A man was on trial for a murder in a small town. There was strong evidence indicating guilt; however, there was no corpse. In the defense's closing statement, the lawyer, knowing that his client will most likely be convicted, resorted to a clever trick."Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise for you all.", the lawyer said as he looked at his watch. "Within one minute, the person presumed dead in this case will walk into this courtroom." He looked toward the courtroom door. The jury, somewhat stunned, all looked on eagerly.
A minute passed. Nothing happened.
The lawyer finally continued:"Actually, ladies and gentlemen, I made up the statement. But as I noticed you all looking toward the door with anticipation, I therefor put it to you that there is doubt in your minds. And doubt means that there is reasonable doubt as to wether anyone was really killed in this case. Therefor, I must insist that you return a verdict of not guilty."
The jury, clearly confused, retired to deliberate. A few minutes later, they returned and the foreman pronounced a verdict of guilty.
"But how?" inquired the incredulous lawyer.You must have had some doubt. I saw all of you looking at the door."
"Oh, yes," said the foreman, "we all looked. But your client did not!"
_______________
Changing lawyers is like moving to a different deck chair on the Titanic.
_______________
Arguing with a lawyer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a while, you realize that the pig is at home in the mud.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Why to learn how to speak other languages
"Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth:
and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right.
Then they took him, and slew him."
;-)
– Judges 12:6
In Brazil:
- Pulling at one's earlobe is a sign of appreciation.
- Flicking the fingertips underneath the chin indicates that you don't know or understand the answer to a question.
- To beckon someone, extend your palm face down and wave your fingers toward your body.
- The "O.K." sign [using your first finger and thumb to form a circle] is considered vulgar.
- Machismo in Brazil takes a milder, more subtle form than in other Latin American countries. Moreover, it's important for men to appear self-assured and "in control" at all times.
Quelques petites reflexions sur les choix
Ca me fait fort plaisir que mes mails servent (aussi peu soit il) a aider des gens a reflechir, ou rever (mais peut etre la, c'est moi qui reve ;-). Juste comme pour moi, certains emails de mes amis dans le monde me font rever, ou me poussent vers l'avant, m'indiquent d'autres routes meme si je ne veux pas (encore) les prendre. A mon avis, c'est un peu notre but au monde non, d'etre guidé, inspiré, et pouvoir inspirer des autres, participer à des changements. C'est la seule facon de contribuer à une évolution, non, et en partie, n'est-ce pas notre but dans le monde? J'ai toujours cherché à etre "utile" à mes amis, plutot que "gentil" ou "marrant". Ce que je vois dans "utile" est le fait de contribuer à leur faire realiser leurs reves, bien sur que dans la mesure de mes compétences et de ma personalité. Parfois je me demandais si c'était prétentieux ou arrogant que de vouloir influencer ou meme inspirer des autres, mais en réalité, pourquoi pas? Je suis quand meme fort insipiré par certaines personnes également, non?
Il y a au contraire des gens qui trouvent l'indépendance l'objectif principal, le fait de pouvoir tenir tout seul, to do it my way, comme on dit. Ils ne souhaitent pas se confier à des autres, qu'en cas de réelle nécessité. Dans ce cas alors, ils se tournent vers les quelques rares personnes dans lesquels ils ont confiance, leurs "vrais amis".
Je crois que je vois les choses différemment. Je préfère justement connaitre plusieurs manieres de voir, de m'appuyer sur tellement d'influences, de personnes et d'examples, qu'on en devient, ben, plus grand. N'est pas l'autonomie supreme que d'avoir une telle variété d'influences qu'on en ressort saturé, et dans un sens de se retrouver chez des autres, plus soi meme? Car claire, il ne s'agit pas d'etre ouvert à n'importe qui ou quoi, on choisit selon son caractere, ses ambitions etc. Mais il faut admettre que de nos jours, on vit précisemment à une époque où on peut trouver n'importe quel modèle, on peut entrer en contact avec tellement de manières de vivre différentes. Par les voyages, comme première génération ou, d'accords, nous occidentaux, on peut presque tous avoir accès à des prix abordables. Par internet, qui permet de trouver des autres amateurs pour n'importe quel hobby ou intéret spécifique. Par tous ces média qui nous sont offerts.
