chinese passport.

At this point, I have pretty much exhausted my options in trying to find an alternative to avoid having to go back to Taiwan. But yes, there are always alternatives, but in this case, I was advised by an immigration lawyer that it’d take USD $200,000 (not for him) to get an “E” visa (some kind of investment visa), and everything can go away (including getting Taiwan to issue a brand new passport).

Money may not be everything in life, but having lots of it can sure pave one’s way to absolutely anywhere his heart wishes.

It looks like I am not the kind of material for a Ph.D. After checking out some of the philosophy Ph.D programs around the country (which is the next level up from MFA without gong into Art History), it seems like almost every program is looking for genius-like candidates. Just the language requirement along shuts me out of the door (usually fluency in French or German is a prerequisite). And besides, most programs want you to already have a MA in philosophy plus A LOT of spare time doing dissertation (unless you get accepted into one of the “good” programs, then they pay for everything so that you can focus on the research).

And also, looks like the “ambition” in getting a Ph.D in philosophy is to get tenure in an university and remain in the academics… not much use in the rest of the job market per se. But maybe that is a good thing.

Brian got me hooked on Ray Kurzweil a couple of months ago. Now I see his name everywhere.

On the way back from lunch today, NPR broadcasted an interview with him on Talk of the Nation. The interview was a response to an article he wrote earlier.

He sounded very enthusiastic and optimistic of what the future holds for mankind and what technology will ultimately do for us — cures of the worst diseases we experience today, super-smart “beings” that are part organic and part machine… etc. In light of how fast human genes are being patented for corporate profit today, I am not so sure just how quickly his vision can materialize even if technology progresses as quickly as he predicts. As long as there’s profit to be made out of anything from major corporations, these changes will be slow in manifestation. Why would a pharmaceutical company release a cure to cancer when it can milk billions more out of dying patients by slowly “upgrading” cancer therapies and treatments? Then again, maybe it’s just the drug companies that are evil. And he’s right about technologies being increasingly more affordable and accessible over time. Maybe in the future, we won’t be so caught up with the things we are so worried about today… Maybe it will be genetic terrorism, knowledge-based diseases and some other ingenious ideas future ultra-humans will come up with to kill off each other. But then again, according to Kurzweil, everyone’s supposed to know everything about everything… So it will be a battle of Spy v.s. Spy.

Anyway, Kurzweil’s interview is wicked cool.

I asked myself that same question a while ago about dreams of the blind and deaf. Apparently the answer involves a lot more than I’d thought. The article links intellectual development to language development, which is an entirely interesting topic I’d never thought about.

One of these days I have to look into Noam Chomsky and the like and their theories on langauge and brain. This philosophy in conjunction with neuroscience is fascinating stuff!

When taken with a broader definition, “toy” can mean a lot of things — gadgets for geeks, frivolous and over-priced show-off transporations, relationship between two people, or, simply, just something to play with.

Adults seem to have no problems treating ourselves with “toys” of all kinds. Of course, all justifiable in the name of productivity, utility and convenience (but seriously, when can a Rolax do that a $50 Swatch can’t?). We are also compulsive buyers who crave for the latest and the greatest model of everything. But what it comes down to is this: We are no more childish than the kid standing next to us, sobbing from the cold rejection of his parent for that Pokemon “toy” he really wanted. The only difference between us and him? Cold, hard cash and a parent standing in the way. We are no more clear-headed than he, nor are we more logical or reasonable than he.

I think males have a worse tendency in this than the female species, too. Just think about that for a moment. (Though ladies do have a tick for different types of things).

So I wonder why adults subject the double standards on kids when they themselves can’t control what kind of “toys” they think they ought to have and sometimes for unexplanable reasons. Raising kids takes a lot of responsibility. And everytime when I see a parent dragging his/her child away from a toy with unqualified reasons, I can’t help but wonder what kind of lessons s/he is teaching the child — that it is OK for me to impose this on you even though I can’t really tell you why.

