Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:18:00 -0500 Subject: deleted some old cruft --- bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/index.html | 116 ----- .../jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.amp | 180 ------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.html | 337 ------------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.txt | 26 - bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.amp | 191 -------- bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.html | 380 --------------- bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.txt | 44 -- .../jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.amp | 179 ------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.html | 334 ------------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.txt | 20 - .../jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.amp | 332 ------------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.html | 542 --------------------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.txt | 307 ------------ .../jrnlold/2005/10/twenty-more-minutes-go.amp | 177 ------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/twenty-more-minutes-go.html | 364 -------------- .../jrnlold/2005/10/twenty-more-minutes-go.txt | 20 - 16 files changed, 3549 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/index.html delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.amp delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.html delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.txt delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.amp delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.html delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.txt delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.amp delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.html delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.txt delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.amp delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.html delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.txt delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/twenty-more-minutes-go.amp delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/twenty-more-minutes-go.html delete mode 100644 bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/twenty-more-minutes-go.txt (limited to 'bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10') diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/index.html b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/index.html deleted file mode 100644 index 5650bd0..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/index.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,116 +0,0 @@ - - - - - Luxagraf - Topografical Writings: Archive - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

Home →
Journal →
2005 →
October

Archive: October 2005

Sainte Chapelle - Oct 28, 2005 -
Living in a Railway Car - Oct 24, 2005 -
Twenty More Minutes to Go - Oct 20, 2005 -
Travel Tips and Resources - Oct 19, 2005 -
The New Luddites - Oct 08, 2005 -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.amp b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.amp deleted file mode 100644 index dcdd4df..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.amp +++ /dev/null @@ -1,180 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Living in a Railway Car - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Living in a Railway Car

- October 24, 2005 - - -

I'm in France. It still doesn't quite seem real. But I'm here, staying in the Marais, in what must be the smallest apartment ever made.

I used to stay in a very small apartment in the Village off 6th avenue which I thought was the smallest apartment ever made. But no. This French apartment is more like a railway sleeper car than apartment proper. Maybe fifteen feet long and only three feet wide at the ceiling. More like five feet wide at the floor, but, because it's an attic, the outer wall slopes in and you lose two feet by the time you get to the ceiling. It's narrow enough that you can't pass another body when you walk to length of it. And yet somehow in this space the French have managed to pack a kitchen, a twin bed, a large bookshelf and a shower. Due to the size and arrangement you can go to bathroom, sort your laundry and fry eggs at the same time. Not that you'd want to.

But it's actually not a bad place. Livable for one, tolerable for about three hours with two. So long as the two are good friends. About two months ago I spent a week living on a 40 ft boat with six other people. In hindsight that was roomy and spacious. So I try to think of this place as a little ship in the vast sea of Paris, which makes it more fun. For those of you thinking, oh it can't be that small, check out the pictures.

Paris itself is lovely. I'm not exactly sure what to write about Paris because I feel like the only person that's never been here. I'm going to eschew the ‘I went here,' ‘I went there' stuff in favor of more eccentric observations. A couple of things of note… Paris is by far the quietest major city I've ever been in. At least the Marais is quiet at night in ways that New York can only dream of. French pre-packaged food is better than most of the restaurants I've eaten at in America. You can buy things like créme fraiche in little containers at any grocer. Try to even find pre-made créme fraiche in America. And that myth of wine being cheaper than water, strictly myth, though wine is cheap. In general though Paris is more expensive than New York. But like New York, you can live cheap if you know where to go.

Outside the obvious landmarks, the highlight so far has been the food. For those of you that don't know I've spent the last five years of so working in restaurants, so there may well be a good bit posted about food in the course of this trip. Sort of an obsession of mine. Last night we ate at a very traditional French restaurant, duck breast with poached figs, salade de epinard etc. One nice thing about having worked in French leaning restaurants is, while I may not understand much in the way of French, I can read a menu just fine. Of course I can't really order except with pathetic finger gestures, but at least I know what's being served.

