Comments

Simplicity. Yes! Enjoy a cup and smile Tom.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 1:10 PM

I hope that the one button works for you!

I had a "one button" device a few years ago that drove me nuts. I bought it because I thought - hey one button - perfect! (it was an answering machine)

But then;

to set the primary message, press three times, then hold the 4th time until screen flashes

to erase, fast forward - ANYTHING - was a Morse Code of long and short presses to get to the appropriate functionality

It was an absolute nightmare

Needless to say - It did not last too long

Posted by Elliot Ross at June 29, 2009 1:16 PM

You really wouldn't want to taste the coffee my company's head office is providing to their shops at the moment!

'It's coffee Jim, but not as we know it' is just one of the comments that's been stickered onto the canister that touched down last week!

Guess it's back to taking my own in and using the coffee press again... The B&D device looka and sounds good - may have to look for it over here in the UK at some point!

Posted by Keith Rickaby at June 29, 2009 1:28 PM

The gods are smiling indeed!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 1:28 PM

Elliot, back to design. If it's a simple task (making steaming hot water drip through some ground up coffee beans) then it SHOULD be simple. If you really need it to turn itself on and off, do cartwheels, feed the dog, water the lawn, and record a television show while it autoresponds to and reroutes emails while you're away on vacation) then maybe the design could be a bit more complex (or perhaps our demands a bit more reasonable or realistic?)

Tom's post led me to go look. I have five devices with clocks in the kitchen (a small kitchen at that.) WHY? There's not ONE of them that I want turning itself on and off. What's REALLY sad: with five clocks, I'm seeing three different times at once.

No damn wonder I feel stressed out. I've overconvenienced my world to the point I don't even know what time it is anymore.

Thank goodness for my wristwatch that picks up the NBS time signals by radio and sets itself. Except I don't wear it. I don't need to. My cell phone stays accurate via signals from the cell towers. Meanwhile, my favorite timepiece OF ALL -- a pocket watch with a Native American design and pictures of four very well known Native American figures -- won't run and nobody around here knows how to fix it.

Dear God. Please. Stop the insanity.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 1:32 PM

Yep, as it is often said and quoted - make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Posted by Todd at June 29, 2009 1:42 PM

"to set the primary message, press three times, then hold the 4th time until screen flashes

"to erase, fast forward - ANYTHING - was a Morse Code of long and short presses to get to the appropriate functionality

"It was an absolute nightmare."

ELLIOT: That's it on mine. Nothing to press or program. What you see in the Pic is what you get.

Period.

On.
Off.

Posted by tom peters at June 29, 2009 1:45 PM

LOL. And you could also ask "Why do we need to change the outgoing message anyway?"

A prerecorded "I ain't here. You know what to do. If you don't know what to do, I ain't interested in talking to you anyway so just hang up now." would suffice for me.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 1:51 PM

Easy way.
This is what everything is-was about: "Would you like to have a cup of coffee?" Yes or No. One or Zero? :) I like this simple way of living.

Posted by Philipp Kanape at June 29, 2009 1:51 PM

I hope that perhaps Tom Asacker jumps in and sees all this. I'm thinking of him talking about there being "16 varieties of Eggo waffles" at his grocery store. No damn wonder I skipped that section and just bought a loaf of bread to go in my toaster (which is about the only appliance in the kitchen WITHOUT A CLOCK.)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 1:55 PM

Phillip, it's interesting to think about the fact that all a computer can do is add or subtract 1's and 0's. It's the applications of that ability that either solve problems or create them.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 1:58 PM

see you finally gave up on that Krups with the dribble carafe

Posted by mike Neiss at June 29, 2009 2:19 PM

My SWMBO used to work for B&D - Oh for the days of cut price tools at staff discount!!!

Posted by PaulH at June 29, 2009 2:29 PM

Will stick with the Keurig. One button and one cup at a time.

Posted by David Porter at June 29, 2009 3:26 PM

This deserves the Trevor Gay seal of approval. Are you there, sir?

Posted by John O'Leary at June 29, 2009 7:37 PM

He is there (Trevor), but it's his birthday today. 57 years of simplicity, much like an on/off switch on a coffee maker!!!!

You can wish him well at his www.simplicityitk.blogspot.com.

Posted by The Joker at June 29, 2009 11:59 PM

Cheers John and The Joker :-) - Simplicity rules says I. I'm always surprised we are surprised when simplicity works. Have a great day.

"Genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple" C W Ceran.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 30, 2009 3:27 AM

Target Products for Target Markets...

I appreciate the simpleness of this design.

