09.22.06
blue is a(n) (in)credible financial services color
color is everything, the brighter the better.
–
art does not imitate life - it intimates it.
08.06.06
physics is looking at your hand before naming the game
alternately, physics is having a straight in go fish
mpaa vs imdb, it’s a natural progression.
poor mpaa. this will weaken them (this lessens their ability to resist simultaneous DVD/theatrical releases) - and pretty soon, or, rather, immediatekly, we’ll get all movies (not just mark cuban’s) burned wirelessly to our ipods while we’re watching them in theaters. just like we’re promised in the constitution!
08.05.06
taster’s choice
STEP 1: DEFY THE MPAA - do not let your films be rated (isn’t it evidence of a monopoly that needs to be busted up, if i can say “do not let your films be rated” and the “… by the mpaa” is implicit?)
(you might want to make the first one a kid’s movie, so the pr move cannot be dismissed as one of those ”they just got mad that they couldn’t cut comfortably to an R / they’re “too sophisticated/artsy for rating submission” scenarios)
Step 2: DEMOCRATIZE RATINGS - Collect demographic and other statistical information from audiences. Invent some arbitrary ranking system for them to participate within..
Â
(you bill moviegoing as an opportunity for cultural revolution! re-defining who we are as a country, and what for which we stand - or sit for roughly 2 hours.)
(you’re not exhibiting movies anymore, you’re “determining the future of the nation”)
(sort of a “textbooks of tomorrow” feel to the whole thing - like one big paradigm shift
 that we all have a part to play in shifting…)
(imagine how this plays into certain mindsets - it’s cultural warfare!)
Step 3 (and this is the most important): Don’t forget that the whole thing is just a marketing ploy / startup opportunity / industry destabilizer.
Â
06.30.06
the truth, i swear
overseen/overheard:Â
“stephen hawking is the happiest guy on the planet and doesn’t even know it anymore.”
–card sent to him ” cheer up, buddy:Â it’s all (…) ”
“you know that ”yes” moment? why can’t we engineer ourselves to be more conscious on that level?” – (bringing an uproar) (i am too nice a person to take the cheap shot by mentioning that i left during this discussion, but i will say it was a momentous moment)
“name standardization standardizing. tenses as linguistic meta-narratives representative of different states of being/reality”
“on a quantum level: Â two (the numeral concept “2″)Â = “one” (the numeric concept 1)”
“i’ll just pretend to quote you” -t
quanta, quantentity, qua(cK)antien, quantum, quan(t)imal
(you know how some animals throw out signals to other animals to let them know they’re friendly? let me blaze my trail:)
my very good (and completely un(screwed) definition of the term:Â
any theme which attempts to describe with accuracy AND certainty will necessarily fail, falling short this amount (this amount will be what we give in return: interest) - (aka confusionism, which, in some ways means i always get to make an interesting decision, but i am (if not “right”-which i’m not saying), at the least “never wrong”.
you cannot have a transaction without having two parties (unless both parties are secretly only one party). The exchange between these parties = the concepts which, in a physical sense, make up “time”) - (aka creationism)
you only justify the way you want it to be (aka sophistry) - (see also:Â Â love(-ly) (/) bullshit)
the logical 50.1% probabalistic certainty (i call this surety)Â of 50.1% self-definition.
(one of an infinite spread of spectrum spreading spectrum spreads)^2
06.25.06
taughtologies - reflectivity
those who can do. those who can’t teach.
(those who can do those who can’t teach.)
those who can’t do. those who can teach.
(those who can’t do those who can teach.)
—Â
those who can should. should those who can’t?
those who can’t shouldn’t. should those who can?
those who can should those who can’t?
those who can’t shouldn’t those who can?
who shouldn’t does, who doesn’t shouldn’t.
who shouldn’t does who doesn’t shouldn’t.
who doesn’t shouldn’t, who does should.
who doesn’t shouldn’t, who doesn’t should.Â
—
teachers, teach.  -(t minus each)
06.23.06
the paparazzi market (-dynamics)
paparuleys:
photographers - do not take photographs unless given permission.
photographers - do not take photographs unless paid.
celebrities - when you give permission, let them.
celebrities - when they pay you, let them photograph you.
viewers rejoice.
