In other news:

• The world's richest nation only barely failed to elect a talking corpse now irrelevant in politics and the dumbest potential state leader in the history of modern democracy.
• In other views “The U.S. is the only country in the world where the major candidates for office are chosen by people (in primaries) and not by back-room political machinations. This much democracy give the results legitimacy, but not always quality. After all, they elected Bush twice.”
• That said, if the new president lives up to his expectations, chances are he will not live for long.
• Some other country steps into the show and attempts to boost consumerism to stay afloat in a flawed economic system. Not impressive and possibly selfish.
• While some dangerously misogyinistic cultures remind us of their ideology, some others try to get rid of the cruft. Whether there are strings attached remains to be seen.

• Maurice (1987)
• Torch song trilogy (1988)
• Butch camp (1996)
• It's in the water (1997)
• The talented Mr Ripley (1999)
• Borstal boy (2000)
• Happy Feet (2006)

Werk, werk, werk. Tussen negen en tien uur werk per dag, met weinig thee-pauzes. Elke dag minder energie daarna om wat anders te doen. Behalve de weg naar Albert Heijn, het station en de universiteit ken ik nog bijna niks over mijn buurt en Amsterdam. Geen tijd ervoor.

Nog niet. Het maakt sowieso niet erg uit, want ik vind mijn nieuwe baan en collega's leuk genoeg om van mijn nieuwe situatie te genieten.

Op zaterdag heb ik mijn kat en Albert verhuisd. De enige vindt het weer nog wat te nat. De andere heeft wat meer licht nodig. Maar overal overleven ze allebei.

Dan zaterdagavond ben ik naar Utrecht geweest voor de Cruise Control — het was de eerste keer waar ik de trein terug naar huis kon nemen met een reistijd van minder dan een uur. Gisteren heb ik een vriendin uit Frankrijk ontmoeten die Amsterdam wilde bezoeken — dus kon ik door de stad lopen, ook voor de eerste keer als inwoner.

Vandaag heb ik een paar nieuwe dingen gekregen:

• nieuwe kantoorsleutel en UvA chipsleutel,
• nieuwe werkkamer en bureau,
• nieuwe schrijft en pennetje,
• nieuwe werkplek computer en netwerk aansluiting,
• nieuwe collega's,
• nieuwe bibliotheek van technische literatuur,
• nieuwe kantine,
• nieuwe eindeloos stapel van werktaken,
• nieuwe wanorder in de organisatie van mijn afdeling.

Eindelijk was het een lange werkdag vol ook met nieuwe kennis en nieuwe vragen over mijn project en mijn toekomst in het algemeen.

Maar dan was ik terug, en weer bezig met het opruimen en opbergen van mijn spullen. Na een paar uur werk ben ik bijna klaar: alleen maar twee dozen blijven dicht. Ze zijn vol met keukengoederen.

Een paar dagen geleden heb ik een plekje in de keuken gevraagd maar ik heb nog niks gekregen. Vanavond heb ik een nieuwe "truc" geproefd: ik stelde voor om een inventaris van onze toewijzingen te maken, om wat etiketten later af te drukken en te plakken. Het resultaat: mijn mannelijk huisgenoot en mij gebruiken maar twee rekjes van de bestaande 30 in onze woonkamer. De rest zit nu in het bezit van de drie meisjes.

Het blijkt eruit dat de feministische revolutie nog niet tot ons aangekomen is.

Vandaag (zondag 31/08) ben ik wakker geworden in mijn eigen bed. Het was de eerste keer sinds eind juli. Ik sliep uit, ook voor de eerste keer sinds lang geleden.

Om twaalf uur begon ik uit te pakken, op te ruimen en op te bergen. Na een paar dozen realiseerde ik mij dat ik honger had en dat geen eten (voor mij) in de keuken zat. Echter is de keuken vol met eten, maar ik weet nog niet of het delen van voedsel met mijn huisgenoten toegestaan is. Dus moest wat boodschappen doen: een lastige taak op een zondagmiddag maar ook een gelegenheid om mijn nieuwe buurt te bezoeken.