Speaking of not speaking French, I haven't said much since I've been here. I say bonjour and merci to be polite, but I haven't gone much beyond that, which I feel a little weird about. The French are intimidating when it comes to language, I'm not sure why, they just are. And I'm not about to try English; I would feel much more comfortable trying to order something in Spanish than English. I feel guilty for speaking English, but then I have weird hang-ups about language so it may just be me. So far I've let L.S. take care of the talking since she's fluent.

I guess I'll indulge in a little itinerary repetition. Today we went to the Centre Pompidou, which is currently having a huge Dada exhibition. We're saving the Dada for a later day, but we did go to the Big Bang collection and saw some good stuff. Cy Twombly and Basquiat along with a few Picassos and some other good stuff by people I've never heard of. A lot of it was crap (i.e. overly intellectual with no soul, maybe crap is too harsh, just not my thing), but there was enough good stuff to make it worthwhile.

Then we caught a train out to Père Lachaise, the famous graveyard. We managed to see Apollinaire's grave, Marcel Proust's, and Richard Wright's before we got kicked out because the cemetery was closing. Who knew graveyards closed? We'll have to try that one again. It's a massive, massive cemetery, there's no way you can see it in one day anyway. By the way, if you're into this sort of thing, it turns out there is a search engine for graves.

Well that's all for now, stay tuned. Also, we're looking to get out of France for an overnight, or maybe two-day excursion so if there's something you know of that you think we really should see, let me know in the comments below.

- - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.html b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.html deleted file mode 100644 index 1d00e3c..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,337 +0,0 @@ - - - - - Living In A Railway Car - by Scott Gilbertson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

Home → - -
- - jrnl - - -

- - -

Living in a Railway Car

- -

Paris, France

- – Map -

- October 24, 2005 - -

I‘m in France. It still doesn’t quite seem real. But I’m here, staying in the Marais, in what must be the smallest apartment ever made.

I used to stay in a very small apartment in the Village off 6th avenue which I thought was the smallest apartment ever made. But no. This French apartment is more like a railway sleeper car than apartment proper. Maybe fifteen feet long and only three feet wide at the ceiling. More like five feet wide at the floor, but, because it’s an attic, the outer wall slopes in and you lose two feet by the time you get to the ceiling. It’s narrow enough that you can’t pass another body when you walk to length of it. And yet somehow in this space the French have managed to pack a kitchen, a twin bed, a large bookshelf and a shower. Due to the size and arrangement you can go to bathroom, sort your laundry and fry eggs at the same time. Not that you’d want to.

But it’s actually not a bad place. Livable for one, tolerable for about three hours with two. So long as the two are good friends. About two months ago I spent a week living on a 40 ft boat with six other people. In hindsight that was roomy and spacious. So I try to think of this place as a little ship in the vast sea of Paris, which makes it more fun. For those of you thinking, oh it can’t be that small, check out the pictures.

Paris itself is lovely. I’m not exactly sure what to write about Paris because I feel like the only person that’s never been here. I’m going to eschew the ‘I went here,’ ‘I went there’ stuff in favor of more eccentric observations. A couple of things of note… Paris is by far the quietest major city I’ve ever been in. At least the Marais is quiet at night in ways that New York can only dream of. French pre-packaged food is better than most of the restaurants I’ve eaten at in America. You can buy things like créme fraiche in little containers at any grocer. Try to even find pre-made créme fraiche in America. And that myth of wine being cheaper than water, strictly myth, though wine is cheap. In general though Paris is more expensive than New York. But like New York, you can live cheap if you know where to go.

Outside the obvious landmarks, the highlight so far has been the food. For those of you that don’t know I’ve spent the last five years of so working in restaurants, so there may well be a good bit posted about food in the course of this trip. Sort of an obsession of mine. Last night we ate at a very traditional French restaurant, duck breast with poached figs, salade de epinard etc. One nice thing about having worked in French leaning restaurants is, while I may not understand much in the way of French, I can read a menu just fine. Of course I can’t really order except with pathetic finger gestures, but at least I know what’s being served.