Et c'est la qu'en partie je crois vient une malaise chez tellement de personnes, c'est qu'ils se sentent angoissé. Avec la liberté vient la responsabilité. On est obligé de choisir, mais souvent, des gens ne veulent pas. De crainte de devoir échouer, sans s'assumer, ou de paresse, que sais-je. On a un choix tellement grand, qu'il en devient pesant. On devrait quand meme pouvoir etre heureux avec tous ces possibilités, mais je crains que pour beaucoup, c'est stressant, c'est inquiétant. Comme à l'image d'un supermarché, tellement de produits et de publicité qu'on s'y retrouve plus. Il y a parfaitement moyen de s'y perdre pendant des heures, de comparer des prix et des produits sans savoir lequel choisir. Et d'en ressortir en se demandant si on a vraiment acheté ce qu'on voulait, ou si on voulait vraiment ce qu'on acheté... D'ou l'importance d'etre bien organisé (j'en connais qui vont sourire s'ils lisent ca, je sais, je suis M Organisé ;-) .Mais c'est vrai, plus on est habitué, plus on vient avec des listes de courses, ou même des coupons de publicité etc, moins c'est stressant, on se sent guidé, avec un plan, des objectifs...
Avant, on naissait dans un petit village où on allait mourir aussi, on allait probablement reprendre le boulot ou l'affaire de papa et voir tous les mêmes gens tout le temps. Les voisins pouvaient donner les ragots et avis sur tout le monde, et le curé donnait la réponse à toutes les autres questions existentielles qu'on se posait.
De nos jours, il y a toujours moyen de vivre ainsi, mais on a d'autres choix possibles, on voit tout autour de nous des autres examples aussi, A la télé, les stars. Dans les média, des autres autres pays. Même chez les voisins, de plus en plus souvent des autres cultures, des autres modes de vie. Je ne sais pas si on est devenu plus heureux, plus complet à cause de cela, ou si justement plus angoissé. Ce sont souvent des choses inconnues, l'incertain qui fait peur aux gens, qui leur stressent. On parlait hier dans un cour que notre Zeitgeist est de crainte, de peur. Des terroristes, des maladies, de la guerre, mais de pression dans le travail, de nos entourage. Quoi qu'on fasse, on a toujours des gens devant nous qui le font mieux, qui sont plus beaux, plus intélligent, plus cultivé, plus marrant. Pour pouvoir exceller maintenant, la compétetion est tellement grande que je comprends l'angoisse pour beaucoup. Personnellement, je le trouve libératoire, je trouve notre génération priviligié et je crois qu'à long terme, ou peut etre devrais-je dire que j'espère qu'à long terme, cela va nous amener à etre plus apte a faire des choix et de les assumer, et donc d'etre plus épanouie. Mais quand on voit qu'on commence à s'habiller tous pareils, que tous les gosses jouent aux nintendos et regardent les mêmes séries. "57 channels and nothing's on". Tous les marques de soft drink qu'on veut mais ils sont tous pareils. Est-ce que le capitalisme ne poussera pas toujours vers le conformisme, ne va pas toujours jouer sur l'instinct de troupeaux, de vouloir etre considére conforme à la norme?
Il y a au contraire des gens qui trouvent l'indépendance l'objectif principal, le fait de pouvoir tenir tout seul, to do it my way, comme on dit. Ils ne souhaitent pas se confier à des autres, qu'en cas de réelle nécessité. Dans ce cas alors, ils se tournent vers les quelques rares personnes dans lesquels ils ont confiance, leurs "vrais amis".