Eindelijk heb ik een AH winkel gevonden die geopend blijft tot zeven uur. Het moest dé zondagswinkel in de buurt zijn: het stond zo vol met mensen dat ik tegen minstens tien personen erin botste. Op de weg erheen en terug realiseerde ik mij ook dat ik nu in een grote stad woon, door de eindeloze opeenvolging van gelijksoortige woonpanden langs de straat naar de winkel. In deze buurt standen ook panden met meer dan vier verdiepingen, een andere teken van een drukker bevolking.

De tweede deel van de middag was tijd voor schoonmaken. De eerste stap was het inventariseren van onze reinigingsmiddelen. Zoals ik vreesde vond ik een tekort… Na de vakantieperiode verwacht ik dat zo'n studentenhuis wat minder onderhouden was: de drie stofzuigers zijn bijna buiten gebruik, de ene gebroken en de twee andere met volle stofzaken. Natuurlijk kon ik geen vervanging vinden. Dan was het schoonmaken van de grote badkamer, de keuken en de deuren met een kleine spons en een ineffectieve zeep geen aangename taak. Eindelijk had ik meer geluk met het dweilen, want de vloer was al wat schoon en dus was de afwezigheid van vloerzeep geen zware last.

Vandaag heb ik ook kennisgemaakt met mijn derde huisgenoot (alleen maar één moet ik nog ontdekken). Dit snelsprekende meisje informeerde mij over de kosten van onze internet aansluiting, en over het feit dat ik mijn eigen ruimte in de keuken mijzelf moet veroveren. Met haar hulp heb ik een eerste plek van twintig centimeters op een rek gekregen. De rest ga ik bespreken later deze week met de anderen.

Het resultaat van de dag: een grote wanorde in mijn kamer, wat eten klaar in de koelkast en maar drie dozen verlaten om uit te pakken.

Morgen is mijn eerste dag op de Universiteit. Ergens deze week moet ik weer naar Rotterdam om wat meer spullen te halen. Tja, dat ga ik niet vanavond plannen. Nu is weer tijd voor slapen.

The goal was simple: bring the stuff I need to Amsterdam, the rest to a storage space (courtesy of a friend).

Initially I contacted several moving companies. The high price they asked for caused my attention to shift to the (well-intended) advice I was receiving from friends: organize the operation by my own means. In the end, I realize it was a misguided choice…

The costs added up quickly:

• subscribing to a post forwarding service
• buying cardboard boxes
• renting a small vehicle to carry some stuff to storage space
• offering dinner to the two friends helping
• renting a larger vehicle to carry most of the stuff to Amsterdam
• filling a gas tank
• feeding the 3 people on board during the trip
• offering dinner to 3 friends for help afterwards
• hiring some help for the washing machine
• buying train tickets for 5 trips
• storing some stuff at the station
• asking a taxi to help on the last way between my old place and the train station

Note: I do not own a driving license nor a vehicle of my own.

For a grand total of approximately 1200€ — not counting:

• the stress of the organization,
• the time and energy spent packing, unpacking, unbuilding and rebuilding of the furniture,
• the sweat and energy spent carrying bags, boxes and other things on my own back,
• the time spent thinking and acting the move (nearly a work week),
• the strain on the relationship with my friends.

Retrospectively, delegating the entire work to a team of experienced movers would have amounted to around 1000€ without worries…

And yet, I do not feel frustrated. The physical exercise I performed was worth the effort, as it does help me feel healthier and overall more confident in my physical abilities. Involving my friends in my moving may have helped make the transition for them, smoothing their realization that I am actually leaving their usual surroundings for the foreseeable future.

As far as the stereotype about urban gay men approaching their forties goes, Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren do not deceive while adding a pinch of seriousness to their worldly concerns by means of glasses with thick black frames.

I have never been a fashionista myself, and will probably not become one. The thought of spending any significant amount of my time hunting new designs and attending the mass leaves me totally unphased. Yet, a one hour excursion on the third floor of the Barbican Arts Centre in London proved to be both a refreshing and enlightening experience.

A friend, dear among the dearest, brought me to a fashion exhibition in the City of London. He intended this experiment both as an initiation and as a test for my taste — I would hear “I wonder if you will like it” at least thrice before we eventually squeezed the last hours of our trip together in the Barbican Centre.

The key works of Dutch fashion designers Viktor and Rolf were on display in a two-floor exhibition hall. Visitors are there invited to follow a sequence of rooms around a central doll house, where each of the hall's rooms would match a room in the doll house and contain a couple models and a projection screen.

