Madness of Age Ratings

"The game Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is too violent and contains sex; therefore it should not be sold to minors. The movie Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back contains references to drug use, fellatio, and blasphemy and therefore should not be watched by anyone under eighteen. The movie Natural Born Killers incites youths to kill and maim, and therefore must not be distributed at all..."

I really don't get all these judgement calls about what someone should be allowed to see and what is not. I really value the power of my own judgement, taste and common sense, although I must admit the lack of control, lack of common sense and high degree of stupidity in some other people is quite baffling.

I'm pretty sure 80 percent of the general population is able to discern quite well for themselves what is tasteful and what is tasteless. I'm also sure that they can strike a balance between knowing when to butt out and when to intervene. These are the people that don't need to be treated like a child. These are the people who are able to tell reality from fiction. They don't need to be protected from bad influences, because they already can for themselves. Patronizing them only serves the opposite effect: they rebel.

Being told what to do when you don't feel like it's justified, is mightily insulting. When age rating systems stop being guidelines and start being dogmas, that's when our society is in trouble.

Portugal-Netherlands final thoughts

• The ONE game Johan Cruijff is not there, and Holland gets defeated badly. We should blame Jordy Cruijff for planning his wedding during the World Cup, so that his father couldn't be there in the stadium, so Netherlands couldn't draw on the presence from its finest player ever... Come on Jordy, why are you such a spoilsport...
  
• One of the last camera shots of the game: a Dutch supporter crying on the balcony, arms draped over the railing. Behind him is a shot of a glass barrier... completely shattered! Wonder what happened there...
• One of the rules of thumb I use during a game: if you hit the crossbar/post when you're tied or behind, you don't win. Case in point: Cocu's volley at the crossbar early in the second half. It's a matter of fate.
• So the officials get blamed for letting games get out of control... FIFA shouldn't give them so many things to remember in the first place... give yellow card for celebrating goals with shirt over the head... give yellow card for picking up a ball and carrying it four feet... give red card to player yelling at Blatter... look the other way when Switzerland is offside... make sure Brazil gets to the final, no matter how badly they play... etcetera, etcetera

Stop the group processes!

Impressive characters and commanding institutions have the ability to attract huge followings. Sometimes joining up requires very little effort, but there are instances where people have to give up something to be able to join. It might be a matter of principles, or a matter of cash, or something even more serious.

People simply have to join groups, follow leaders, belong. People need a sense of connection to other people, or else the loneliness would make them crazy. People need direction and stability to get themselves forward. Finally people need to feel safe, and there's definitely safety in numbers when you're part of the same group.

The danger in this is that one's responsibilities are diminished opposed to the purpose in the group. For fear of getting kicked out of the group or punishment, people may be dismissive regarding obvious weaknesses in the group. The very reason for the group to exist, is also its biggest threat: the inherent unwillingness to change and adapt to survive. Groups tend to reduce individualism to the point where it breeds only yes-men, followers and zealots.

The notion of people having original ideas, being unique characters and being a role-model is thrown out of the window in groups. That kind of defeats the purpose of building groups.

What's the main thing I want to say... groups are very much a part of our society. We don't survive without them. But we should be so strong that we know to own up for what we believe in, even if it is opposed to the group. We should take responsibility for our own actions, not hide behind group processes. Yes-men don't deserve any accolades.

A wallet full of ambitions

Way back I measured success as being extremely, wealthy rich. I still want to do a lot to get there, but my ambitions have their limits I realize. They stretch to the point where I am still confident about myself, comfortable in my surroundings and challenged just enough to not get complacent.

I realize other people have different limits set, up to the point where they objectively go farther, harder and faster to their goals, and with more dedication. Or the other way around, people who have more modest goals, and thus spend less time and effort to achieve them.

The degree of success thus has another dimension; how much can you achieve, given the ambition level you have? I guess the more you get and the less effort you spend, the better off you are, and thus the more successful.