I also appreciate my timed coffee pot that allows me to load it at night (right before I go to bed) and I wake up to the smell of fresh brewed coffee.

I TOTALLY buy into the simple design philosophy (oh what I would pay for a simple cell phone that my Dad could us?). But that doesn't mean everything should be simple.

Posted by Dave Holland at June 30, 2009 8:43 AM

And it requires either the on or the off marking because the button doesn't light up when it is on?

So could it be simpler still?

Pavlov would say yes here I might believe?

Try tea!

Posted by patrick at June 30, 2009 9:00 AM

In my enthusiasm for Tom and this posting I followed the link; alas: "Sorry, the item you are looking for is not available."

Perhaps proof that it pays to lead...

Posted by Jeff McGuinness at June 30, 2009 9:09 AM

Mr. Holland: Perhaps you, as do I, yearn for the simplicity on the other side of complexity?

Posted by David Porter at June 30, 2009 1:07 PM

David, that's one of my all-time favorite quotes you're referring to. Oliver Wendell Holmes could have easily been ahead of his time, as he described how I often feel these days quite accurately.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 30, 2009 1:56 PM

The interesting thing about simplicity is how damn hard it is to create. I worked with the two companies that a) designed and developed the Keurig coffeemaker (my favorite too, David) and b) engineered the robotics to fill and seal those single cups with fresh coffee. Both design processes were incredibly difficult, resource intensive, and, ultimately, brilliantly solved in a simple yet sophisticated way.

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 30, 2009 2:56 PM

Tom A: I tip my cup of Kona Blend to you sir. Good work and brilliantly done! Truly simplicity on the other side of complexity.

Posted by David Porter at June 30, 2009 3:51 PM

Glad to see the "On" and "Off". My TV only has a light which shines red or blue. To me, red would be "On", but the TV manufacturer disagrees.

Posted by Mike L. at June 30, 2009 8:56 PM

Forgive me Tom - Not relevant to this posting but I feel the need to offload about wall to wall TV Radio coverage regarding the late Michael Jackson. MJ was a fantastic talent of that there is no doubt so let me clear this is not about him. It's about the use of technology. It seems to me we can use the technology and 'find' associated mega money for this sort of thing because it presumably fulfils a need. And yet there is no greater need than peace in our world and eradication of poverty. Why do we not use the same technology to bring home the truth of what is happening on our planet? 30000 people die every day – mainly children – due to poverty and we see nothing about it in the media. One pop star dies and we have worldwide, wall to wall media coverage 24/7. At best lets say there has to be a certain irony here. But hey – what do I know?

Thanks I feel better now - Happy Wednesday – we are enjoying (?) a rare heat wave in England – maybe the sun has got to me :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 4:54 AM

I wonder if Trevor felt the same way when John Lennon died. For many of the poor children worldwide Michael Jackson was an advocate, giving millions to charities to support them and keeping a focus on their plight through his giving. This "one pop star" was not only a brilliant entertainer, song writer, businessman (what percentage of the Beatles collection did he own again?) and innovator, but a compassionate passionate humanitarian. Please read Deepak Chopra's tribute to his friend of 20+ years on the Huffington Post. It's quite moving. Is that not a good use of technology for such a humanitarian?

Trevor's comment seems to be oblivious to human nature. It's about how we each navigate in the world that matters here. His navigation made him famous and infamous, but it was his and the world recognizes his genius and shortcomings. This is the use of technology here: to highlight the life of a man who meant a lot to many. The world mourns his untimely death and will continue to do so for many reasons and in many respects and move on, but maybe not. Elvis and John Lennon still loom large, although they are not in the media daily. Michael Jackson's death was less than a week ago.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 6:36 AM

Judith – I hear what you and my comment was not about Michael Jackson as I said in my earlier comment. I think he was terrific actually – a brilliant entertainer certainly in his earlier days, though in my opinion, not in the same league as Elvis or John Lennon. My comment was about technology being more effectively used to address more important world problems. In answer to your question I felt totally gutted when my hero John Lennon was murdered. I’m pretty sure Lennon would be saying exactly the same thing about the irony of the ‘relative’ use of technology had he been alive today.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 7:12 AM

Tom, your coffeemaker is boolean.

