just saw 300. very entertaining movie. pure thrill. came out feelin i hadnt wasted my money n my time.
but it irritates me too. when xerxes invades greece, he's portrayed as a tyrant and a debauch and a crazed maniac who thinks of himself as god. (n oh yes he's also so foolish as to send soldiers with just swords and no shields. come on!) well ok. invaders r tyrants. but when alexander set out to invade everybody else, he is "alexander the great". baah. such hypocrisy.
or maybe xerxes is a tyrant because he lost. so we have the classical syndrome of history eulogizing the winners and villifying the losers. hence we have the "great" roman and later the english empires. or rather, the roman and english tyrants and plunderers.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
On "happiness" and hypertension (in response to RISK)
RISK: http://blog.risk.net/2007/03/towards_a_theory_of_cardiovasc_1.html
FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f035d56e-c92b-11db-9f7b-000b5df10621.html
Research paper: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/hypertensionfeb07.pdf
ALEA: http://www.aleablog.com/2007/03/03/happiness-economics/
First, I must confess I have not read the research paper itself.
Second, I must point out. Risk says "blood pressure... is linked fairly closely to national happiness". Alea says "nations that regarded themselves as happy reported lower levels of hypertension. " The phrase "regarded themselves" is very important - in fact, it is the crux.
Happiness is not well-defined and it is probably not very wide off the mark to say that the perception of happiness is linked to a particular culture. The research is fine - it just should not extrapolate the findings to other cultures; and it does seem to do that since it time and again uses phrases like "national happiness", "mental health" etc.
FT says "It is now well established that people in richer countries tend to be happier than those in poorer ones." My personal experience however does not support that at all - in fact it is quite the contrary. My question to FT is - "Please, who established it and how?". I have a deep suspicion the establishment is based on research papers such as this again.
Also, I think it strange there is no mention of smiles (the real ones not the volatility ones!). Isn't it obvious that happpiness would be linked to the number of smiles in a day?
FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f035d56e-c92b-11db-9f7b-000b5df10621.html
Research paper: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/hypertensionfeb07.pdf
ALEA: http://www.aleablog.com/2007/03/03/happiness-economics/
First, I must confess I have not read the research paper itself.
Second, I must point out. Risk says "blood pressure... is linked fairly closely to national happiness". Alea says "nations that regarded themselves as happy reported lower levels of hypertension. " The phrase "regarded themselves" is very important - in fact, it is the crux.
Happiness is not well-defined and it is probably not very wide off the mark to say that the perception of happiness is linked to a particular culture. The research is fine - it just should not extrapolate the findings to other cultures; and it does seem to do that since it time and again uses phrases like "national happiness", "mental health" etc.
FT says "It is now well established that people in richer countries tend to be happier than those in poorer ones." My personal experience however does not support that at all - in fact it is quite the contrary. My question to FT is - "Please, who established it and how?". I have a deep suspicion the establishment is based on research papers such as this again.
Also, I think it strange there is no mention of smiles (the real ones not the volatility ones!). Isn't it obvious that happpiness would be linked to the number of smiles in a day?
Sunday, March 04, 2007
ARGH @ Google (Beware of Google)
Google google. We all love them - most of us at least. I did too. Now I am not so sure - the feeling (love -> indignation + betrayal -> hatred) started just now, when I logged onto my blogspot account.
Why? Wtf is going on. I have a blogspot account and all I want to do is fukken blog (I cannot avoid the expletives I am pissed off). But no. I cannot. I have to read some crap now about some new blogspot features. Well I say - OK, lets see what they got. But then I see the trick - I have to have a gmail account.
You see it right?
(For those who don't, I'm arghing at my loss of privacy; I'm arghing at having to link my email with my blog; I'm arghing at nosy Google; I'm arghing at Sergei and Larry becoming too greedy - for their own good. And I am arghing at their oh-so-obvious ploy to show me advertisements on my gmail based on my blogs - ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)
(I hate repetitiveness but I m just too angry now)
Why? Wtf is going on. I have a blogspot account and all I want to do is fukken blog (I cannot avoid the expletives I am pissed off). But no. I cannot. I have to read some crap now about some new blogspot features. Well I say - OK, lets see what they got. But then I see the trick - I have to have a gmail account.
You see it right?
(For those who don't, I'm arghing at my loss of privacy; I'm arghing at having to link my email with my blog; I'm arghing at nosy Google; I'm arghing at Sergei and Larry becoming too greedy - for their own good. And I am arghing at their oh-so-obvious ploy to show me advertisements on my gmail based on my blogs - ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)
(I hate repetitiveness but I m just too angry now)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)