Describing the collection and its qualities would far exceed my vocabulary skills, so I will not dwelve into details here. However, the purpose of this note today is to stay as a reminder of how touched I was by the amount of creative work and creative diversity that was concentrated in these fifty-something models. Unexpected in a fashion exhibit, I felt more respect and admiration for these tailors than I have for many painters in art musea.

Add this to the brutal style of the estate of which the Barbican Centre is part, its stained grey ragged concrete walls and columns contrasting with the lush and lively yet constrained small lake that it contains, and you get a picture of a foreign urban world of sorts — obscurely pure and devoid of irregularities, where nature is enclosed, and where the only form of art is worn somptuously as unique and breathtaking clothes.

I discovered a world of dreams, made for and by them. London is a city of many surprises.

The ability of social networking sites such as FB, Plaxo or Hyves to display information from RSS feeds is an easy way to broadcast to many people.

But then comes the question of where should more personal stuff stay and how can it be communicated. Obviously it cannot be broadcasted in the same way — even if it stays publicly reachable.

The solution: a simple gateway.

Imagine.

Imagine you meet someone. This person wears an eye mask on both eyes, and uses a white cane to find their way around. It does not take long for you to figure out that this person is blind.

Then this person comes up to you, knowing that you have a keen ear for others. This person explains: “I have never seen a picture in my life. Recently, I acquired this camera and I wanted to take pictures of the world around me. Unfortunately, I cannot see the pictures taken by this camera. I am very sad.”

As a kind hearted person, what would be your reaction?

A colleague of mine wisely suggested: it is important to be kind, but this person could be explained clearly and easily that their expectations were not set properly. A camera does not make a blind person able to see pictures, and there is not much more to be said about the situation.

End of round one.

To your other self, now imagine. Imagine you witness the following situation, as an external observer.

It is day in a featureful neighborhood in a friendly city. The day is bright and sunny.

You see a person, otherwise healthy and without unusal traits, holding a camera to take a picture of the scenery.

You notice that the flash is activated as indicated by the pulsing LED indicator. However you can see also that the flash is oriented incorrectly, i.e. pointing in the direction of the person holding the camera instead of the direction of the scenery.

The person actionates the trigger, and receives the light in the face.

After a few minutes it appears clear that the person recovers their sight but expresses their inconfort with the situation to a another passer-by also interested in the situation.

The person and the passer-by talk for a while, apparently discussing the features of the camera. You overhear the passer-by suggesting confidently: “your eyes have expressed pain when you took the picture. Our shared common sense recommends that you mutilate them.”

You observe (with no means to interfere) that the person agrees and dutifully blinds themselves permanently. For the purpose of this “dream” you can let yourself imagine that the mutiliation completed quickly and was relatively painless.

Then this person comes up to you, knowing that you have a keen ear for others. This person explains: “I have never seen a picture in my life. Recently, I acquired this camera and I wanted to take pictures of the world around me. Unfortunately, I cannot see the pictures taken by this camera. I am very sad.”

As a kind hearted person, what would be your reaction?

End of round two.

Statements:

• knowledge and wisdom can help avoid complex situations.
• knowledge makes it more difficult to deal with complex situations.
• lack of curiosity and painful narrow-mindedness can be interchangeable.
• ignorance makes people weak.

Today a friend pointed me to the documentary Earthlings which seems to be already known of everyone but me. A half-enlightening experience: while I was already aware of the issues, and I already knew some facts, the images made my understanding more vivid; an unpleasant but refreshing enhancement.

But still, something in this documentary was bothering me all the way. Now I can see it: the title.

“ Earthlings ”

And the documentary goes over animals, about how humans relate to (and use) other animals. Did they not forget something?

What about the other earthlings?

Turning vegetarian after watching such a documentary completely misses the point. All in all, any human has to learn to deal with fellow living beings. That always involves killing to survive, often in nasty ways for convenience. We should just choose how to minimize the amount of inconvenience for our community of earthlings as a whole.

Topic for this week's discussions: if you were to get a mental picture (or a perception) of each living thing that is used or killed to sustain your own life, where each being would be expressing their opinion by speaking in their own distinct voice (possibly a little squeaky), how would you deal with the situation? Imagine, for example, the opinion of that branch of parsley on the cutting board if it was expressing human-like feelings and consciousness about its fate…

Life is tough.