Posted by Patrick Bergen at July 1, 2009 8:38 AM

Trevor - The relevant point as I see it is you cannot separate the use of technology from such an event. Had such technology been around when Lennon or Diana died it would have been used exactly the same, murdered or otherwise. (Did you think the Lennon coverage was excessive?) Technology is being used to cover Michael Jackson's death just as it would for any such event. Are you suggesting that we have watch dogs to steer us in the direction of relevant usage or coverage? Who might these be? (Your point, however, about the ills of the world not being covered was not lost, though I think a bit naive in comparison to human nature with regards to how people respond after such a death, using the tools available, and simply what sells.) It also seems highly presumptuous to say what Lennon would have thought or did, really. I'm done with this. Have a good day.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 9:27 AM

Judith - I’m “done with this” too but a final couple of points. I plead 100% guilty to being ‘naive’ but I would say one person’s naivety is another person’s hope for change. BTW I didn’t say what John Lennon would have said or thought – I actually said "I’m pretty sure." We Lennon followers have a pretty good idea of the nature of the man but I wouldn’t be so arrogant to say what the great man would have said. I hope you have a good day too. The sun is still shining brightly here in a rare English heat wave. Chilled White wine and/or Scrumpy Real English Cider is a distinct probability in the garden this evening.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 10:03 AM

Patrick, I'd dare call it "downright binary." Tom now has his very own "Coffee Rebinary."

Excellent application of simplicity, indeed. I'm with Tom on this one. In fact, I get enough technology checking emails and such in the morning. I don't really want to have to take a four-part certification course on how to make coffee in the morning.

Click. Go to bathroom. Brush teeth. Come back to kitchen. Pour. Enjoy.

A simple, pleasurable moment in the day.

Wow!

Bliss.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 1, 2009 10:11 AM

You are a cherry picker, Trevor. Enjoy your wine in the garden this evening.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 10:42 AM

Trevor,

The Jackson family, at this time, needs round the clock coverage so Joe Jackson can promote his new record label and the family can push to pay down Michael's enormous debt. Michael was a great humanitarian, as the Guiness Book attests to, but he was terribly troubled in a world he couldn't relate to. Michael was also a shrewd and arrogant businessman as he outbid PC for his own Beatle's material (A-holish if you ask me) and his unusual shopping sprees. He's already leveraged the value of the Beatle's catalog...so he wasn't that great of a businessman. He never paid Eddie Van Halen a dime for the solo he did on Beat It, even though it helped MJ transition to a rock crowd on MTV. Eddie was happy that Quincy Jones wrote him a thank you note.

I understand what you're saying. Simple on/off procedures are wonderful, like the coffee maker. The media, not so simple. They are there to sell a product, and starving kids dying everyday will change channels for most people. 7 teens shot in Detroit the other day and very little coverage...people have come to accept this as a lifestyle in the States.

This post inspired me to have a coffee enema yesterday. I feel refreshed...

Posted by Scott Peters at July 1, 2009 10:48 AM

Funnily enough I have cherry tree in the garden - I will continue picking them - thanks for the compliment.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 10:57 AM

Scott Peters - GO AWAY! Just kidding, man!(and Shelley!) I agree with you about Joe Jackson and other opportunists and wrote a post on it. Regarding MJ's worth, we can expect it to exponentially increase over many many many years to come.

Enjoy the cherries, Trevor. You most certainly do not have to define for me what I do. I simply do it, compliment or not.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 11:09 AM

For-Profit Media's Potential

"When the blind lead the blind, both end up in a ditch."

Heaven forbid any of us would want to pay to be exposed to the internal pain and dissonance that comes with being shown tragedies we could actually do something to prevent. We don't want CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, et al rubbing it in our face that we are sitting comfortably in our homes throwing out food, enjoying central heat and air, watching 400 cable channels, blogging away, arguing with one another about how to change the world for the better or why things are justified being as they are... all this while there are people with no food, no medicine, no education, no chance or survival. My two dogs get more and better food in the form of "table scraps" than would be needed to feed at least three or four hungry children. Already this morning I have read more information about what is going on in the rest of the world and actually had more two-way dialog with more people than a lot of people in this world will be exposed to in the next week or possibly their entire lifetime.

Could the effort that just a few of us spend each day on matters we think to be so urgent and important somehow be channeled to making a difference for a needy child? Could I spend an hour or two less a week commenting on blogs and use it to mentor a young person that has nobody showing interest in him and no role model he can actually talk to? It makes me think: I am very fortunate to actually engage in dialog via emails, blogging, commenting, social networking, cell phone conversations, etc. with the likes of my mentors, friends, and great people such as Tom Peters, Tom Asacker, Steve Yastrow, Trevor Gay, Dave Wheeler, Stephen Garner, et al.

But what about a teenager in our community who doesn't even have a halfway reputable friend to talk to? If someone does show an interest in him or her, there's a good chance it's the drug dealer looking for someone to further his own cause. We know the kinds of places that leads youth to.

