I got it in a termosealed bag with a note from the Argentinian mail company saying "sorry it's
broken, we got it that way".
The box looked like a rhino had seen it was on fire and tried to put it out.
It's spotless and works perfectly.
So, what is it?
A RF (not bluetooth) mini-keyboard + trackball.
Does it work?
Brilliantly. You take the dongle, plug it into a USB port, and it works, no pairing,
no config, no drivers, no nothing.
But does it work on Linux?
Yep, everything, from the volume keys, to the "player" keys, to the weird orange key that
apparently launches nautilus. All the multimedia keys work, with OSD feedback, and
they do the obvious thing on clementine.
Are the keys nice?
They are a lot like an expensive QWERTY slider phone's. No travel, but nice feedback,
and the layout is reasonable. It's mostly a thumb-keyboard, and the shape works nicely
for that.
And the trackball?
Works with the thumb. I woul like a "press-the-trackball" to click, and strangely it's
a bit noisy! But not bad at all.
What else?
Light, has a compartment to store the dongle, seems rather robust. Comes with batteries.
So far, really happy with it, will use it for my living room computer/mediathing.
"¿Argentino?" me preguntó la camarera del Fay Fay. Pero claro, cenando solo, en Carmelo,
no te conocen, calculo que un 80% de probabilidades de que seas argentino. En fin.
Si no te gusta llamar la atención te conviene ir a Montevideo, o por lo menos a Colonia.
Pero la cachola es más barata, y para lo que tenés que hacer Carmelo alcanza. Y son
las once de la noche, y el hotel no tiene agua caliente, y el único lugar abierto es
el Fay Fay, y el carrito de chacho, y está fresco para comer parado en la calle.
Pero bueno, uno está donde está y hace lo que hace, y eso te preguntan siempre, qué
estás haciendo. Y se te ocurre inventar que si tomás las banelco de todos tus amigos,
venís acá, sacás pesos uruguayos del cajero, comprás dólares en la casa de cambio,
los llevás a Argentina, los cambiás por euros, los traés acá, y los volvés a cambiar
por dólares eso te deja un 7.8% de ganancia y es legal, pero sería complicado y no
es cierto, y no querés explicar, entonces tenés que pensar algo, y tirás que venís
porque sos un viajero en el tiempo.
Que somos todos, porque vamos para el futuro a un día por día, pero que tenés una teoría,
que acá no es el mismo momento que allá. Que se llaman igual, en todos lados se llama
25 de mayo del 2012, pero que a pesar de eso, acá se siente como si fuera, ponele,
22 de junio de 1987, pero con wifi.
Si, Carmelo es la década del 80 pero con wifi, esa es la excusa, y no, si no hubiera
wifi no vendría, por una cuestión de laburo, ¿viste? y empezás a mencionar las cosas obvias,
como que esos sauces llorones en el río son iguales a los que había en la vuelta del
pirata cuando eras chico, y que hay bosta en la calle, y que todas las veredas tienen
esa capa de tierra que vos no ves desde 1991, y los carteles pintados a mano en las
vidrieras.
Pero por supuesto, la evidencia más clara de que en Uruguay no es el siglo 21 es Natalia
Oreiro. Porque la Oreiro no sólo está muy buena, si no que es, claramente, una mina
nacida en 1950. Alcanza verle la cara, no es una cara de ahora, es una cara de hace 30,
40, 50 años, por eso llama la atención, porque minas lindas hay millones, pero ella es
linda como sería tu vieja cuando era joven, si tu vieja era linda, como tu vieja debería
haber sido de linda.
Es que las chicas jóvenes son siempre lindas. El chiste es ver cuarentonas lindas.
En un lugar en que las adolescentes son hermosas pero las de cuarenta no, es que
algo falla, es que algo les pasó en esos veinte años que les sacó lo lindas, ¿no?
Por eso, para saber cual país tiene las minas más lindas no mires adolescentes, no
mires modelos, ni actrices, mirá maestras de primaria, ponele, de entre 35 y 50.
Si son lindas, es que ese país vale la pena, porque agarró lindas adolescentes, las
puso en un laburo jodido e ingrato, pero así y todo no las arruinó, quiere decir que
el resto de las cosas que les pasaron no fueron tan malas. Si parecen de 20 sería
una cagada, tienen que parecer de 35, de 40, de 50, pero con una sonrisa, con
una actitud, de mina linda.
Entonces te decía que eso, que vengo por la máquina del tiempo, y sí, quiero volver a
los 90 porque eran más largos, los 90. Fijate, el gobierno de Mendez duró tipo lo
mismo que Nestor más Cristina, pero decíme que no pareció el doble, el triple...
sería que yo era más rápido en los 90, entonces ahora que soy más lento el mundo se
me puso rápido, y se me van los años así, de golpe, entonces si vengo acá, en el área de
influencia de la hipotética máquina del tiempo de Natalia, entonces los días se me hacen
más largos, y funciona, te juro, llevo 4 horas acá, pero se sienten
como 4 días, 4 semanas, claro, 4 días de éstos, no 4 días de los 90.
Pero bueno, sí, de paseo. Un canadiense y una coca light.
This sign (the one on the left) is on the Education Council of the place where I live.