When implied in a social order, this kind of subjective non-reasoning can take a toll on how we solve problems socially and politically. When a whole generation of kids growing up thinking it’s OK to have double standards, as long as it’s enforced top-down, we are going to have problems in the society. I guess I could argue that the same thing goes to raising children in general. But that’s a whole other topic altogether.

I guess the title of this entry is a little misleading. So let me explain.

I don’t mean that Pixar’s latest movie is a flop or that the fact that now it’s in the fold of Disney, it will seize to be the greatest animation studio that ever was…

Oh… wait, I did mean the second half of what I just said…

Here’s how I figured Pixar is going to be Pixar no more. Shortly before the Pixar “merge up” to Disney, I started noticing something that Pixar has never done before, advertising partnership with Yahoo! SBC (now Yahoo! AT&T). While I was shopping for deals for my DSL renewal, Pixar’s Cars characters were all over the Yahoo! SBC DSL site. I didn’t think much of it then.

But then just last week I started seeing even more Cars characters showing up on TV commercials, most noticeably promoting State Farm for auto insurance. Well, sure, Cars promoting auto insurance — very cute and fitting. This is very uncharacteristic of Pixar since I have never once seen Woody or Space Ranger selling anything else but Toy Story movies and merchandizes.

And of course, it’s only business, right? It never occurred to me that when Pixar was independent, it never really “prostituted” its characters until Disney took over. And now millions of adults and kids will be bombarded with Pixar’s creations until its pristine brand becomes moldy and Disney’s corporate types weasel into dictating how stories should be told — hence the end of Pixar.

Now truly, everything is a commodity, even cartoon characters that once were just part of a well-told and superbly-animated story.

I wrote about FreeCycle earlier this month. So far the experience has been mostly positive. But I thought I’d share some insights I have over our experience with FreeCycle.

The thought of taking and getting “free” stuff almost invariably triggers the idea of “greed”. Brian and I debated over the nature of human a while ago. My position being that the world would probably go into chaos if there was no law imposed upon us. Human greed for power and money alone will probably swallow us whole. And I thought this FreeCycle thing couldn’t idealistically exist in a world of material needs.

I guess I underestimated human nature (or maybe it’s just when the sample size is so small, it skews the objectivity). It turns out that people do give away free and wonderful stuff that they truly don’t need. And as for us, we only take what we truly need and find use in. I mean, what am I going to do with that free book shelf or that free closet… or that free weight bench with weights… etc. if I don’t need them or don’t have a place for them? And I also found out that there’s a moral code of ethics in this FreeCycle community as well — if you were going to sell what you take, you’d have to be upfront about it to the giver so that s/he can decide if you can have it. I guess apparently people do follow that code (as far as we know anyway).

So my conclusion is: when anything and everything is free, maybe the society will be better off. My reasoning is that, because there’s no reason to take more of exactly what you need in the exact amount, there’s no reason to waste anything and there’s no reason to rob, steal or kill over resources. And because you got everything free in the first place, there’s no reason NOT to share whatever you don’t use with others for free! With petty pathetic issues out of the way, maybe then mankind will be able to solve real issues like hunger and poverty (because then there’d be no hunger OR poverty). And because you can’t really sell or buy anything, the “greed” factor just goes away. But of course there’s always the economics of supply and demand… But now I am beginning to think “economics” is actually quite evil because it effectively promotes (and celebrates) greed and unnecessary needs.

This reminds me of one of the StarTrek movies where one modern, naive Earthling asked a Trekkie: “How could you ever afford to build a spaceship like this?” (or something to that effect) The reply was: “In the future, the concept of money doesn’t exist. Everybody works towards the common good of the humanity.” (or sosmething like that). Maybe it’s that kind of idealism that keeps Trekkies like Murdza in the loop of StarTreks.