I fully adhere to the notion that you need to spend something to get something. There’s always a cost involved. You don’t get something for nothing.

Whatever you are spending, whatever you are willing to spend, is key here. You can trade sleep, free time, morals, ideals for achievement of your goals. Some are willing to spend less, others more.

People with lots of talent can be more efficient, than people with little. Your currency so to speak depends on how you define yourself as a person. I personally emphasize being able to justify my actions to myself. I can play politics, but I keep it business. I can spend lots of time at work, as much at least as my body will let me. I prefer to think on my own, and be creative, rather than being thought for. I give proper respect to people who’ve helped, and inspired me. I don’t tell everything, because to reach a goal I am fully aware that sometimes silence and ignorance are more constructive.

These are my ground rules. Within these boundaries I have my wallet so to speak.

The Streak is still alive

With the Hurricanes winning the Stanley Cup, the streak of correctly predicted pro sports finals runs up to four. The Gut Rules!

However, the streak will likely end tonight when Dallas hosts Miami in the NBA Finals. The Heat lead the series 3-2 and can win it all in Texas.

Ah... a 4-1 record predicting matches ain't bad I guess.

The end of the traffic jam

If TomTom wanted to, they could end all traffic problems, without so much as an extra satellite up-link. All they have to do, is make sure all their devices are linked to their central GPS system, and collect everyone's routing information. Then at any given time they could send everyone to their respective destinations, working out the optimal path for the entire flow of traffic. This means two people starting at the same point and heading to the same destination within the same timeframe, could be doing completely different routes.

That would radically shift our responsibilities; TomTom would tell us and in fact control us where to go. In that case, we have two choices: go along with the machine, or just turn it off.

A Good Thing

It is a Good thing in this time of casual relationships and divorces, that getting married is still held in high regard.

It is a Good thing that people can cease to be cynical and make something work, despite all the temptations and distractions around them.

It is a Good thing to say I Do

I didn't want you to know that

Have you noticed how much control you have in e-mails? You get to order around anyone just by putting them on the recipient list; you control who knows what by leaving them on or off it as well. Not to mention blank carbon copies and or mailling lists, where you control if people can contact each other as well. Ah... the power of the address list. A literal who's who in the universe that is you.

Sometimes who receives a particular mail, says far more than the actual message contained within.

Bad for your health

The first thing I see when I step out the door, is a snackbar

The downfall starts here

Two vents that were thought to be somewhere else...

Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out!

 This is the view you would get, if you would run out of my living room right now. 

NBA Finals 2006: Heat vs. Mavericks

And wouldn't you know it, two finals series running at the same time! This time let's look at the NBA finals matchup.


The Head Says: Dallas

• You can't really go wrong with the Mavericks. They've been near or at the top of the power rankings since start of season, and they managed to beat the strongest team of the regular season (San Antonio) and the best offensive team overall (Phoenix) to reach the finals. Despite Miami having two studs in the finals as well, it seems very much like it's Dirk Nowitzki's time to shine.
• I do think personnel-wise things are heading Miami's way: with Shaq, Dwyane Wade, and Gary Payton, they've got three Hall of Famers, and with Alonzo Mourning, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams some solid (former) All-Stars in the top 8 of the roster
  

The Heart Says: Miami

• Personnel-wise I like Miami better. Shaq is still the overpowering Diesel, Gary Payton is still my all-time point guard, and Alonzo Mourning carries a soft spot for anyone. Dirk to me unfortunately is just another German, despite being the best his country has come up with since Detlef Schrempf.

The Gut Says: Mavericks in seven

• The two stars of this series are going to be Dwyane Wade and Dirk Nowitzki, no question. Wade has risen to the occasion and is the perfect complement to Shaq's power, not unlike the Lakers dynasty from 2000-2002. But I think the Mavs are going to make it. It's going to be close, but their regular season form is too much to be denied.