Click to enlarge.
There is, really, no such thing as art. There are only artists.
—Gombrich
When I first read it I was shocked by the sheer stupidity of the thing, but hey, let's
think it over a bit. I suppose that saying someone is an artist, meaning a person that
creates art, and at the same time claim that art, as such, does not exist, sounded like
a good idea at the time. It's the kind of counter-intuitive slogan that makes people say
"oh, deep, dude" between bong hits.
It's deeply stupid literally, in that it would, of course, make artists people who create
something that doesn't exist, which puts them at the level of aspiring unicorn wranglers and
theologists in the futility of their chosen profession. But in a way, it is true. Because
"art" is not a thing, it has no material existence, although it has many examples.
So, pieces of art exist, but art as a whole doesn't. Art would be the platonic idea from
which sculptures, paintings and novels are but a reflection. Which is a metric ton of bullshit
but is at least somewhat defensible. And of course whether something is art or not is
completely subjective, so art is like a club where objects enter or not based on opinion,
and that club exists only in each person's head.
But in any case, that doesn't make it not existing, just because something only exists in
your head that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means it exists in your head, no matter
how silly that sounds. So, art does exist, in the same way that imagination exists, or
memories exist, or thought exists. Which again goes to show Gombrich was just crafting
a silly slogan.
So, we have established that existence is not exactly a black and white thing, because there
is at least material existence, and things that don't exist materially? Wrong, because your
brain processes are material too. Thought, imagination, and art, all exist materially, in
your brain. We just don't have the instruments to measure them, or report on them, except
via that unreliable thing called people who just will not shut up about all those things
they perceive in their brains. So, art exists, materially.
I know that may sound slightly strange, but what doesn't exist? Do the dragons of Pern
exist? Yes, they exist, you can buy "The Dragons of Pern" in Amazon. And yes, specific
dragons exist as well, because if they did not, how could we know they are carnivorous,
oviparous and warm-blooded? Sure, they don't exist materially in the form of dragons,
but I know that because I remember them. How could I remember something that doesn't
exist? I remember them because I read about them. I have a memory of their description.
There is a description o Pernese dragons as written by Anne McCaffrey, and that's not
as good as actual, touchable, warm dragons, but it's the next best thing.
If I mention pink elephants, I am bringing them into existence, not as elephants, but
as a description of an elephant, pink. It's an attenuated existence, but is the same
one Japan has for me, who have never been there and must make do with notoriously
unreliable testimony about their exotic temples, bizarre habits and enormous fire-breathing
atomic lizards.
Obviously this is not what people mean, in daily usage, when they say existence, since
it would include things people are happy to say do not exist, like Pernese dragons,
pink elephants and Gojira. So, in a twisted way, maybe Gombrich is right. Except of
course that existence is not a democratic decision. So maybe just people are wrong
to say Gojira doesn't exist.
Or maybe existence is not a useful property for things. Maybe what we should use is
reality. Because while Gojira exists, he is not real, in the sense that his material
form is not that of a huge Tokio-stomping man in a rubber suit. Even though there used
to be a guy, dressed on a rubber suit, stomping on a "Tokio", but I digress.
So, art is not real, maybe? Well, no, because noone is claiming art has a physical nature
distinct from that representation it has in our heads. Noone claims art is yellow, smaller
than a teapot, and covered in purple hair. Art is an abstract concept. And abstract concepts
exist.
Just saw a post in Google+ today by Amanda Blain, where she shows
a picture of a book saying this:
Never give up on anybody. Miracles happen every day.
—Someone
Of course, no, they don't happen every day. They hardly ever happen or
never happen, depending on how you define miracle. Things that happen
every day are not miracles, they are common. It's cheapening the word.
I did reply, though:
If god is almighty, pray for the convergence of the -1^n series, and
see how it works. There is no god but math.
—Me
Which is quite a troll, even for my standards, but hard to argue with, I
expect. This post is a more serious response to that original quote. And
my response is, sometimes, you need to give up. Further, sometimes, not
giving up is stupid, painful, dangerous and selfish.
Stupid
People don't really change all that much. They do it very slowly, when they do.
And you are not (usually) the other person's guardian. There comes a point in
people's lifes where helping them hurts them. Or worse, hurts the one helping.
Consider an abusive partner. Why should you not give up? Why allow him/her to
hurt you further, in hope for a future change? That is just stupid and...
Painful
Because you are being hurt, either in body or in mind. And being hurt is, of
course, bad. So why enable it? Why allow someone to cause you pain, just for
his own sake? What are you telling that person? That you feel good about
helping those who hurt you? That is...
Dangerous
Because he may believe you. You are teaching that person that you feel good
helping those who hurt you, and that makes you a better person, so he may
just try to help you be much better by hurting you further. And really,
if that's how you feel, you are being ...
Selfish
Because helping someone just to feel self-righteous and pious and good is
a scam. Help because you make the other feel good, not because it feels
good for you. I see people trapped in abusive relationships, almost
screaming "See how good I am! See the pain I take for love!" which is
both selfish and insane.
So, give up. Because the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is
he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through
the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the
finder of lost children. But enough is enough. And stupid is bad.
