As a cyclist and bike enthusiast, it would be a wonderful thing to see L.A. become a more bike-friendly city. With our gorgeous weather and spread-out town, it would be a treat to be able to enjoy long, safe rides across L.A. Of course, the key word is “safe.” The mayor’s swollen hand and immobilized arm are testament to the dangers of riding in the city.
We’ve all been there: trying to come up with a great idea, or write a beautiful passage, or finish a project. And it seems that our brains cough up nothing but hot, dry air.
The good folks at BBC put together a nice look at how great artists–especially musicians–dealt with their creative block. In this case, it’s most appropriate if I just let the original article speak for itself.
Certainly I remember semesters in college where my textbook bill would reach $500. It wasn’t uncommon for one book to cost more than $100 (especially for the big, bulky textbooks). Not only were/are the books costly, but they’re unruly in size and weight–walking across campus with books for three classes sometimes mean lugging a backpack with 30 pounds of dead weight!
So a couple big questions come to mind: First, why are these books so expensive? And what can we do to make them more affordable? But perhaps most interesting — why haven’t we seen the kind of technological innovation in textbooks that we’ve seen in popular literature and magazines?!
Apple, Amazon, Sony, Barnes & Noble, and a host of other retailers want us to buy their expensive e-book readers. I can think of no greater application of an e-reader than textbooks! Imagine: 25 pounds worth of books in one e-reader, shared notes and underlining, and easy citations. The professor could annotate passages for students. Students could ask questions of teachers and classmates right in the margins. No more back pain. No more wasted paper. No more junked-up used books. The benefits and possibilities go on and on…
The technology exists. The demand surely exists. So what’s the holdup?
NPR’s Morning Edition concluded a series on the European Union this morning with a fantastic overview of the challenges facing the future of the EU: financial, political, and–most importantly–cultural.
I found Rob Gifford’s piece the most digestible, concise, and on-point summary of the issue I’ve heard in the media.
I’ve seen the book on the shelves at my local bookstore for years (though I never read it — at least not yet). So as I came across the Fast Company article’s first paragraph, I assumed that Bronson was proposing a kind of epilogue to his book:
It’s time to define the new era. Our faith has been shaken. We’ve lost confidence in our leaders and in our institutions. Our beliefs have been tested. We’ve discredited the notion that the Internet would change everything (and the stock market would buy us an exit strategy from the grind). Our expectations have been dashed. We’ve abandoned the idea that work should be a 24-hour-a-day rush and that careers should be a wild adventure. Yet we’re still holding on.
“How timely,” I thought — Bronson is speaking about the current economic climate in our country and its effects on employment. But wait. I checked the article publication date: December 31, 2002. Apparently we’re back in a situation and mode of thinking about jobs that we’ve faced earlier this decade (or should I say, last decade).
So it gets me thinking — do economic conditions change the very nature of work itself, or do they really just change attitudes. As with all issues in the social sciences, I think the answer is a bit of both.
But I must admit, my interest in Bronson’s article came not from a desire to contemplate the nature of labor. Truthfully I (like so many people I know of all ages) have been contemplating this very question for a while now. And while neither this article, nor any one source, provides a definitive answer to the question, it does provide some good food for thought.
On (good) backup plans:
His backup plans do not lead to different destinations, such as “If I don’t get into business school, I’ll be a schoolteacher.” His backup plans lead to the same destination, and if he has to arrive late by a back road, that’s fine.
On “keeping doors open”:
“Keeping your doors open” is a trap. It’s an excuse to stay uninvolved.
On considering your professional future:
The relevant question in looking at a job is not What will I do? but Who will I become?
Give the article or the book a read and share your thoughts.
This oil spill is really a fiasco. A costly, messy, and sad fiasco.
A young heron sits dying amidst oil splattering underneath mangrove on an island impacted by oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Barataria Bay, along the the coast of Louisiana on Sunday, May 23, 2010.
For anyone who’s ever been fascinated by science fair projects or Hollywood prop departments (I fall into both categories), you’ll appreciate this video from the New York Times.
Diann Duthie is the art director for “The Dr. Oz Show” — a daily talk show hosted by Dr. Mehmet Oz — that presents palatable high-level explanations for various medical phenomena. Duthie enhances the show by creating the kinds of props you might expect to find in a science museum:
FILED UNDER: 
TAGGED: 
COMMENTS: 