(readers rarely notice)
—- wait, maybe better, maybe funnier: someone makes a reality show out of following the paparazzi.  wouldn’t that fix it? it’s like a completely whole OTHER super EXTRA layer of BULLSHIT all on its own!  You can then “product place” certain celebrities into the show within the show within the show… the meta-bullshit show! that’s fuckin value! I’d love to see a shit-ton of money go into some things like that!  (what has happened! I apparently just turned into George Carlin…!)
back to the pitch…
“Are you an overwrought actor/celebrity who hates having his every movement under scrutiny (while, no doubt, being just a wee bit oversensitive about the whole issue, in a “my business manager makes me do it” sort of way)? If so, go produce this show.”
suddenly i .. do feel like turning on the tv.  hmm.
06.13.06
the (4)^2 -fold way of the pilgrim
assuming people are honest
assuming people are dishonest
one is the road to revolution
one is the road to innovation
(assume people are dishonest)
(assume people are honest)Â
(one is the road to innovation)
(one is the road to revolution)Â
—
which one is which one is which one is which one?
(which one is which one)^2
(=which one)?
—
alternate title:Â the four-square gospel /Â where’s my infinity key
06.05.06
recently overheard, spontaneously modified
“where there is no solution there is no problem”
if you can’t fix it, it’s not broken.
Â
05.29.06
(VETO) VOTE
What would happen if legislation was passed electronically by means of an up/down proxy vote on a line item basis?  This would work similarly to (and well with) presidential line-item veto power… except applied to items of a certain size (much smaller than current “bills” and eligible for vote by all members rather than just committees) within legislative bodies themselves…
My initial thought was the above providing overview/granularity in the who’s who debate of 2-party politics - giving us a much clearer picture of where the two agree and disagree… data derived from this experiment would be very interesting.
So you (say) you want a revolution… well, you know…
– update, moments later:
The funny version: where instead of elected representatives voting as ideological agents of their constituencies (as above), it is simply a cash based proxy bidding system… how different is this from what occurs now? it’s not, so if there’s no moral judgment to be made, it’s at least a lot more efficient to go ahead and just make it into what it wants to be: ebay.gov!
05.11.06
you are better than you
is there any psychological testing / passive technical analysis done on college applicants in order to determine their level of DESIRE? i don’t mean sex. i mean a measure of how strongly they desire to attend. why isn’t this considered a meaningful score? It seems at least as indicative of performance as “intelligence” testing.
i guess you’d then have to contrast that data with whatever the generally held public conception of your company - i mean school - happened to be…  and then try to posit the conception that the applicants might have - so meaningful (true over time) conclusions could be reached about applicants / applicant’s motives - as well as your own.
04.26.06
relativity
Sometimes, the shortest distance between two points is the scenic route.
In the long run, 50.1% is a sure thing.
03.30.06
eyecontact
sleepy vision problems lead to thoughts of:Â
everyone has the focus on one eye problem with eye contact at close distances
is there an eye that the majority of people favor? is this tied to “handedness”?
can’t we just ask people when we meet them?
it would make things so much easier, especially as a relationship builder. hey, what’s your sign and which of your eyes is dominant? then look into that eye with -your- dominant eye, and tell them which of your eyes is dominant.Â
conversely, find a way to figure out someones eye dominance through passive observation, then use that information…..
society breaks into left/left, left/right, right/right relationships. wonder what, if anything, that information might contribute towards or explain..
is there such a thing as perfect l/r stereo equivalence? no, of course not (except on some deeper level that i can work out later)……. everyone has a dominant eye, it’s just a matter of degree.. anyone have or know of stats/information on this type of thing?
03.27.06
pharmacist = vending machine
Why is it still 1890 at Walgreen’s? Sorry, I simply don’t believe that you’ve got to go “whip me up” a batch (in your mortar and pestle) of some drug that’s been around for 60 years and that I know very well comes direct from the manufacturer in bottles of 250,000…
What’s your function, exactly? You know, other than to needlessly complicate lives, waste time, and frustrate people (who are already sick and suffering) by forcing them to pretend with you that a huge percentage of your job couldn’t be done better by a modified (glorified) Coke machine….