One day, we will wake up in the morning and see a world devoid of plants. Like the dolphins, they will have left us to our own device.

Today's conversation added to the list of concerns evolving around my mind at the moment:

• will China invade Siberia when oil becomes scarce? or Iran?
• what will be the form of the next conflict between Japan and China?
• who will end up controlling North Korea?
• why doesn't the ECB propose to invest in a deep and far-fetching solution for the American mortgage crisis? Why doesn't China propose either?
• How is the obligation to carry identity documents helping against “terrorism”?
• what will be the long term evolution of the current tendency of governments to alienate citizens into criminals and “protect” them against themselves?

Evidence shows clearly that we will not be able to eat fish in the future unless strong global policing action is taken now. We know already that future generations will never enjoy cod as a popular and usual dish. Still, even so-called “developed” countries make irrational political moves about fishing and short-sightedness combined with global disinterest runs rampant.

Overfishing is a canonical example of a tragedy of the commons. In other words, everyone is responsible, and nobody cares.

A topic I was debating the other day with a new colleague was: why should we care? Another I was debating longer ago with an older friend was: should we take responsibility for other people's actions and reduce our demand for fish to induce a decrease in production?

The conclusion was straightforward: any purely rational approach based on a fundamentally individualistic philosophy (where everyone should be only responsible for their own actions) dictates unsustainable behaviors. This is a logical conclusion, leaving choices to be made:

• not be rational: let God dictate what is “good for you,” possibly reducing your environmental footprint. Possibly effective, but unpredictable.
• empathize with fellow humans worldwide and time-wide (of the future), then take responsibility for other people's actions and act. Likely effective, but equally unlikely to happen within current morals and value systems.
• not do anything.

Choose your future.

In a blog entry a professional photographer from Colorado wonders how same-sex weddings impact his business. The author crams his foot in his mouth very effectively:

Put aside for a moment your own values. Would it hurt or help your business to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies or weddings?

Regardless of the issue at hand, the storm of comments that followed on MeFi attracted my attention by the sheer number of fallacies and ill-chosen analogies:

• “Should a KKK photographer refuse or accept to photograph black commitment ceremonies or weddings?”
• “Should a black photographer refuse or accept to photograph KKK commitment ceremonies or weddings?”
• “Should a vegetarian photographer have the right to refuse to photograph a wedding reception where fois gras is served?”

Some comments sent me giggling, but I admit my patience was not enough to read past this insightful thought: “Should they have to choose between pissing off God and pissing off a potential client?”

Ethics and businesses? With religion in the middle? Makes me giggle. and sad.

One of my favorites pastimes when procrastinating: looking up unusual ways to travel by train. Using the journey planner with the largest database that I know of, I set myself imaginary goals and I search:

• the longest journey that can be achieved within a day: Marseille-Malmö
• the longest journey in a single night train: Hamburg-Villach, Paris-Barcelona, Amsterdam-Milano
• the longest journey that can be achieved at high speed within a day: Marseille-Berlin via Brussels and Köln
• the longest journey that can be achieved without changing trains: Amsterdam-Moscow
• the longest journey with only one change: Amsterdam-Beijing via Moscow

Removed from the daily reads: Dilbert, Daily WTF, UF. Added: PhD Comics.

An interesting feature of several languages is the impact of negation on the meaning of verbs.

Technically, a negation makes true things false, and vice-versa. This is different from a change in meaning.

More specifically: many verbs reflects concepts that can be put on a scale of meaning, ranging from a meaning to its opposite going through the absence of meaning. Compare:

• to feel cold
• to not feel cold
• to feel warm

Or a single verb:

• to swallow
• to not swallow
• to regurgitate

As exemplified here, negation does not (and technically should not) imply opposition. The truth value of an action or a description (or any other kind of verb) is about whether the positive meaning of the verb is asserted, or not. From a grammar standpoint, the opposite value of the verb is not summoned by the use of negation.

