Monday, February 28, 2011

Compromise



“The Rebbe never-ever permitted or encouraged compromising ourselves to save another Jew. The Rebbe would always say: ‘You have to bring the Jew to Torah, not Torah to the Jew.’”
— Rabbi Yossi Paltiel, “Chassidic dress” (part of What is Chassidus series)

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Bad grammar kills

Maybe it doesn't kill bodies, but it definitely kills minds and souls.
After ruling Libya for decades, people are wondering for how long Col. Gaddafi can stay in power.
Who ruled Libya for decades? The "kernel" or the people? From the sentence, it reads like the latter. The correct sentence options would be:
People are wondering: after ruling Libya for decades, how long Col. Gaddafi can stay in power?
Or:
After Col. Gaddafi's rule of Libya for decades, people are wondering how long he can stay in power.
Think before writing. Please. It's almost as important as showering and brushing your teeth.

In other news: retzuos painted black on both sides may be past nisht. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

iPhones kill


Time Warp Project from Uirá Lamour on Vimeo.

Also, obviously, American music and not wearing seat belts while driving at fast speeds.

This clip shows that wearing a seat belt at low speeds, in the city, is completely useless. A seat belt would do nothing to prevent this guy from banging his head. In fact, his having banged the head, the seat belt would probably make it harder for him to get out of the car (since it’s difficult to fumble with the seat belt with a concussion).



P.S. Actually, I’ve watched the first clip again, and it seems that when the guy looks up, he is still in his lane, and it is the other car that crashes into him, suddenly — which, considering the speed at which he was driving, would be difficult to avoid anyway. So, what is the clip trying to say: if you look down to text or change the track on your phone/iPod, then another car might crash into you? Also, nobody spends that much time looking down. You look down, look up, look down, etc. Not that it’s not still dangerous...

Monday, February 7, 2011

Marx would be happy



More information here.



This reminds me:

There is no such thing as an equal exchange. At the point of exchange, both buyer and seller consider themselves to be better off as a result of the exchange. In a system of extensive specialization and division of labor, most goods are produced for exchange. Specialized producers have little, if any, direct use for the goods they have produced; under the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the marginal utility of a unit of production is virtually zero as far as they are concerned. They place a higher valuation on the money that they can get for their goods. On the other hand, consumers or buyers value the goods obtained more highly than the money spent to acquire them. Exchanges can occur only when there are differences between the subjective valuations expressed by the parties of the exchanges.
        The failure to consider this subjective orientation led to the unfortunate notion of the "economic man," which depicted every participant in the market economy as relentlessly seeking at every turn to maximize his monetary position. This idea is unrealistic because what people actually seek in every action is a maximum psychic or subjective profit.
        There are numerous examples of people forgoing additional monetary wealth because they deem the "cost" to be greater than its worth. There are investors who resist monetarily rewarding investments in industries whose products they find objectionable. Marketers have recognized that consumers sometimes consider factors besides the purchasable good and its related price. The availability of parking, the courtesy of clerks, and "store personality" now receive attention in discussions of merchandising. Wealthy entrepreneurs who continue to involve themselves in profit making even in their old age are undoubtedly motivated in many cases by something besides money. People often consider factors in addition to wages in deciding on a career or particular job.
        The point of these examples is to demonstrate that people are not "economic men" in the classical sense and that money is not the ultimate basis of valuation. Even when dealing with money matters, people do not calculate monetarily in utmost detail every step and decision. They maximize subjectively but not monetarily, because monetary calculation must be sacrificed when its requirements on time and energy are recognized. 
[source]
And:
Big Surprise: Fair Coffee is a Scam
Fairness with Your Coffee?
The Fairness of "Unequal" Exchange

I also find it fascinating that even though it’s presumably “worker-owned”, it still needs a board of directors (with outside members).