I digress a bit, but it's all heavy on my mind in light of the above exchanges. All because I see how the for-profit media makes its choices. I know, because I've been a part of it.

So WHY do we get exposed to such much media coverage of celebrity deaths, murders, natural disasters, plane crashes, political wrongdoing, etc. and at the same time so little hard-hitting reality and information on tragedies and disasters we could all be doing more to fix? I think it's largely because it's easier to accept seeing great tragedies that we feel we did not contribute to. "Oh my God... that's awful... sure glad I didn't cause that... I'm powerless to do anything about that... I'm innocent..." Meanwhile, at 2 a.m. when we channel-check and get hit in the face with "These children are dying of disease and malnutrition and $1 a day could feed and provide one of them medicine and clothing and education..." we change the channel. We spout out complaints about how this organization or that one stole the funds that were supposed to feed these kids, etc. We rationalize doing nothing.

A multimillion dollar plane lands in Africa to do a story on a great figure like Mandela. Think about how much that trip cost when you factor in the plane, personnel, equipment, logistics, fuel, food... then ask yourself "What difference could perhaps 1% of the money spent on that news coverage have made in terms of helping the person you didn't see on-camera -- the hungry, dying person a few blocks away that's in that condition due to sheer lack of interest? Maybe several people.

The for-profit media demonstrate little interest in their potential to promote change for the better in the human condition. Rather, they see dollar signs for themselves. Thus they are typically blind to their own greater potential. Even worse, there is no denying that we allow them to lead us toward that ditch (more like a great abyss) of complacency. Worse than complacency, I dare say we intentionally tune it out because we don't want to be shown things that stir feelings of guilt.

In a nutshell, we are telling the for-profit media to show us what they are showing us and not show what they are not showing. It's uncomfortable to us. But instead of saying to the media "Show me something that's wrong that I CAN do something about," we instead say to them "Don't you dare make me feel guilty or challenge me to do something. I want to be entertained, not challenged to get off my ass and do something."

That's the kind of thinking that shapes network coverage (with the rare exception of maybe a handful of media that were actually created with a different and I dare say "better" mission.)

All that said, I am about to shift my focus for a little while. I just issued myself a challenge. I am going to call a friend who runs a small program in our area for challenged teens and ask what I can do to help a kid who needs it.

Have a great day, everyone.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 1, 2009 11:14 AM

On Scott Peters' blog there are these most beautiful words from a sign:

We the willing, led by the
unknowing are doing
the impossible for the
ungrateful.

We have done so much
for so long, with so little,
we are now qualified to do
anything with
nothing.

I love this, the humility and love there. Thanks! There is not a comment section on his blog.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 11:19 AM

Dan – you are so right. I will unashamedly continue my ‘naïve’ approach to this issue in the hope we will see action and commitment at the highest levels to redistribute wealth from the (relative) affluent countries such as mine and yours to the poverty stricken nations on our ONE planet. You are right too about individual action - We can all do something practical to help. I am part of a Community Development Project in a very deprived part of Southern India which gives me as much satisfaction as anything else in my life. Every pound we raise for that project gives us great satisfaction and goes much further than a pound in my country. Thank you Sir.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 11:52 AM

Also in the sign on Scott Peters' blog is a determination and good way of existing. Being "qualified to do anything with nothing" seems like a simple way of doing business even when you have a lot of something.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 12:57 PM

Trevor--the US media have become nothing more than mouth organs for the new uber-state we have voted in through our own naivte. The wall-to-wall MJ coverage was used as a distraction so the criminally horrendous cap-n-trade farce could pass our lower house.

As for coffee--simple does not always breed quality. I grind beans each morning and use boiling water from a kettle and a ceramic "dripper" from Asia with a cone-shaped filter. The absolute best coffee ever. Better than the French press by yards.

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at July 1, 2009 1:14 PM

Cheers Red - I don't know about your media in the US but I empathise to the issue you raise. We had an incident over here in 2001 when one of the government spin doctors Jo Moore used the expression in an e mail on 9/11 - ‘Today is a good day to bury bad news’ – that’s the sort of ineptitude and lack of integrity we have to live with nowadays when it comes to political use of media distractions. Luckily she was effectively sacked later on so there is hope.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 2:07 PM

The coffee may be good - but is it Excellent?