A person probably goes through hundreds, or maybe thousands, of “awakenings” in his lifetime. Some ideas I simply couldn’t grasp a few years ago seem so clear and obvious to me today. But observing and experiencing such awakenings isn’t always so easy. However, it’s very breath-takingly memorable and refreshing when Grace and I see it in Bryan as he becomes ever more aware of everything around him.

Ever since our last observation with Bryan’s awakening to his hands, it seems like he’s suddenly seeing the world through a completely different perspective. To illustrate this, take Grace’s observation of Bryan at our neighbor’s: Bryan was excited to see some kittens as our neighbor fed them. So he started clapping his hands to show “approval” (as in, “yes, this is worthy of my clapping hands) and his excitement. The he proceeded to take the neighbor’s hands and waved them in the motion of clapping hands. Bryan was trying to teach our neighbor how to clap hands to share his joy!

Life is good.

Being a parent definitely is almost all rewards almost all the time. It’s not always fun, but it’s always satisfying — almost.

Watching Bryan growing up on the daily basis is a strange experience. There are times when I held him in my arms, rocking him to sleep, that I wished time could pause and that he’d stay a tiny baby forever… (until my back started aching like a thousand needles piercing through the spine.) But the truth is, time seems to have tripled in speed now that Bryan has entered our lives. I almost think it’s unfair that other parents have to work 8+ hours a day away from their child(ren) when i get to stay home with my son almost 24×7.

When Laura was constantly interrupting my conversation with Brian, I thought that was just super cute. And I thought to myself, “Some day that’s what Bryan’d be doing to ME when I talk to Brian.” I secretly envied Brian and Birgit for a brief moment. But then I thought I’d sorely miss Bryan at this very stage as Brian has confessed to me at times that he missed when Laura was just a tiny baby at times.

Bryan is going to have a healthy and comfortable life ahead of him. But just for my selfish pleasures and inconsiderate egocentric fatherhood, I hope he doesn’t grow up too fast — just so that his dada and nana can savor these fleeting moments before he leaps into his own independence.

Mark posted an article about waiters and how to tell someone’s personality from how this person treats waiters. The article is very interesting and made me recall my own experience as a waiter as well as how some people I have known have treated them. It’s probably a pretty good indicator of, not just personality, but if this person can be a true friend, someone who’d extend a helping hand when you are in deep shit (metaphorically speaking).

The article was based on a set of management rules developed by Bill Swanson, CEO of Raytheon Company, called Swanson’s Unwritten Rules of Management. Raytheon gives the booklet away for free in hope to inspire young people to become leaders. I placed an order for a copy but couldn’t wait for it to come in the mail. So I Googled and found this instead (taken from an article at CCG):

1. Learn to say, "I don’t know." If used when appropriate, it will be often.
2. It is easier to get into something than it is to get out of it.
3. If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.
4. Look for what is missing. Many know how to improve what’s there, but few can see what isn’t there.
5. Presentation rule: When something appears on a slide presentation, assume the world knows about it, and deal with it accordingly.
6. Work for a boss with whom you are comfortable telling it like it is. Remember that you can’t pick your relatives, but you can pick your boss.
7. Constantly review developments to make sure that the actual benefits are what they are supposed to be. Avoid Newton’s Law.
8. However menial and trivial your early assignments may appear, give them your best efforts.
9. Persistence or tenacity is the disposition to persevere in spite of difficulties, discouragement, or indifference. Don’t be known as a good starter but a poor finisher.
10. In doing your project, don’t wait for others; go after them, and make sure it gets done.
11. Confirm your instructions and the commitments of others in writing. Don’t assume it will get done!
12. Don’t be timid; speak up. Express yourself, and promote your ideas.
13. Practice shows that those who speak the most knowingly and confidently often end up with the assignment to get it done.
14. Strive for brevity and clarity in oral and written reports.
15. Be extremely careful of the accuracy of your statements.
16. Don’t overlook the fact that you are working for a boss.
    * Keep him or her informed. Avoid surprises!
    * Whatever the boss wants takes top priority.
17. Promises, schedules, and estimates are important instruments in a well-ordered business.
    * You must make promises. Don’t lean on the often-used phrase, "I can’t estimate it because it depends upon many uncertain factors."
18. Never direct a complaint to the top. A serious offense is to "cc" a person’s boss.
19. When dealing with outsiders, remember that you represent the company. Be careful of your commitments.
20. Cultivate the habit of "boiling matters down" to the simplest terms. An elevator speech is the best way.
21. Don’t get excited in engineering emergencies. Keep your feet on the ground.
22. Cultivate the habit of making quick, clean-cut decisions.
23. When making decisions, the “pros” are much easier to deal with than the “cons”. Your boss wants to see the “cons” also.
24. Don’t ever lose your sense of humor.
25. Have fun at what you do. It will reflect in your work. No one likes a grump except another grump.
26. Treat the name of the company as if it were your own.
27. Beg for the bad news.
28. You remember 1/3 of what you read, 1/2 of what people tell you, but 100% of what you feel.
29. You can’t publish a sneaker
30. When facing issues or problems that are becoming drawn-out, “short them to the ground.”
31. When faced with decisions, try to look at them as if you were one level up in the organization. Your perspective will change quickly.
32. A person who is nice to you but rude to others is not a nice person. (This rule never fails).
33. Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, an amateur built an ark that survived a flood while a large group of professionals built the Titanic!