Je crois que je vois les choses différemment. Je préfère justement connaitre plusieurs manieres de voir, de m'appuyer sur tellement d'influences, de personnes et d'examples, qu'on en devient, ben, plus grand. N'est pas l'autonomie supreme que d'avoir une telle variété d'influences qu'on en ressort saturé, et dans un sens de se retrouver chez des autres, plus soi meme? Car claire, il ne s'agit pas d'etre ouvert à n'importe qui ou quoi, on choisit selon son caractere, ses ambitions etc. Mais il faut admettre que de nos jours, on vit précisemment à une époque où on peut trouver n'importe quel modèle, on peut entrer en contact avec tellement de manières de vivre différentes. Par les voyages, comme première génération ou, d'accords, nous occidentaux, on peut presque tous avoir accès à des prix abordables. Par internet, qui permet de trouver des autres amateurs pour n'importe quel hobby ou intéret spécifique. Par tous ces média qui nous sont offerts.
Et c'est la qu'en partie je crois vient une malaise chez tellement de personnes, c'est qu'ils se sentent angoissé. Avec la liberté vient la responsabilité. On est obligé de choisir, mais souvent, des gens ne veulent pas. De crainte de devoir échouer, sans s'assumer, ou de paresse, que sais-je. On a un choix tellement grand, qu'il en devient pesant. On devrait quand meme pouvoir etre heureux avec tous ces possibilités, mais je crains que pour beaucoup, c'est stressant, c'est inquiétant. Comme à l'image d'un supermarché, tellement de produits et de publicité qu'on s'y retrouve plus. Il y a parfaitement moyen de s'y perdre pendant des heures, de comparer des prix et des produits sans savoir lequel choisir. Et d'en ressortir en se demandant si on a vraiment acheté ce qu'on voulait, ou si on voulait vraiment ce qu'on acheté... D'ou l'importance d'etre bien organisé (j'en connais qui vont sourire s'ils lisent ca, je sais, je suis M Organisé ;-) .Mais c'est vrai, plus on est habitué, plus on vient avec des listes de courses, ou même des coupons de publicité etc, moins c'est stressant, on se sent guidé, avec un plan, des objectifs...
Avant, on naissait dans un petit village où on allait mourir aussi, on allait probablement reprendre le boulot ou l'affaire de papa et voir tous les mêmes gens tout le temps. Les voisins pouvaient donner les ragots et avis sur tout le monde, et le curé donnait la réponse à toutes les autres questions existentielles qu'on se posait.
De nos jours, il y a toujours moyen de vivre ainsi, mais on a d'autres choix possibles, on voit tout autour de nous des autres examples aussi, A la télé, les stars. Dans les média, des autres autres pays. Même chez les voisins, de plus en plus souvent des autres cultures, des autres modes de vie. Je ne sais pas si on est devenu plus heureux, plus complet à cause de cela, ou si justement plus angoissé. Ce sont souvent des choses inconnues, l'incertain qui fait peur aux gens, qui leur stressent. On parlait hier dans un cour que notre Zeitgeist est de crainte, de peur. Des terroristes, des maladies, de la guerre, mais de pression dans le travail, de nos entourage. Quoi qu'on fasse, on a toujours des gens devant nous qui le font mieux, qui sont plus beaux, plus intélligent, plus cultivé, plus marrant. Pour pouvoir exceller maintenant, la compétetion est tellement grande que je comprends l'angoisse pour beaucoup. Personnellement, je le trouve libératoire, je trouve notre génération priviligié et je crois qu'à long terme, ou peut etre devrais-je dire que j'espère qu'à long terme, cela va nous amener à etre plus apte a faire des choix et de les assumer, et donc d'etre plus épanouie. Mais quand on voit qu'on commence à s'habiller tous pareils, que tous les gosses jouent aux nintendos et regardent les mêmes séries. "57 channels and nothing's on". Tous les marques de soft drink qu'on veut mais ils sont tous pareils. Est-ce que le capitalisme ne poussera pas toujours vers le conformisme, ne va pas toujours jouer sur l'instinct de troupeaux, de vouloir etre considére conforme à la norme?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
les jours a venir
Okay, what are my plans for the coming weeks?
- 21 till 28th August: école doctorale de la migration a l'université de Liège. Je dois admettre que c'est fort intéressant d'apprendre beaucoup plus de théories sur les migration, ensemble avec des gens venus un peu de partout en Europe, faisant des doctorats sur le thème... Parfois, ca donne envie d'en commencer une aussi ;-)
- 29th till 1st of September: off to Dublin with dear mom, visiting the city for 0,01€ - thanks to Ryan Air.