Posted by Rodney Johnson at July 1, 2009 2:18 PM

Here's capital-D DESIGN, capital-I INNOVATION, SIMPLICITY, etc. Check it out. The hot dog demo is the best video to view first. Talk about WOW!
http://www.sawstop.com/howitworks/videos.php

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at July 1, 2009 2:41 PM

Yeah, I guess Governor Sanford ® of South Carolina is pretty happy that the press isn't as focused on his sorry arse! Red's conspiracy theory sounds like Limbaugh's who blamed President Obama for Sanford's having abandoned his state, misusing taxpayer dollars, and hightailing it to Argentina to be with his lover on Father's Day instead of with his four young sons whom I'm sure would have loved to have seen their dad on that day. Limbaugh blamed Governor Sanford’s continued pitiful disgusting behavior on President Obama for the stress induced during the stimulus battle that his constituents insisted he receive on their behalf and not his desire to be the President of South Carolina. Was there a consipracy here relating to the media and MJ?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 3:15 PM

In reality, there is very little love and humility in this world. Although, to keep consistent with the rules of the blog and Mr. Peters' wishes, there is humility and love in a very simple coffee maker. Thank goodness for an opportunity to enjoy a good cup of coffee and nice breeze in the morning. Hey Tom----how does the maker do with grounds? No floaters I hope.

There are enough blogs that offer a much better format than I could produce. I prefer this one and www.simplicityitk.com. I don't see how most of you keep up...it's a lot of work.

Posted by Scott Peters at July 1, 2009 3:38 PM

"In reality, there is very little love and humility"

I disagree with this statement. Love and humility are abundant. Perhaps our focus needs re-adjusting or our vision re-focused.

Just a little while ago I was reading an email from some who does great work in Kenya with the Boma Fund and I was utterly floored by the amount of love and humility there, though she sees it "as less about compassion and more about creating opportunities that will be sustainable" for women and their families.

Check out this organization again. It was featured here on this blog a little while back: http://www.bomafund.org/

Examples of love and humility are sustainable across all sectors in for-profit and non-profit entities around the whole world.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 4:08 PM

"The coffee may be good - but is it Excellent?"

Awesome. That is funny.

Posted by Patrick Bergen at July 1, 2009 4:15 PM

over night delivery viagra Judith, I'll keep fighting for the lost causes because I recognize, like Shakespeare, that "the honest man fights ONLY for the lost cause, realizing all others are mere effects."

(Cause & Effect--get it?)

No conspiracy theories in my world, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at July 1, 2009 4:54 PM

buy cheap viagra on line

Red - As my old boss used to say "Cock up rather than conspiracy is usually the explanation" - I'll buy that :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2009 5:26 PM

Yeah, Red, I get it. With regards to calling 'em as you see 'em, you will concede that many people are nearsighted, farsighted, color blind and have double vision. So, in essence, your vision may not be 20/20 with regards to the media, the government and the death of MJ so written above. Your vision may not be as clear as you think. What you think you see may, in fact, not be.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 1, 2009 9:47 PM

"No matter how dutifully we record what we saee around us, the common denominator of all we see is always, transparently, shamelessly, the implaccable'I'." -- Joan Didion.

Or, to put it another way...

"We see things not as THEY are, but as WE are." -- source uncertain.

The truth associated with everything we experience is actually formulated in our own minds. We are not objective beings.

We might claim to be objective and even want to be so at times, but we never will be. Not a single one of us.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 12:04 AM

Rodney, you mean "Coffee in which the full and awesome power of the Imagination and Spirit and native Entrepreneurial flair of diverse beans is unleashed in passionate pursuit of … Excellence"?

Posted by RobCH at July 2, 2009 1:18 AM

E=MC Squared

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 5:30 AM

"E=MC Squared"

Excellence = Mastery X Creativity squared

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 6:58 AM

All kinds of objectivity there!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 7:44 AM

That should be a question mark, not an exclamation mark. The point is that there are objective truths and while we are subjective beings the alignment of what is clearly objective does exist.

The beauty is that human beings are all coming to know what has already been known. This is the evolution of beings, that is our understanding of truth that is already known.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 7:57 AM

"Coffee in which the full and awesome power of the Imagination and Spirit and native Entrepreneurial flair of diverse beans is unleashed in passionate pursuit of … Excellence"?

Absolutely, just as long as we can keep the cheap flavors some add out of the mix.

Excellence is pure. It's whole. And it absolutely must be Authentic...

Posted by Rodney Johnson at July 2, 2009 8:49 AM

It was once considered "truth" that the world was flat. To question that was punishable by death.

Newton proved that if you release an object in mid air, it will fall down, right? Not quite. "Down" is relative. It actually gravitates toward a much, much larger object in space. Newton might have had a really tough time had he resided a bit closer to a "black hole" in space. Our paradigms are quite simply truths based upon what we know so far. They do change. Individually and collectively.