That said, several verbs are often assumed to have their meaning changed to their opposite when negated. Or, rather, the absence of another verb with the opposite meaning invites the use of negation to express that opposite meaning. This is unfortunate, as such uses of negation introduce ambiguity about what is the intended meaning of the resulting construct. Compare:

• to like: I like potatoes
• to not like: I do not like potatoes

The latter case is often understood (and intended to be understood) as a rejection, whereas technically it should merely mean absence of interest. Two scales of understanding are thus possible:

• to like - to not like (lack of approval) - to dislike (aversion, antipathy)

or

• to like - ??? (lack of approval) - to not like / to dislike (aversion, antipathy)

Incidentally, "dislike" is often understood to have two possible meanings, reflecting this ambiguity from the other side of the scale; as per Onelook

dislike

a feeling of aversion or antipathy

dislike

an inclination to withhold approval from some person or group

In the case of like / dislike, a lengthy and wordy construct is sometimes used to clarify the position on the scale: “I do not like potatoes, but I don't dislike them either,” or “I do not like potatoes, I mean, I would rather not have them.”

Now, as clear as this idea of a scale of meaning is — from an asserted meaning to its opposite, going through its negated truth value — there are some verbs where the distinction is much less clear. For a few examples, most language users (in several languages, not only English) often do not distinguish negation and opposites. To illustrate the point, take the verb "want" as a case study:

• “I want to love you”
• “I do not want to love you”

In the latter sentence, what is the intended meaning? Technically, the negation changes the truth value, and should only remove the "intention" carried by the verb. However, in this archetypical example the most common use is to carry the opposite meaning: “I want to not love you.”

On the same line of thought, which of the following are intended to carry opposites, and which are merely negated?

• I do not like chocolate
• I do not like my mother
• I am not happy
• I am not unhappy

(Language is tricky. Semantics are even worse.)

Any suggestion for additional "tricky negations" is welcome!

But before we go there, a reminder:

stupid, adj

lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity

Now, enjoy:

if homosexuality is such a sin, why did god make them that way? believe it or not, sexual orientation is not just a matter of preference, it is biologically proved to be a genetic mutation, and actually, the heterosexual gene is the mutated gene.

(reference not given to protect the anonymity of the idiot)

And another reminder:

idiot, noun

a person of subnormal intelligence

In case someone misses the point: past my opinion that mixing "god" and "genetic mutation" in the same train of thought borders on intellectual incorrectness, I find it interesting to notice here that god would have created homosexual beings initially (with their homosexual genes), intending genetic evolution to take care of introducing heterosexuality later — although homosexuality would prevent reproduction in the first place, and therefore genetic evolution.

Bleh.

You scored 36% I to E, 10% N to S, 23% F to T, and 52% J to P!
You are more introverted than extroverted. You are more intuitive than observant, you are more feeling based than thinking based, and you prefer to go with the flow rather than having a plan. Your type can best be summarized by the word "Healer", which belongs to the larger group of idealists. You have a capacity for caring that is deeper than most. You strive for unity, are fascinated by the battles between good and evil, and can be something of an idealist. Only 1% of the population shares your type.
As a romantic partner, you are usually supportive and nuturing, however, you have a high need for individuality. Harmony is extremely important to you as you are very affected by conflict and tension, which also makes you resist confronting your partner directly about problems. When you get angry, you usually blame yourself, rather than your partner. You can also be stubborn and unyielding when you feel you are being criticized or mistreated. You feel the most appreciated when your partner listens to you carefully. You need to be understood. You need to hear your partner express their feelings, the more often, the better.

(from okcupid)

Here is an exercise for the linguistically-inclined — try to find in your native language a single word that carries the following meanings:

• menen: to give one's opinion about something (ik meen dat dit waar is = I give my opinion that this is true)
• opvallen: to make oneself easily noticeable (deze student valt niet op = this student does not make himself easily noticeable)

The broader topic being: what does it mean for you when you cannot find a simple construct in your native language for something that has a basic lexeme (word) as semantic root in another language?

1. surprise, curiousity: “oh, you can speak Dutch? How nice!” Hidden meaning: it's surprising; unusual for foreigners to be interested in our language; but I really can't understand a word of what you're saying.
2. condescension: replying in English. Hidden meaning: ok, you've shown you can make yourself understood, now stop annoying us with your broken grammar and unusual vocabulary, let's switch back to English please!
3. tolerance: “ik vind je franse accent écht mooi!” Hidden meaning: we can communicate well, but remember that you're still a foreigner.

What's next?