17 years

Scientists could have shown, if they only had bothered, that an object that has lasted for 17 years is likely to last for ever. If you have had a car or a stereo for 17 years without problems, then it is likely that it never ever will break.

That's why you should never through away things you have owned for more than 17 years.

When I realised this some time ago (just after breakfast), I set up a scheme for my apartment. Every year in December, I go through all things I have owned for 15 to 16 years. The ones I have never used, I throw away. The ones I have used I also throw away, otherwise my apartment might fill up to the brink with useful quality articles. They may be good, but I value space more than things.

Searching in life is easier than on the net

One day I sat down to look for something on the world wide web. I opened my favourite search engine and for once went to the "Advanced Search" page.

To my surprise they had added the following parameters:

Sort by:

• Quality
• Intelligence
• Originality
• Truthfulness

Then I woke up of course.

Thicker is better

At the company where my sister works, there is a group of analysts with the task to estimate future trends. The manager of that group had a problem measuring the performance of his employees. How do you measure the quality of predictions?

The solution was simple: he uses the number of written pages. The more pages, the better the analyst.

The best in the group managed to produce 700 pages of estimations in one week. So far no one has managed to read more than the first half of the first page, because it is so boring and incomprehensible, but his manager has very good hope that they one day will be able to use the data for something.

Each has his own skills

The farmer does not blame the cow for not laying enough eggs.

A brief impression of a distant country

I just went to Northern Europe on holiday. It is amazing how refreshing the weather is there.



Not only that, but you have the chance to see as many animals as on a safari on the Serengeti.

I am so gullible

I do not know if you have heard of a company called Apple. They make computers, music players and stunning keynote presentations. I was just watching a keynote presentation, where their director, a mr. Jobs, presented new music players. The audience was enthusiastic and shouted and applauded all the time.

My own thought was that the products were probably ok, as the audience liked them, even though I was a little surprised at the exaggerated ovations.

Then it struck me that I had seen another presentation with mr. Jobs some months ago, and the audience had been equally enthusiastic. Note the word "equally". The audience was identically enthusiastic. The products were different, but they applauded in the same rhythms. Their wows were shouted with the same voices.

Only then it struck me that the room must have had loads of Apple employees commandeered in to support their director. I do not mind them being there. It would be silly of Apple not to send people in to support their products.

I only mind myself being so gullible not to have realised it straight away.

Hooray! I found a reason! Then I can have an opinion!

Strangely enough human discussions often follow a boolean pattern. Everything tends to be black or white, true or false, for or against.

"Smoking is bad for your health, so therefore I want to ban it in public restaurants", for example. The argument is catchy. It is good. It is convincing. And it is so simplified that it is wrong.

If man had been able to have serious discussions, the argument would have gone more like this: "I realise that smoking makes life much more pleasant for a lot of people, that it brings money to restaurant owners, that it can be the reason for two people to find each other for a perfect life-long marriage, that plenty of people do not get sick from it, that some tourists get attracted to our fair city if they are allowed to smoke in restaurants, that few things can bring as much happiness as a cigarette after a good meal. I realise all that, but in spite of that, I think the health risks are so serious that I want to ban it in public restaurants."

However, such balanced arguments are as rare as penguins on the slopes of the Cheops pyramid. And why? Because most listeners fall asleep, before the speaker gets to the point. That's why.

The curse of man is that we fall asleep rather than think.

Wake me up if you find any argument against that.

A few hours ago, a few hundred meters away

Around 1 o'clock today armed robbers stole four paintings from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Nice. It was two Brueghel, one Sisley and one Monet. At that time I was only a few hundred meters away. I get a strange feeling from events at locations where I have been, when they are reported in national or international media.

I had read in the newspapers for several days about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, before I realised that I actually had been to Minneapolis once. I had not passed that particular bridge, but I knew perfectly well where it was.

But I was even more moved when I travelled by train around continental Europe in 1980. I spent a lot of time in waiting rooms at stations, waiting for trains, obviously, and sometimes sorting my things out, reading about available hotel rooms and things to see in the city I arrived to. This was before internet, so my news sources were limited to good old paper newspapers.

The third of August I arrived in Bologna. Following my habit I looked for the waiting room, but could not find it. It did not really surprise me, because the station was a mess, with something that looked like building works ongoing everywhere. I walked to the city centre, bought a newspaper and sat down at a café to read it. It was only then that I realised what had happened at the station. It was the strage di Bologna, a terrorist bomb which had killed or injured close to 300 persons in and around the waiting room of the railway station the day before. If I had arrived one day earlier, there was a pretty good chance that I would not be able to sit here typing this blog right now.

Of course I did not know at the time that there one day would be an internet or blogs, but the closeness of the event disturbed me.

This does not make me special in any way of course. There must have been thousands of people who were equally close to being in that waiting room. And thousands of thousands of people get the opportunity to feel lucky each year, when they narrowly escape terrorists, accidents or natural catastrophes. The positive message is that if you ever get close to a catastrophe, it is much more likely that you narrowly escape it than that you perish in it.

If not this, what? If not now, when?

I think it was Time magazine which used this title on the front page as an argument for sanctions against South Africa during the heydays of apartheid in the eighties. They had other better arguments in the magazine itself. Luckily. Because the title on its own is one of the worst ones I have ever seen.

The argument works equally well for almost anything.

Let's assume that an asteroid is charging against the earth threatening to extinguish all life.

• I suggest that we organise a public demonstration against the asteroid. If not this, what? Do you have any other proposal? OK. Then a demonstration it is.


• I suggest that we complain at Microsoft's helpdesk about the asteroid. If not this, what? Do you have any other proposal? OK. Then Microsoft's helpdesk it is.


• I suggest that we pray, that we burn witches, that we launch a military attack against a foreign country, that we clap our hands and brush our teeth, that we throw away our old socks, that we order red wine to fish, that we buy a new car. Do you have any other proposal? But we have to do something. We cannot just remain passive and see that asteroid smash into us. If not this, what?
  

The catch phrase "If not this, what?" is a way to pretend a displacement activity is backed up by logic.

Brack

This is how you learn a language. This is how you adapt to your environment.

At each level of saltiness of water, almost until it is completely saturated, there are life forms adapted to it. There are freshwater fish that want almost no salt at all, and there are seawater fish that need at least 30 grams of salt for each litre of water. For these levels and each level of brack water in between, there is life for which this environment works.

At each level of knowledge of a language, there is an environment where that level works. You may not be able to say more than "one beer, please", but it is a phrase that works in a bar. You may not be able to spell properly, but you may anyhow be able to discuss the current political situation in Belize. Then, feel free to discuss Belize. Look for the situations that work with your level of brack water. Practice what you know. Without practice you will never succeed.

You may not be able to write elegant sonnets in the foreign language, but you may at least be able to write blogs.