The atom. Smallest thing in the universe? Yes. No. Turned out we got intelligent and discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons. Suddenly we were smart and knew the "true" building blocks of matter. Well, not exactly. Somebody had to screw everything up and find those silly quarks. Okay, we FINALLY got it pinned down to the true sub-sub-atomic critters that matter is composed of. Sigh. That was hard work. But we finally got there. Wait... wait... oh, shit... what's this "string theory" all about? Could it be true...?

What was "already known" in centuries past -- what they KNEW to be "true" -- ain't treading water now.

We don't even know enough of the truth about human nature to solve many of the problems of our co-existence on this planet.

Does uncooked meat taste good? The truth is... different depending on whether you're accustomed to eating dinner at fine restaurants or you're a bushman who has just scored your first kill in a week.

All things being relative, on some days I am an utter genius. On others, a blooming, babbling idiot. So which am I? I guess Einstein was right... it's all relative. I inwardly feel humbled and small in the presence of great thinkers. Yet those same people can make me feel appreciated and valuable when they include me in the conversation and ask me "What do you think?"

It's all relative. Including truth. If truth is indeed relative to what we know, then we are inherently not objective at all. Our experiences and knowledge of the facts being finite at any given point in time, what we know to be true is based on finite awareness, and thus, totally subjective.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 8:52 AM

While we are subjective beings the alignment of what is clearly objective truth does exist. For example, E=MC Squared already existed before Sir Issac Newton thought of it and Albert Einstein formulated it. The same is true for the forever expanding universe. "The beauty is that human beings are all coming to know what has already been known. This is the evolution of beings that is our understanding of truth that is already known."

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 9:04 AM

Parenthetical thought:

What we often call "truth" is actually "consensus" assumed to be truth. If 99.9% of us commenting on Tom's blog come to an agreement on something based on the facts at hand, that doesn't deem our conclusion to be truth. It just means 99.9% of us chose to go with the same assumption. All too often, that little 0.1% dude shows up and sends us all into a tailspin, fighting like hell to prove him wrong because he upset our applecart.

Thank God for the 0.1% that have the guts to actually dig deeper. He might turn out to be a quack and be dead wrong. But if he never challenged our thinking... well, I shudder to consider living in such a world.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 9:05 AM

I suppose that the truth behind the Mayan calendar ending in the year 2012 could be that by that time we will know the ultimate truth about everything and therefore have no further reason to exist? Game over?

Hmmm... is it true that if the Mayans could have known that to be true, then they would truly have had to had THE true list of all "truths" at hand already in order to truly gauge the pace at which we were approaching such a juncture in our collective human existence?

(Crap. I'll be reading that paragraph again tonight and making lots of notes and sketches. Brought that on myself. Where's the Benadryl -- a true friend to have on hand.)

If E=MC Squared "already existed," Einstein could not have "formulated" it. More like he revealed it. He unearthed that sucker. Yet quantum physics raises some questions, especially when raising the possibility that a particle exists in one location in space and suddenly it just isn't there -- it's now somewhere else. What speed did it travel at? If it was greater than the speed of light, does that call for revision of E=MC Squared? We're not sure HOW or even if it traveled. String theory even raises issues about it. If the substance of the universe turns out to be correctly described by string theory, then Einstein's theory quite possibly starts breaking down again. We're not even sure at that level whether "mass" is really physical matter or just another form of energy. If that turns out to be true, then we will have reached a point where the "M" in "E=MC Squared" is removed from the equation and we're into circular logic, because mass itself becomes a function of E, instead of E being a function of M and C. Some scientists indicate that we can't even be sure of what we're sure of anymore. One thing IS fairly sure: we are still learning the truth about everything we explore. Perpetually learning. And the truths we tout are perpetually shifting. So what different truth is waiting to be revealed? One that questions even Dr. Einstein's ideas? A more inclusive paradigm based on factors we've yet to discover, comprehend, and take into account?

I'll dispense with all the theoretical ponderings and get back to simplicity...

I seriously doubt we human beings have really pinned down as much "truth" as we claim. We assume some things to be true based on what we know so far, as well as our feelings.

In relation to "absolute truth," our truths are subjective and ultimately personal.

My conclusion: We are subjective by nature. Period.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 10:01 AM

Words. Words. Words. Reread mine please.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 11:45 AM

E=MC squared.

This is a mathematical model that
descibes the behavior of matter when it is
converted to photons.