Speaking of not speaking French, I haven’t said much since I’ve been here. I say bonjour and merci to be polite, but I haven’t gone much beyond that, which I feel a little weird about. The French are intimidating when it comes to language, I’m not sure why, they just are. And I’m not about to try English; I would feel much more comfortable trying to order something in Spanish than English. I feel guilty for speaking English, but then I have weird hang-ups about language so it may just be me. So far I’ve let L.S. take care of the talking since she’s fluent.

I guess I’ll indulge in a little itinerary repetition. Today we went to the Centre Pompidou, which is currently having a huge Dada exhibition. We’re saving the Dada for a later day, but we did go to the Big Bang collection and saw some good stuff. Cy Twombly and Basquiat along with a few Picassos and some other good stuff by people I’ve never heard of. A lot of it was crap (i.e. overly intellectual with no soul, maybe crap is too harsh, just not my thing), but there was enough good stuff to make it worthwhile.

Then we caught a train out to Père Lachaise, the famous graveyard. We managed to see Apollinaire’s grave, Marcel Proust’s, and Richard Wright’s before we got kicked out because the cemetery was closing. Who knew graveyards closed? We’ll have to try that one again. It’s a massive, massive cemetery, there’s no way you can see it in one day anyway. By the way, if you’re into this sort of thing, it turns out there is a search engine for graves.

Well that’s all for now, stay tuned. Also, we’re looking to get out of France for an overnight, or maybe two-day excursion so if there’s something you know of that you think we really should see, let me know in the comments below.

- -

- - -

- -

- - - - - - -

- -

Thoughts?

Please leave a reply:

- -

All comments are moderated, so you won’t see it right away. And please remember Kurt Vonnegut's rule: “god damn it, you’ve got to be kind.” You can use Markdown or HTML to format your comments. The allowed tags are <b>, <i>, <em>, <strong>, <a>. To create a new paragraph hit return twice.

