All rights belong to Lachapelle

I came across a book titled Heaven to Hell, depicting photography by one David Lachapelle. It is totally amazing. His style is over-the-top campy and overtly sexual. Every image is colorful, punchy, and shiny, not unlike fashion magazine shoots (I gather that he is indeed a photographer often employed by fashion rags, judging by the photos of A-list celebrities shown in the book). They often depict nude models, male and female, thin and obese, in strange settings (the strangest being a planecrash). However, there is always a hint of comical self-satire in these images. Each stood out, beautifully grotesque, like a criticism on how the rest of the genre looks like plastic mass-produced barbies. They elicit complex emotions in you, like a perfume with multiple stages of fragrance, unlike the usual “bleh” feeling that one gets when looking at overly-photoshopped images.

Here is another one, maybe not safe for work…

在美國，有兩位搶匪持槍搶劫一家餐廳。一位搶匪對老闆開槍，沒中。老闆拔槍，把兩位搶匪擊斃。嗯，事情要做的對，就得自己做。

This is kinda funny. A study tracking people’s eye sight on images and documents found that men stares at the private areas of all kinds of animals; men, women, cats, dogs, whatever. I suspect that there is an evolutionary reason for this, probably because men needs to assertively identify friend/foe/mating target.

Here is the actual article. Found it via BoingBoing.

[edit] I have some new thoughts on this phenomenon. I think this test is nether complete nor thorough. They should have cross tested male images and female images, in loose clothing and fitting/revealing clothing, front and back. I suspect girls check out guys’ butts and they also check out each other’s figures too. Guys, on the other hand, check out everything. So, this topic is misleading.

The following quote is not Nelson Mandela’s and he’s never used it. It’s commonly believed that Mandela used these words in his 1994 inauguration speech. He didn’t. It comes from the book A Return To Love, 1992, by Marianne Williamson.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.’ We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be?… Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do… It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we subconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we’re liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” (Marianne Williamson, author, from A Return To Love, 1992. Ack C Wilson and J Cooke. )

From this site.

I had watched 300 last weekend. My cousin Wayne, who I went with, thought the movie was not very good. He thought that the fight scenes were not the best that he had seen, and that the story was non-existent.

I thought that the story wasn’t the point, and even the fight scenes weren’t the point either. The point was in the graphics and the style. It was mind-blowingly amazing, unique, and nothing like anything we have seen in recent times. Not even Sin City, which was based on another Frank Miller comic novel. Some shots in the movie were just stunningly beautiful. I especially loved the scene when oracle danced in the smoke. I suspect the cinematography was shot under water. There was countless scenes like that in the movie, many were shot back-lit, creating silhouettes resembling comic book illustrations . A lot of the scenes were in slow motion, leaving us the opportunity to absorb the richness of the cinematography and the CG.

The movie is heavily stylized and historically incorrect, but that’s not the point either. Someone had written up some footnotes regarding the historical inaccuracies in the movie. Interesting read.

digg it, originally uploaded by Laughing Squid.

This is totally cool. I want one too (despite no one is going to digg me). Mmm… Maybe I will wear one just to piss Greg off, because he thinks Digg is pointless.

Digg is NOT pointless!~ It is a validation of popularity!

With the recent release of the world’s most wealthy people, I have made a new realization. In the top 20, only one person, Lakshmi Mittal, is really in manufacturing (Steel). The top one (Bill Gates), along with the usual suspects Larry Ellison and Paul Allen, is in software. A few were in investments. Surprisingly, quite a few made their wealth through the management of channels, such as the supermarket Aldi, furniture retail Ikea, luxury goods LVMH, cosmetics L’Oreal, and retail Hennes & Mauritz. A surprising absentee is the Walmart family (probably because after their inheritance, it’s more diluted.

This is the top 20. Obtained from Forbes

1 William Gates III (Software, Microsoft)
2 Warren Buffett (Investment, Berkshire Hathaway)
3 Carlos Slim Helú (Telecom)
4 Ingvar Kamprad (Retail, Ikea)
5 Lakshmi Mittal (Manufacturing, steel)
6 Sheldon Adelson (Gambling/Leisure, Casinos & Hotels)
7 Bernard Arnault (Luxury Goods, LVMH)
8 Amancio Ortega (Fashion, Zara)
9 Li Ka-shing (Investment)
10 David Thomson (Inherited, Media)
11 Larry Ellison (Software, Oracle)
12 Liliane Bettencourt (Cosmetics, L’Oreal)
13 Prince Alwaleed (Investmet)
14 Mukesh Ambani (Inherited, Investments, Petrochemicals, Reliance Industries)
15 Karl Albrecht (Retail, Aldi)
16 Roman Abramovich (Oil)
17 Stefan Persson (Retail, Hennes & Mauritz)
18 Anil Ambani (Inherited, Investments, Petrochemicals)
19 Paul Allen (Software, Microsoft)
20 Theo Albrecht (Retail, Aldi)

Long gone are the days of the industrialist who operates chimneyed factories (I suspect some one had already proclaimed this earlier last century). Entrepreneurs who invest heavily in manufacturing are only managed and controlled by entrepreneurs who invest in channel management.

Some regions of the world pride themselves with their manufacturing prowess. Many here in Taiwan and China have made their wealth in producing items that are to be sold in market places like Walmart and Ikea. Many people are busy spending their days refining their skills in manufacturing, such as costing-down, researching and development, and even designing. In the whole scheme of things, this is almost like a poor third world artisan finessing his skills in making a handicraft. He is content with the income that he earns from selling his product, but he doesn’t know that his employer sells it for a even larger profit. The truly smart controls the resources, and manages the channels. In today’s world, this means controlling oil, raw materials, and managing retail stores. The truly smart maximizes the number of people working for him, while minimizing his own work load. This is the path to become extremely rich.

Another surprising trend to be observed is on the the age ranking. The youngest people who made the list mostly just inherited their wealth. However, those few who are self-made, made it mostly via the internet. The most obvious heroes were the Google heroes Brin and Page. And, further down the list, there were a few who made it via online gambling and other .

My conclusion is that what we are seeing is a trend of wealth being generated from the abstract rather than from the physicals, such as the management of channels and the controlling of scarce resources. Also, to make it big while you are young, you should do battle on the internet front (but I guess many already realized this).

這個文章指出世界上一些很極端的地方，例如最高的地方（並不是喜馬拉雅山），最低的地方，最小的公園等…

最大的種子

最近我用蘋果內建的Security Update來更新的我系統，結果把Font Book跟Internet Connect給殺了。好像是因為我把這兩個軟體放在Applications檔案下的子檔案內，然後他找不到，就只把要更新的檔寫進去。我又很笨的把這些更新檔蓋過原來的軟體。這下子全死光！

還好有Pacifist這個軟體，把Apple安裝CD上的檔案拆開，我再選擇性的安裝死去的軟體。居然成功！不錯不錯。我強力推薦Pacifist。有錢的人趕快捐點錢給這位設計者吧。