Stanley Cup Finals 2006: Hurricanes vs. Oilers

Who do I pick winning the Stanley Cup this year?

The Head Says: Edmonton

• The Oilers finished off the Ducks in the Western Conference finals in five games, so they had some time to twiddle their thumbs, as the Eastern Conference finals wrapped up a week later. The rest I think is welcomed by the team, although much of their momentum they had during the playoffs is now strongly diminished. Edmonton is still the only current format eighth seed to reach the Stanley Cup Finals, and defeated Detroit, San Jose and Anaheim to do it. Especially if you beat the Red Wings, you get bonus points from me.
• The Hurricanes' goalies are very young, maybe too young. The two-headed monster of Cam Ward and Martin Gerber did well this playoff season, (well, Ward did anyway) but they still only combine for 4 years of NHL experience. Carolina switched them around a couple of times, which does not instill a great deal of trust in your defence. I understand the current trend towards positional competition within teams to get better output, but it seems overrated to me.
• Carolina has seen better offensive output than the Oilers across the entire season, but Edmonton had better defensive stats, and better performing special teams. Edmonton goalie Dwayne Roloson is also this playoffs' leading goaltender.
  

The Heart Says: Carolina

• Carolina was a team I followed closely a couple of years back, when Jeff O'Neill was still playing there. I guess that doesn't really apply anymore, but there's still plenty of people with the Hurricanes to like. Eric Staal and Erik Cole finally came of age this season, firmly supported by veterans Rod Brind'Amour, Glen Wesley and Bret Hedican. Personnel wise I like these guys better than I do the Oilers.
• I can't really root for Edmonton here, as division rivals to Colorado...
• ...on the other hand the Stanley Cup should go to a franchise that has hockey in its heart, to a country even that has hockey in its heart. Edmonton fits that description far better than Raleigh.
  
• Having an eighth seed win the entire thing makes for a better story and DVD documentary.

The Gut Says: Carolina in six

• Remember last year? Katrina? Gulf of Mexico? Oil platforms going out of production? The Hurricanes will cripple the Oilers.
• It's a matter of sharing the wealth. Edmonton already has its fair share of cups thanks to some guys named Messier and Gretzky. Let Carolina have one for once. You already had Tampa Bay get its grubby mitts on Lord Stanley's chalice for nearly two bloody years.
  

The Eye of the Beholder

I don't agree with the notion that people get more peaceful and calm as they get older. Instead people seem to be getting shorter fuses. They may not explode with as much force and intensity, but they burn a great deal more often.

People also get angrier about more meaningless things as time goes on. At first it's important stuff that upsets you (being discriminated against for example, is quite serious), but later on you might blow up just because your neighbour's apple tree is hanging five centimeters over your hedge.

I thought that I would gain perspective as I grow older. I start out thinking and caring about kiddie stuff (like toys, crushes, school), and then I gain more and more experience in many different areas (responsibilities, love, jobs, traveling, success and failure) and start picking out the important things from the unimportant ones. Eventually I would get truly enlightened, and be able to differentiate significant from insignificant. I would know which things deserve my attention and which do not. I would know what I should be upset about and about what I shouldn't have to worry.

However, this is not reality unfortunately. People get angry about meanial, petty things, and sometimes they are even proud to admit it as well. At times they even have their priorities on backwards. I - for example - am extremely riled up about my 'limited' income. Yet in the grand scheme of things, the importance of my monthly salary ranks at about the same level as navel lint.

Depending on each one's perspective, meanial things can become quite important to the beholder. And that seemingly gives anyone the right to nag about them.