- - -

- -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.txt b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9efd2ad..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/living-railway-car.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,26 +0,0 @@ -Living in a Railway Car -======================= - - by Scott Gilbertson - - Monday, 24 October 2005 - -I'm in France. It still doesn't quite seem real. But I'm here, staying in the Marais, in what must be the smallest apartment ever made. - -I used to stay in a very small apartment in the Village off 6th avenue which I thought was the smallest apartment ever made. But no. This French apartment is more like a railway sleeper car than apartment proper. Maybe fifteen feet long and only three feet wide at the ceiling. More like five feet wide at the floor, but, because it's an attic, the outer wall slopes in and you lose two feet by the time you get to the ceiling. It's narrow enough that you can't pass another body when you walk to length of it. And yet somehow in this space the French have managed to pack a kitchen, a twin bed, a large bookshelf and a shower. Due to the size and arrangement you can go to bathroom, sort your laundry and fry eggs at the same time. Not that you'd want to. - - - -But it's actually not a bad place. Livable for one, tolerable for about three hours with two. So long as the two are good friends. About two months ago I spent a week living on a 40 ft boat with six other people. In hindsight that was roomy and spacious. So I try to think of this place as a little ship in the vast sea of Paris, which makes it more fun. For those of you thinking, oh it can't be that small, check out the pictures. - -Paris itself is lovely. I'm not exactly sure what to write about Paris because I feel like the only person that's never been here. I'm going to eschew the ‘I went here,' ‘I went there' stuff in favor of more eccentric observations. A couple of things of note… Paris is by far the quietest major city I've ever been in. At least the Marais is quiet at night in ways that New York can only dream of. French pre-packaged food is better than most of the restaurants I've eaten at in America. You can buy things like créme fraiche in little containers at any grocer. Try to even find pre-made créme fraiche in America. And that myth of wine being cheaper than water, strictly myth, though wine is cheap. In general though Paris is more expensive than New York. But like New York, you can live cheap if you know where to go. - -Outside the obvious landmarks, the highlight so far has been the food. For those of you that don't know I've spent the last five years of so working in restaurants, so there may well be a good bit posted about food in the course of this trip. Sort of an obsession of mine. Last night we ate at a very traditional French restaurant, duck breast with poached figs, salade de epinard etc. One nice thing about having worked in French leaning restaurants is, while I may not understand much in the way of French, I can read a menu just fine. Of course I can't really order except with pathetic finger gestures, but at least I know what's being served. - -Speaking of not speaking French, I haven't said much since I've been here. I say **bonjour** and **merci** to be polite, but I haven't gone much beyond that, which I feel a little weird about. The French are intimidating when it comes to language, I'm not sure why, they just are. And I'm not about to try English; I would feel much more comfortable trying to order something in Spanish than English. I feel guilty for speaking English, but then I have weird hang-ups about language so it may just be me. So far I've let L.S. take care of the talking since she's fluent. - -I guess I'll indulge in a little itinerary repetition. Today we went to the Centre Pompidou, which is currently having a huge Dada exhibition. We're saving the Dada for a later day, but we did go to the Big Bang collection and saw some good stuff. Cy Twombly and Basquiat along with a few Picassos and some other good stuff by people I've never heard of. A lot of it was crap (i.e. overly intellectual with no soul, maybe crap is too harsh, just not my thing), but there was enough good stuff to make it worthwhile. - -Then we caught a train out to Père Lachaise, the famous graveyard. We managed to see Apollinaire's grave, Marcel Proust's, and Richard Wright's before we got kicked out because the cemetery was closing. Who knew graveyards closed? We'll have to try that one again. It's a massive, massive cemetery, there's no way you can see it in one day anyway. By the way, if you're into this sort of thing, it turns out there is a search engine for graves. - -Well that's all for now, stay tuned. Also, we're looking to get out of France for an overnight, or maybe two-day excursion so if there's something you know of that you think we really should see, let me know in the comments below. diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.amp b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.amp deleted file mode 100644 index 3f505c7..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.amp +++ /dev/null @@ -1,191 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -The New Luddites - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The New Luddites

- October 8, 2005 - - -

[Update: I'm not entirely sure I still agree with this post. This was written some time ago, before Google became, well, Google. I still think the Author's Guild was being ridiculous, but I'm no longer sure Google's motives were benign. I do still agree with this bit though: Writing is participating in something bigger than you. It's a contribution to the body of humanity's knowledge and I think authors ought to respect that.

This post, along with a few others, is from the time before luxagraf was a travel blog. Back then it was just sort of a place for me to spout off on things I care about, in this case books. Consider yourself warned

It might just be what I happen to read, but the big topic of late on this here internet seems to the Author's Guild lawsuit against Google. For those that haven't heard, the Author's Guild has brought a class action lawsuit against Google to try and stop Google from indexing scanned books. I am a writer and I make about half of my income from writing (the other half comes from programming) so I have a personal interest in the outcome of this lawsuit. That said, I really wish it wasn't happening. I really wish that we weren't so tied to money that it has come to this. Are writers, authors, and members of the guild, to say nothing of the music industry, really this stupid?

Here's the thing in plain English. Google wants to scan and index hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books, magazines and newspapers. Google understands that many authors might not want this to happen. They have thus provided an opt-out program. They set a deadline for this offer. Several authors protested the existence of the deadline, saying the opt-out should be available at any time. Essentially they're asking Google to expend the effort to index their work and then waste that effort and discard it. That doesn't even begin to make sense to me. If these authors are so concerned with their copyrights they out to be on the ball about and able to meet a deadline.

The irony is of course that the Authors Guild is suing on behalf of all their members (I.e. an opt out style), which in essence is the very thing they're trying to stop Google from doing. To the best of my knowledge there is no way for a member of the Authors Guild to opt out. At least Google gives you the option.