But its only a mathematical model.
A famous scientist George Box once said about mathematical models
"All models are wrong. Some are useful."
A useful model is one that predicts well.
E=MC squared predicts very well, but we may reach a time when we find it lacking. It might not be for another 400 years, but we will eventually find it lacking in predictive value.

Posted by thor at July 2, 2009 3:27 PM

Thor, thank you. I'd heard that Box quote somewhere but had forgotten it. Guess I should write it down now. Lots of truth in that one :-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 3:47 PM

wholesale viagra Judith, I did. Several times. Try saying what you mean in plain English. State your opinions clearly and skip the flowery vagueries, PLEASE. Those don't impress me.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 2, 2009 3:53 PM

The UK Love "S Vacation Tour" of several days is complete. Seattle (& Vancouver, BC), Santa Fe, San Deigo - while flying Southwest and savoring Smartbrew. Elegant and yet captivating.

Thanks to TP & Erik for the "In Pursuit of Elegance" Matthew May referral - wonderful read while vacationing - plus - "Common Sense" Beck/Paine and "The 5000 Year Leap".

"Elegance" resonates given the almost 10 pages on Lance Armstrong who Saturday competes in the Tour De France. Elegance reminds me of MJ and yes I am still furious about the "healthcare" that went down to take him far too soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpTQCQEFhg

Posted by UK Love at July 2, 2009 6:23 PM

Thor - Thank you. Your point expresses well mine as it relates to what already exists and we, as subjective beings, coming to know such. The alignment about which I spoke is the understanding that as subjective beings we are forever coming to know what existed before our arrival and what is forming in time, not to mention human beings influence.

When I made the point about the existence of objective truth before Newton thought it or Einstein formulated it was to simply say that such does exist and that we, as subjective beings, assign our understanding to it. This is what I think is beautiful: our continuous discovery of what has already been.

The point was essentially that there is an objective truth and as subjective being we align ourselves with this as it known.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 6:34 PM

Dan - It's all good.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 6:40 PM

UK Love - Elegant indeed. Thanks for posting the video. How true! R.I.P.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 2, 2009 6:55 PM

I’ll nominate Apple’s new iphone for a user-friendly simplicity award. This is my very first PDA – and I never once had to refer to instructions or call tech support.
And no, I don't work for or sell for Apple.

Posted by Dan McCarthy at July 3, 2009 8:42 AM

"Apple has issued a warning on its support pages regarding iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS overheating, marking the first time the company has officially acknowledged the problem. Reports that the iPhone 3GS is having overheating problems have surfaced last week, merely days after the devices was launched."

Hmm? But I do love Apple.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 3, 2009 9:23 AM

Some time ago, a Silicon Valley engineer, Alan Cooper, wrote a book titled, “The Inmates Are Running the Asylum,” wherein he describes the penchant for young engineers to design things that are ever more complicated—just because they can. Apparently, Tom P has obtained a device that escaped the wrath of the inmates of the design world. Congratulations!

Indeed, some things take considerable work to simplify, but how much brain exercise is required to put an “On and Off” switch on a coffee-maker heating element and then let the laws of Physics take over from there?

Perhaps the greatest example of ingenious insanity is the flood of “smartphones” on the market. Certainly these are wonderful devices and many people would be lost without them, but what about the people who just want to make a phone call? A recent CNN poll indicated that 49% of cell phone owners really only want the thing to ring! Maybe that is why the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world in cell phone usage.

There are thousands of apps for Apple’s new iPhone, and Venture Capitalists are dishing out money to people who are making more apps, but I ask: is anyone working to provide a phone service, or device, in the U.S. that will allow us to make a mobile phone call with some assurance that it will connect—and stay connected?

Posted by Bob Foster at July 3, 2009 1:46 PM

Couldn’t agree with you more Bob – why invent complexity just because you can? – wise words – thank you Sir! My all time political hero is Tony Benn (now 84 years young and still rattling cages). Tony is the great former Labour Party MP here in England and he is described by many as ‘the greatest Prime Minister Britain never had.’ Tony was the longest serving MP in Britain – an MP for over 50 years until he retired in 2001 as he put it; "to spend more time on politics" Tony tells the lovely story of when he was an MP in Bristol, England. He received a letter from one of his constituents as follows

“Dear Tony, I see that the Russians have put a space vehicle on the moon. Is there any possibility of a better bus service in Bristol?”

