Kulturell egocentrisk indoktrinering

Jag har funderat lite på det här med barnprogram, eller mer specifikt, barnprogram med handling och protagonister och antagonister. Denna tanke kan i många fall också utökas till en hel del vuxenfilmer (filmer med en åldersgräns på >= 11 alltså).

Något som är relativt symptomatiskt är att antagonisterna inte är riktiga karaktärer. De är platta och ytliga utan någon egentlig anledning till varför de agerar som de gör. Alternativt drivs de av en stereotypt negativ drivkraft som t.ex. hämndlystnad eller girighet. Detta är självklart ingen ny observation, och traditionen sträcker sig långt tillbaka (sagor, historiska skildringar), men varför gör man så? Hur ofta är det medvetet? Hur ofta gör man det för att förenkla? För att få protagonisten att verka godare? För att förenkla världen? För att man vet att folk inte vill veta av den andra sidan? Hur ofta görs det utan att författare tänker på att de gör det?

Jag började skriva detta i ett inspirerat ögonblick och avslutar ganska oinspirerad ett par dagar senare. Men om någon har tips på film eller böcker med två protagonister som samtidigt är varandras antagonister, så tar jag gärna emot dem.


Mac Quicklook of calendar ics files displays event in context


I got a ics file for an event I signed up for via email. I opened the email via Sparrow and Quicklooked the ics-event file and got a view of my current events in my calendar together with a preview of how the new event would fit in. 


”Drömmar med vingesus”: Vingesuset är tvetydigt. Den vanliga formen är vingsus – även om vingesus också förekommer – och ordet har ofta överförd betydelse, ungefär som vingslag:
”man hörde vingesuset av en ny tid”. Men det kan också vara närmast en
ornitologisk fackterm, ”en flock brunänder drar förbi med stort

”under oss sia”: Under är
inte en lägesbetecknande preposition utan det substantiv som har med
underverk att göra. Hela satsens betydelse är alltså att drömmar med
vingesus siar om under för oss. Sia under i stället för sia om
under är en möjlig men ovanlig konstruktion som också hör till litterär
eller religiös stil. Och den aktuella ordföljden kan bara förekomma i
vers. I prosa skulle predikatet sia komma som andra satsdel, nu står det först som fjärde, efter subjekt (Drömmar med vingesus), direkt objekt (under) och indirekt objekt (oss).

Språkrådet förklarar lite luciasångsuttryck.

Facebook Pulls Back Curtain on ‘Timeline’ | Wired Enterprise | Wired.com

Timeline “dark launched” in July. This means that for the last five months, every time someone clicked on their profile, Facebook not only accessed its existing databases, it opened the Timeline databases for writes as well. In essence, Timeline was running under the covers, so the team could monitor loads, update code, check for bugs, and, yes, start storing the data.

Smidigt sätt att testa funktionalitet och systembelastning!

The “best” of the VGAs: new Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite trailers, and Tony Hawk HD


Games are darker today. Better looking though.

English Pronunciation, read by Mac OS X built in speech synthesis (Serena and others(

I was linked to this post: http://spelling.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/english-pronunciation/ Which I am quoting in full below. Before the quoted post, I am also attaching two three recorded readings of the poem by Mac OS X Lion voices. One is read by the Serena from the United Kingdom voice, one is read by the Thomas from France voice, and one is read by Alex from the United States.

Listen on Posterous

Listen on Posterous

Listen on Posterous

You be the judge of how well they fare 🙂

If you can pronounce correctly every word in this poem, you will be speaking English better than 90% of the native English speakers in the world. After trying the verses, a Frenchman said he’d prefer six months of hard labour to reading six lines aloud.

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.
Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation’s OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.
Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.
Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation (think of Psyche!)
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to give up!!!

English Pronunciation by G. Nolst Trenité


A Chindogu Social Yardstick | David Seah

The basic principle: your physical distance from someone often telegraphs how “close” you are. Here’s a diagram to help illustrate the point:

Social Distances

In case you’re wondering: the distances in the diagram are roughly based on what “felt right”, though I can see now that it seems roughly based on the width of a person’s body.

… and here is a short article with some references: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~sheppard/proxemics.htm

Why Spotify can never be profitable: The secret demands of record labels — Tech News and Analysis

The supplier will always elect the formula that captures the largest amount of money for themselves, completely disregarding the financial viability of the store.

Känns som att något är fel rent strukturellt.