But the bigger issue is why do these writers care at all? Isn't being indexed by Google in fact a good thing? Won't that open an avenue for more people to discover their work? Such was my initial reaction, nicely and perhaps most eloquently expounded by Tim O'Reilly in a recent NYTimes op/ed piece:

-
A search engine for books will be revolutionary in its benefits. Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors than copyright infringement, or even outright piracy. While publishers invest in each of their books, they depend on bestsellers to keep afloat. They typically throw their products into the market to see what sticks and cease supporting what doesn't, so an author has had just one chance to reach readers. Until now.
-
Google promises an alternative to the obscurity imposed on most books. It makes that great corpus of less-than-bestsellers accessible to all. By pointing to a huge body of print works online, Google will offer a way to promote books that publishers have thrown away, creating an opportunity for readers to track them down and buy them.
-

Now that just plain makes sense. So who objects to this and on what grounds? I've spent two days now digging around on Google (yes the irony is steak knife thick in my house) trying to figure out why these writers are opposed to Google scanning their work. And why the Author's Guild doesn't mind Google indexing the content of their website…

The argument, as best as I can follow it, seems to be that Google will be profiting and the authors will not directly. But as O'Reilly and others point out, that just isn't true. So what then? Why oppose this. The Author's Guild website (I refuse to link to it) talks a lot about people stealing my work and all the money I will be losing from that. So is Google going to profit off these works? Well that depends how you look at it. In some sense yes they are; they will of course do their usual ads amongst content to generate revenue. But I think the argument can be made that the success of the ads rest more on Google's service than on the individual works being indexed. That is, what will draw people in is the fact that Google is doing this; Google makes the service available. In other words, I think Google's name is a bigger draw than the authors themselves. I think Google could generate a handsome profit just working with public domain works.

This is the point at which I apparently part ways with a number of authors. I wholeheartedly agree with O'Reilly, and desperately hope that Google wins this suit. I would love to see some of my favorite authors raised out of obscurity, Frank Stanford, Bernadette Mayer; I could point out great overlooked writers all day long. Most of their works are out of print and the publishing rights in the hands of people who either don't want to or can't afford to bring them out in print again. By indexing these works Google can hopefully introduce more people to their words. And that's the point of writing right? Communication? Or is it only about the money these days? Frankly I think writers ought to get down on their hands and knees and thank god that they live in the only century in the history of man where they can feed themselves by writing. And don't even try to say that's because copyright laws protect their work. It's because of the printing press and all the other technologies that have enabled the cheap production of printed books, not a bunch of laws written three centuries ago.

See, I write for webmonkey, which is owned by wirednews.com, which is owned by Lycos, which I believe is owned by someone else, who may in fact be owned by someone else. It's entirely possible that the chain is infinite. I write in a situation of built-in, absolutely guaranteed obscurity. The tiniest plankton in a vast ocean of money. The toilets seats in Lycos' office probably cost more than I do. Certainly no one at Lycos is sitting around thinking about how they can get my articles out to a wider audience. And that's fine, I don't expect them to, the articles have a limited audience by their very subject matter. It's entirely possible that my Dad is the only one who actually goes out and finds them. Most people that write me tend to start off saying, hey I stumbled across your article the other day, or I was search for __ and ran across your article. In other words most people find me because of Google or other search engines.

Now this brings us to an interesting thing. Sometimes I forget what I wrote, so I go look for it again. Unfortunately Webmonkey's search powers are, um, well, pathetic. So I often have to Google a title to even find out the url so I can reread it. But when I do these searches interesting things happen. It turns out that a lot of sites reprint webmonkey articles. Some of them are probably within fair use guidelines, some of them are not. At first I was a little disturbed by this discovery. After all these people are earning ad revenue off of my writing. Of course my writing is in fact owned by Lycos, so I really have no claim or very little claim at best. Not enough money to worry about. But what if it were? Major print magazines pay in the neighborhood of a dollar or two per word, sometimes even more. But let's say for instance that my 3000 word article netted me $6000. Not only would my bank account be in much better shape (though the lump in the mattress might be a bit awkward for sleeping), I would in fact be even less concerned with other sites reprinting my work without compensating me. Only one site irritates me because it's trying to pass of my code as the authors own, but whatever, it happens. Move on.