Regarding mobile phone – mine does everything from taking photos, playing music, providing internet access and I guess if I read the instructions it will probably mow my lawns and make me a nice cup of tea. However all I really need is for it to make efficient phone calls. So how come we have the complexity to do all the extras and yet there are many places I can’t get a damned signal to allow me to make calls? I will keep asking these simple questions in the hope that one day I will get answers that make sense to me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 3, 2009 4:01 PM

Trevor, love the rant about the signal. Reminds me of other foolishness, like seeing the sign at McDonald's that says "Braille Menu Available Upon Request." Except the sign has no braille on it. And it's displayed about eight feet up in a glass window. But that's okay. I can't read braille anyway.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 3, 2009 6:23 PM

Or what about this one Dan - "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I
realised that The Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me"

Its 1.30 am and time for me to hit the sack my friend - We've lowered the tone far too much already this evening. Tom could well fire us both - but I suspect he may smile just a bit too :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 3, 2009 7:36 PM

Thought 1: there is a big design difference between the art of making complex things simple to use, and not making things unnecessarily complex in the first place. Thought 2: part of the problem is that marketing bods have for decades been raised on the FFB mantra: the more of them you can offer in a product, the more people will want whatever it is you're selling. The possibility that one of the Bs might be a lot fewer Fs and Fs is not often raised.

Posted by RobCH at July 4, 2009 4:36 AM

Thought 3: one of Dieter Rams' (b 1932, chief designer for Braun since 1961) ten design principles is: Good design is as little design as possible. His design philosophy "Less, but Better". Rams apparently has been a big influence on Jonathan Ive of Apple.

Posted by RobCH at July 4, 2009 5:01 AM

Thought 4: the best record player I ever had was made by an American company called Acoustic Research. It was driven by an elastic band. If you wanted to change speed from 33 to 45 rpm you had to take off the platter and move the band from one gearwheel to another. The playing arm was lifted and lowered by a simple lever. There weren't even hinges on the perspex lid - you just lifted it off and put it somewhere else. It was a machine designed to do one thing superbly well, and that was to reproduce the sound on the disc. Anything else, like convenience, came a very poor second. It was as un-automatic and simple as it could possibly be, and almost perfect.

Posted by RobCH at July 4, 2009 5:16 AM

My BlackBerry calculates things, takes pictures, keeps me on track, texts, emails, makes videos (I did so as I rode my bike yesterday making such of the local town 4th of July parade), reminds me of important dates and to call various loved ones and friends, has word and publisher when I want to make a quick change to documents when I'm standing in line somewhere and a thought comes to mind, lets me record a notes should I not seek to write anything, allows me to check facts and research when I'm waiting for a potential tenant to view a house, makes no annoying sound when I've received an email--a light simply flickers, is held comfortably in my hand, AND has not as of yet dropped a single call. I have used all of these features, some more than others. But it's good to know that I have options. I LOVE my BlackBerry smart phone!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 4, 2009 6:32 AM

Impressive - but does it mows the lawns?

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 4, 2009 6:50 AM

LOL! I hire a young man to do that as well as all of the other houses and typically try to be there when he arrives at my home in order to chat with him about this and that. I plant and attend to the flowers, while he mows the lawn. We have iced tea afterwards. He's a young ambitious man that I introduced myself to a few years back. I'm proud of him.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 4, 2009 7:08 AM

We could do with that young man in our garden! - Is there any chance we can borrow him? :-) - Enjoy Independence Day.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 4, 2009 7:59 AM

I don't think he's even been out of Michigan, but that would be a great trip indeed. Perhaps I can come along with him. I've been all over the world but never to England.

Will meet with family later on in the day after Wimbledon for some love, laughter, rememberance, and good food. My flag is flying brilliantly. It will be a good day indeed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 4, 2009 8:44 AM

Trevor, build some decent but humble quarters for the groundskeeper and I might just have to come and keep up that garden myself. That is if UKLove doesn't break in and claim "squatter's rights." The U.K. looks like a lovely and delightful place to visit. Despite the usual politics and social issues (nobody's immune from those) your pride in your homeland shows. I hope to experience it myself one day.

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 5, 2009 8:09 AM

Dan – the garden shed can sleep two and UK Love has not yet made his reservation :-)

Sure we have some serious problems in the UK but I am very proud of my country and my heritage. Not all of Britain’s history can be said to be rosy, and wonderfully warm.

On Sunday afternoons throughout the year Stratford-Upon-Avon - about 15 miles from me - is invaded by US citizens to the extent most of the voices one hears have an American accent. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned - you are all welcome over here anytime!

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 5, 2009 2:49 PM

Trevor, does UK Love snore? He should be forewarned: I do.

I have a lot of pride in my homeland, too, my friend. Lest we forget, however, our roots are not so divergent, are they?

Posted by Dan Gunter at July 5, 2009 4:06 PM