- 1st till 4th of September: London: seeing good old daniela again
- 4th till 8th of Sept. : Oxford, going to see habibi Lio et Ingrid
- 8th till 10th of Sept. : back to London, also to try and see International Service, a UN organisation to send out volunteers http://www.internationalservice.org.uk/ . Here I wish to apply for a job in Natal, Rio Grande, Brazil, that has to do with an NGO that does sexual health prevention in a Human Rights approach.
Recipe for a successful overseas project worker
Ingredients:
1 bowl of an individual containing the following doses:
- a big chunk of commitment, brand “genuine”, preferably already tried before
- add the minimum dose of respect for other cultures and ways of living
- a whiff of desire for discipline and systemising, but creative and social
- please verify that it is still flexible and can be adapted to a reasonable degree
1 pre-existing local team with:
- backbones of goals and objectives
- sufficient amount of flesh of motivated colegues
- aged by its own ways of working
And behind, an organisation with a commitment and a real desire to support the South to attack structural problems
Cooking instructions:
One begins by preparing this individual properly: after information, we recommend language classes and a time permitting integration and adaptation, before the proper cooking can begin. Experience learns us though that this happens rather quickly. Next, we combine the individual with the local team, making sure through prudence and respect no flakes form incidentally. Mix this, in the beginning slowly, but accelerating and adjusting the rythm if necessary. It must not be forgotten that adding the individual shouldn’t dominate the taste but simply add its flavour, and that the individual is supposed to be impregnated by the other ingredients as well! The dry flavour of law and human rights can be counterbalanced by the sharper analysis and political awareness. Since in this particular case, the meal is to be served to young people, one can take advantage of the included play factor, with games that have aged through years of boy scouts and working as monitor for children with handicaps to behavioural problems, or accompanying children victim of trafficking in Haiti. Best results are achieved by working systematically, and having a certain discipline combined with patience.
Easy and outgoing, it is a meal that in general pleases everyone without being tasteless. One great advantage of this recipe is that it adapts easily to different tastes and can be seasoned as required.
To accompany this meal, add the means to survive, but not to live like a king! In our experience, it is best that this mixture boils at the same temperature as the other components around it. For setting, we offer a supporting company of friends & family which also allows to bridge a bit of the gap that divides the seats in the North from the cheap seats in the South.
Important note: while cooking it is important to keep in mind that same ingredients might not be available all the time, and thus search for alternatives!
1 bowl of an individual containing the following doses:
- a big chunk of commitment, brand “genuine”, preferably already tried before
- add the minimum dose of respect for other cultures and ways of living
- a whiff of desire for discipline and systemising, but creative and social
- please verify that it is still flexible and can be adapted to a reasonable degree
1 pre-existing local team with:
- backbones of goals and objectives
- sufficient amount of flesh of motivated colegues
- aged by its own ways of working
And behind, an organisation with a commitment and a real desire to support the South to attack structural problems
Cooking instructions:
One begins by preparing this individual properly: after information, we recommend language classes and a time permitting integration and adaptation, before the proper cooking can begin. Experience learns us though that this happens rather quickly. Next, we combine the individual with the local team, making sure through prudence and respect no flakes form incidentally. Mix this, in the beginning slowly, but accelerating and adjusting the rythm if necessary. It must not be forgotten that adding the individual shouldn’t dominate the taste but simply add its flavour, and that the individual is supposed to be impregnated by the other ingredients as well! The dry flavour of law and human rights can be counterbalanced by the sharper analysis and political awareness. Since in this particular case, the meal is to be served to young people, one can take advantage of the included play factor, with games that have aged through years of boy scouts and working as monitor for children with handicaps to behavioural problems, or accompanying children victim of trafficking in Haiti. Best results are achieved by working systematically, and having a certain discipline combined with patience.
Easy and outgoing, it is a meal that in general pleases everyone without being tasteless. One great advantage of this recipe is that it adapts easily to different tastes and can be seasoned as required.