Additional rules from an interview in USA Today:

1. When in charge, be in charge. “When you get the key to the bus, it’s time to drive.”
2. Hold people to the highest standard or the organization will gravitate toward mediocrity.
3. When things go wrong, true leaders take responsibility and rectify a mistake with speed and passion. They take action that most people would find too hard.
4. If you are doing something and it doesn’t work, no one will care that it was done on cost and on schedule. If it works and exceeds expectations, no one will remember if it was late and overrun.

Good stuff.

I was in my microeconomics class ALL day last Saturday. But during break, I caught an interesting reanimation of Adam and Eve narrated by Jonathan Goldstein at the end of “This American Life“. The Real Audio file can be downloaded here. The segment starts at about 42:30.

This is probably THE Biblical story told over and over again and is probably one of the most recognizable icons of Christianity. But the way Goldstein narrated the tale was so fresh, dark and humorous that I couldn’t help but to track it down and listen to it again. As always, “This American Life” produces one of the most interesting and original radio shows on NPR.

When science took over teaching as the primary method of education, so did a wave of reawakening in people’s approach to philosophy and religion. Instead of “blindly” believe that the God(s)*, more and more people turn to science for answers. For the longest time, the religious followers refuse to believe that “life” was just a fluke and that they are descendents of monkies (ahem, chimps; there’s a difference). They also believe that nothing ever happens by chance and that there’s a meaning for everything that happens. In other words, God(s) has/have a bigger plan.

True that belief may be. But science just scored another point in that arena to its favor. For a long time science could only go so far as to prove and predict how and why certain relationships work and don’t work in social dynamics. But now there’s a new research that shows how certain “fate” in friendships can be scientifically proven and quantified.

By comparing people to mobile particles randomly bouncing off each other, scientists have developed a new model for social networks. The model fits with empirical data to naturally reproduce the community structure, clustering and evolution of general acquaintances and even sexual contacts.

Applying a mathematical model to the social dynamics of people presents difficulties not involved with more physical – and perhaps more rational – applications. The many factors that influence an individual’s fate to meet an acquaintance and decide to become a friend are impossible to capture, but physicists have used techniques from physical systems to model social networks with near precision.

Maybe this is still too far fetch to definitively link “destinies” to physics. But it’s scary the kinds of things physics/pure mathematics can do**.

* If you are a Christian, you are only permitted to pray to ONE god, or else everything else can be sacred like how the Native Idians view the world.

** The “Game Theory” developed by John von Neumann and later improved upon by John Nash was developed using pure mathematics, not some philosophical or social dynamics theory. Just math!

via [Slashdot]