Here’s how it should work:
Your doctor decides to prescribe you a particular drug (because some drug rep promised him a trip to hawaii - not because he wants to help you) and sends your electronic prescription to your “drug store” via the internet. Your “e-scrip” arrives at the drug store and sufficient methods are used to verify the authenticity of the prescription.
No silly phone calls have to be made to doctor’s offices to verify prescriptions, as previously was sometimes the case (you know, for good drugs, the ones the bought-off DEA wants to make sure you don’t get access to because they’re cheap and usually work).
Cross checks are done instantaneously to spot adverse interactions/contraindications between any drugs that you might be taking concomittantly… Updated insurance information can be shared between physician/drug store, and this interchange will be transparent to the patient. Payment information could be shared as well, if co-payment or full payment by patient is necessary, depending on insurance. This gets the pharmacists off the phone - if you’ve ever been to a pharmacy, you know the reason you have to wait is because they’re chatting with some lonely shut-in who won’t let them off the phone bitching about how their insurance information isn’t right, or some insurance company robot that won’t admit to knowing their customer and providing the coverage they promised and accepted payment in the form of premiums to provide…
Further, there is no room for “handwriting interpretation” - no more mistaken prescriptions due to doctor scrawl… no more human error in counting or filling, either.. you can automate the printing and application of labels to bottles, and the printing and inclusion of informational inserts. You can also automate the POS. Good god, maybe have a 24 hour ATM window at the pharmacy - if your drug is one that is automated, you can get access to it without employee assistance, 24 hours a day. Expand this concept. Put a drug ATM on every street corner - make it a better world. Hey, does that ATM have a Roche logo on it? I need a valium the size of a football.
Inside the pharmacy, there is a large vending machine, essentially the ridiculous apothecary shelves of “big bottles” of pills that currently exist, except with a means to count and sort and dispense and restock hundreds or thousands of the most common drugs - mechanically, electronically. Think upside down office water cooler bottles, but smaller and more plentiful, with little rube goldbergian machinery connecting them all. That’s how I like to picture it in here - even though I know it could be elegantly (and ridiculously) simple.
If even the top 100 RX’s could be automated, this would be a monstrous increase in efficiency and would probably take up about as much space as a full sized refrigerator… it’s not rocket science - this is why 19 year old “pharmacy techs” are usually the ones doing the work behind the counter. They can be replaced, and it will make things much safer for the rest of us who are old enough to actually need some drugs that you don’t smoke.
We also, so say the pharmacists, have a shortage of pharmacists, and those we do have are always screaming that they need more time to do “customer care” or “patient consultation”. IE, they want to play doctor. This desire makes perfect sense as all doctors now want to play pharmacist. Two men enter, one man leave - I say. Or two men enter, one men leave - as Neil Armstrong might say… but anyway:
Sorry pharmacists, but maybe you can go be a doctor, or get a decent job in research - or, failing that, be a drug rep: I’d be happy to support legislation that says you have to be a licensed pharmacist in order to lobby doctors concerning pharmaceuticals. I know it’s a wild idea, but it makes much more sense than the current requirement, which is to have responded to the classified ad in the local weekly newspaper.
So, someone get to it. If you make a success of it, repay me by inserting me into the database and giving me the right to self-dispense in perpetuity.
03.25.06
Complexity = Complicity
Complexity does not initially strike me as something that can be overcome by collecting and analyzing more information. Secondarily, it does not strike me as something that can be that much improved by attempting (any attempt is “active”, any=all, and activity increases information) to limit collection and analysis activities.
It seems like the only things to do would be to actively stop information CREATION (since, by its very nature, information can only be created if it is being analyzed, ie, modify other people as to how their brains work - slow them down or shut them off in some way) -or- to actively embrace complexity and, by our “creative ability”, make things infinitely more complex.
Another method at “active stoppage” might be to fiddle with supply/demand of either constituent of “information”: which are both…? extrapolations?
When they set off nukes did it clear the souls of the dead from the atmosphere? Life itself, as our ultimate catalyst for information creation, is being waged war against…