To accompany this meal, add the means to survive, but not to live like a king! In our experience, it is best that this mixture boils at the same temperature as the other components around it. For setting, we offer a supporting company of friends & family which also allows to bridge a bit of the gap that divides the seats in the North from the cheap seats in the South.
Important note: while cooking it is important to keep in mind that same ingredients might not be available all the time, and thus search for alternatives!
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Six degrees of seperation
Six degrees of separation is the hypothesis that anyone on Earth can be connected to any other person on the planet through a chain of acquaintances with no more than five intermediaries.
The hypothesis was first proposed in 1929 by the Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy in a short story called Chains. The concept is based on the idea that the number of acquaintances grows exponentially with the number of links in the chain, and so only a small number of links is required for the set of acquaintances to become the whole human population.
By extension, the same term is often used to describe any other setting in which some form of link exists between individual entities in a large set. For example, "see also" links in a dictionary entry may point the reader to other entries in the same dictionary; after following only six such links, the reader could potentially get to any word in the dictionary that has a link to it. In this special case of a dictionary, it is sometimes called the six links rule.
In the 1950s, Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT) and Manfred Kochen (IBM) set out to prove the theory mathematically. Although they were able to phrase the question (given a set N of people, what is the probability that each member of N is connected to another member via k1, k2, k3...kn links?), after twenty years they were still unable to solve the problem to their own satisfaction.
In 1967, American social psychologist Stanley Milgram (see Small world phenomenon) devised a new way to test the hypothesis, which he called "the small-world problem". He randomly selected people from various places in the United States to send postcards to one of two targets: one in Massachusetts and one in the American Midwest. The senders knew the recipient's name, occupation, and general location. They were instructed to send the card to a person they knew on a first-name basis who they thought was most likely, out of all their friends, to know the target personally. That person would do the same, and so on, until it was delivered to the target himself/herself.
Although the participants expected the chain to include at least a hundred intermediaries, 80% of the successfully delivered packages were delivered after four or fewer steps. Almost all the chains were less than six steps. Milgram's findings were published in Psychology Today, and his findings inspired the phrase six degrees of separation. Playwright John Guare popularized the phrase when he chose it as the title for his 1990 play. Milgram's findings were criticized, however, because they were based on the number of packages that reached the intended recipient, which was less than five percent of the total packages sent out. Further, many claim that Milgram biased the experiment in favor of the successful delivery of the packages by selecting his participants from a list of people likely to have above-average incomes, and thus not representative of the average person. It has been theorised that six is less representative of the true distance between people than of the maximum length a chain can be sustained without breaking down.
In 2001, Duncan Watts, a professor at Columbia University, continued his own earlier research into the phenomenon and recreated Milgram's experiment on the Internet. Watts used an e-mail message as the "package" that needed to be delivered, and after reviewing the data collected by 48,000 senders and 19 targets (in 157 countries), Watts found that the average number of intermediaries was indeed, six. Watts' research, and the advent of the computer age, has opened up new areas of inquiry related to six degrees of separation in diverse areas of network theory such as power grid analysis, disease transmission, graph theory, corporate communication, and computer circuitry.
A movie was made based on this concept in 1993: In New York, the art dealers John Flanders ('Flan') Kittredge (Donald Sutherland) and Louisa ('Ouisa') Kittredge (Stockard Channing) are ready to have a business dinner with their South African friend and client Geoffrey Miller (Ian McKellen), when a wounded young black man comes to their fancy apartment telling that he had been just robbed in Central Park and asking for help. He introduces himself as Paul (Will Smith), a friend of their son and daughter in Harvard and son of Sidney Poitier, and the couple invites him to stay with them. During the night (or especially in the morning), they find that Paul is not who he claims to be. When they investigate the life of Paul, they find the hidden truth.
The hypothesis was first proposed in 1929 by the Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy in a short story called Chains. The concept is based on the idea that the number of acquaintances grows exponentially with the number of links in the chain, and so only a small number of links is required for the set of acquaintances to become the whole human population.