Exam fright

Here’s some advice when you’ve got exam fright:

• Never say never
• Use tension to keep you alert
• Know when to relieve tension
• Focus on one task
• Plan ahead
• Separate emotion from the questions
• Put effort in
• Be reasonable
• Share support

Raceday

With both the Monaco Formula One Grand Prix and the Indy 500 this Sunday, once again it is RaceDay. Some thoughts about the events leading up to this day:

• so Schumacher got caught with a schwalbe. He didn't have to do it that obvious, but I guess no real harm was done. The officials put him back, give it a rest already.
• so what if Danica may be the next Anna Kournikova (as in good-looking, but few - if any - sports victories). Let her do all those photo shoots and interviews, and leave her up there with the other guys. She's still way faster than most other drivers out there.
• Rubens Barrichello - Formula One driver - wears Tony Kanaan's - Indycar driver - helmet, and vice versa. Hehe... funny. Especially considering they're thousands of miles apart.
  

How do you know you don't like it...

Here's something I would like to call "let's try not to say this anymore, okay?"

It's a funny thing you advise someone "how do you know you don't like it, when you haven't tried it", if you want to convince him to do something or experience something, which they wouldn't do otherwise. The thing you want someone else to do, is either:

• something you already did (once) before
• an experience you'd (secretly) like to have yourself (and you want a guinea pig)
  
• an experience you'd like someone else to have (regardless if you had or not)

In my experience, people may or may not have a good reason not to want to do this thing in the first place, and they may or may not be aware of this. Often it's just a reflex, a feeling. Depending on the situation, people may have to be convinced to do something that could ultimately be of benefit to them. A good example is overcoming a fear of flying.

But arguing that previous experience is the only way to determine your preference, and using this argument to convince someone to do something - no matter how well meant - is an extremely evil thing to do. It's the same as claiming that experience gives you the right to stick your nose in other people's business.

It is simply not true that experience breeds preference. People have got this thing called fear, and it's real handy in prolinging life on this blue little planet. It prevents people from doing stupid stuff, like jumping off tall buildings without having a parachute (I'm sure it's extremely exhilarating, but I'm pretty sure I don't like it, and I won't do it). Of course, sometimes fear is so strong it also prevents people from achieving above and beyond, but that's beside the fact.

Previous experience does not suddenly give you the ability to influence people better. Previous experience is a bad predictor for liking something or not.

In other words, you need to come up with more valid argument if you want a non-smoker to smoke a joint.

A scary observation

• I drive my current lease car since the summer of 2003
• During that time, I've driven nearly 40.000 km per year
• I visit the gas station for a full tank of gas on average 44 times per year
• My car has a 50 liter tank, which I roughly fill up each time
• Since 2004 prices for a liter of diesel fuel have risen nearly 20 percent, from under 0.90 EUR/l to 1.07 EUR/l today.
• A full tank of gas costs on average EUR 41 back in 2004. Now it's EUR 49.
• On a yearly basis fuel prices for the car have risen EUR 350.
  

Conclusion: I am very happy my fuel costs are paid for by my employer.

Clothes make the man

I'm pretty sure nobody at the Eurovision Song contest saw it coming. The past years some showy Eastern European chick usually wins, with either an up-tempo dance song, or a music track that highlights the vocal range of the singer.

And now these guys win. I'm pretty sure everybody thought "hey, which song did we remember best this evening... oh yes, those scary looking guys from Finland. Let's give them 12 points. I wanna see those suits again."

Sick and tired

I usually associate hospitals with old people. They've been around longer, so they would have a higher risk that something medical happens to them.

But in the oncology department it's baffling that you see people from all walks of life, in all stages of life. Young people, tweens who are supposed to be enjoying the best years of their lives are just as present here as retirees and grand parents. I'm sure I've seen some semi-famous politician in there as well.

Some are under obvious chemo, others you would not notice or suspect they are. And when I'm sitting there in the waiting room, my mind can't help but wonder how they ended up here. How long ago? How serious? Were they shocked when they found out?

And yet I never get to know completely. Some of them might surrender some information, but it's rather circumstantial. Of course, you can't just ask bluntly.

It just goes to show:

• cancer comes in all shapes and sizes
  
• it makes no distinctions
• and for each his/her own