By extension, the same term is often used to describe any other setting in which some form of link exists between individual entities in a large set. For example, "see also" links in a dictionary entry may point the reader to other entries in the same dictionary; after following only six such links, the reader could potentially get to any word in the dictionary that has a link to it. In this special case of a dictionary, it is sometimes called the six links rule.
In the 1950s, Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT) and Manfred Kochen (IBM) set out to prove the theory mathematically. Although they were able to phrase the question (given a set N of people, what is the probability that each member of N is connected to another member via k1, k2, k3...kn links?), after twenty years they were still unable to solve the problem to their own satisfaction.
In 1967, American social psychologist Stanley Milgram (see Small world phenomenon) devised a new way to test the hypothesis, which he called "the small-world problem". He randomly selected people from various places in the United States to send postcards to one of two targets: one in Massachusetts and one in the American Midwest. The senders knew the recipient's name, occupation, and general location. They were instructed to send the card to a person they knew on a first-name basis who they thought was most likely, out of all their friends, to know the target personally. That person would do the same, and so on, until it was delivered to the target himself/herself.
Although the participants expected the chain to include at least a hundred intermediaries, 80% of the successfully delivered packages were delivered after four or fewer steps. Almost all the chains were less than six steps. Milgram's findings were published in Psychology Today, and his findings inspired the phrase six degrees of separation. Playwright John Guare popularized the phrase when he chose it as the title for his 1990 play. Milgram's findings were criticized, however, because they were based on the number of packages that reached the intended recipient, which was less than five percent of the total packages sent out. Further, many claim that Milgram biased the experiment in favor of the successful delivery of the packages by selecting his participants from a list of people likely to have above-average incomes, and thus not representative of the average person. It has been theorised that six is less representative of the true distance between people than of the maximum length a chain can be sustained without breaking down.
In 2001, Duncan Watts, a professor at Columbia University, continued his own earlier research into the phenomenon and recreated Milgram's experiment on the Internet. Watts used an e-mail message as the "package" that needed to be delivered, and after reviewing the data collected by 48,000 senders and 19 targets (in 157 countries), Watts found that the average number of intermediaries was indeed, six. Watts' research, and the advent of the computer age, has opened up new areas of inquiry related to six degrees of separation in diverse areas of network theory such as power grid analysis, disease transmission, graph theory, corporate communication, and computer circuitry.
A movie was made based on this concept in 1993: In New York, the art dealers John Flanders ('Flan') Kittredge (Donald Sutherland) and Louisa ('Ouisa') Kittredge (Stockard Channing) are ready to have a business dinner with their South African friend and client Geoffrey Miller (Ian McKellen), when a wounded young black man comes to their fancy apartment telling that he had been just robbed in Central Park and asking for help. He introduces himself as Paul (Will Smith), a friend of their son and daughter in Harvard and son of Sidney Poitier, and the couple invites him to stay with them. During the night (or especially in the morning), they find that Paul is not who he claims to be. When they investigate the life of Paul, they find the hidden truth.
Visited Countries
My 43 countries visited in the world...
Still a lot left huh?
Still a lot left huh?Quick calculating: there's about 190 states recognised by the UN. Some quick math: if I am currently at 43 countries visited, at the current rate I am going:
at 28 I've visited 43
at 84 I would have visited 126!
Hum, who said anything about the need for speed?
If you want to make the same map: www.world66.com
at 28 I've visited 43
at 84 I would have visited 126!
Hum, who said anything about the need for speed?
If you want to make the same map: www.world66.com
Monday, August 7, 2006
De plek
Je moet niet alleen om de plek te bereiken
Thuis opstappen, maar ook uit manieren van kijken.
Er is niets te zien, en dat moet je zien
Om alles bij het zeer oude te laten.
Er is hier. Er is tijd.
Om overmorgen iets te hebben achtergelaten.
Daar moet je vandaag voor zorgen.
Voor sterfelijkheid.
Thuis opstappen, maar ook uit manieren van kijken.
Er is niets te zien, en dat moet je zien
Om alles bij het zeer oude te laten.
Er is hier. Er is tijd.
Om overmorgen iets te hebben achtergelaten.
Daar moet je vandaag voor zorgen.
Voor sterfelijkheid.
Herman De Coninck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)