I guess the question we have come down to is how much compensation is enough? And along with that comes larger questions, am I being paid for the writing, that is the act of writing, or am I being paid for the words I write? Do I own the act of writing or the words I've written? I don't know that anyone can own words. The whole notion of ownership seems a non-sequitur and a logical paradox… in the end I don't own the language, so what do I own—the order of the words? It's a labyrinth of circular logic. But I don't see the harm in Google indexing them and making them available to a wider audience.

In fact I think that Google's plan is wonderful and I wish they would go ahead and skip the authors that are against it and just use my stuff instead. I'd love to land ahead of some people in the old search rankings. I already see the upside of being reprinted. I've gotten several jobs based on the exposure I receive just from webmonkey reprinting them. In fact, averaged out, I would say each article I've written has led to at least one writing or programming gig. Exposure is a good thing. Never a bad thing.

Opponents of the Google plan claim that Google does not have the right to index the content. Probably these writers are also behind the Aerospace industries recent drive to start charging model airplane manufacturers for using actual diagrams to build scale models. I think both claims are insane. No one is trying to pass off your work as his or her own. Google is of course a company and companies make money, that's what they do, so I'm not so naive as to think that Google's motivations are pure. That said, I don't care what Google's motivations are, I think the idea is wonderful, the exposure helpful to both authors and readers.

See the thing is, without readers you aren't going to get any money whatsoever. This, as my friend likes to say, equals bad. Writers dream of living off their writing. Money is an unfortunate motivator, but a motivator nonetheless. I started writing for Webmonkey for the money. The idea of getting paid to write was intoxicating. But something funny happened along the way, I found that I got to meet lots of great people, and help them solve little programming problems. To this day I have only had one bit of negative feedback out of the 4000+ people that have contacted me over the years. And though I might sometimes be slow to respond, I do enjoy solving problems for people. And yes to money may still be a motivation, but it's not the only one, I have fun writing and I have fun responding to people. This might sound really lame, but it means a lot to me when people take the time to comment on something I've written, even if that something is a dry technical article on computer programming.

Writing is participating in something bigger than you. It's a contribution to the body of humanity's knowledge and I think authors ought to respect that. I have friends that are far better writers than I with books on the shelves at Barnes and Noble and they have never seen a dime. The fact that you could even make money writing would come as a shock to some of them. The Authors Guild is not acting on their behalf, it is not acting on my behalf, it's acting on the behalf of selfish, wealthy writers whose words the world would be better off losing anyway. My message to them is simple. Stop writing and become a banker, you're wasting the world's time and effort. My message to Google is, go forth, index all you want, give away pdfs if you want, just don't index the aforementioned writers, they don't deserve to be found, let them drift off into obscurity where they belong. I look forward to seeing their remaindered copies in the dollar bin.

- - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.html b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.html deleted file mode 100644 index 4c6ed09..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,380 +0,0 @@ - - - - - The New Luddites - by Scott Gilbertson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

Home → - -
- - jrnl - - -

- - -

The New Luddites

- -

Newport Beach, California, U.S.

- – Map -

- October 8, 2005 - -

[Update: I’m not entirely sure I still agree with this post. This was written some time ago, before Google became, well, Google. I still think the Author’s Guild was being ridiculous, but I’m no longer sure Google’s motives were benign. I do still agree with this bit though: Writing is participating in something bigger than you. It’s a contribution to the body of humanity’s knowledge and I think authors ought to respect that.

- -

It might just be what I happen to read, but the big topic of late on this here internet seems to the Author’s Guild lawsuit against Google. For those that haven’t heard, the Author’s Guild has brought a class action lawsuit against Google to try and stop Google from indexing scanned books. I am a writer and I make about half of my income from writing (the other half comes from programming) so I have a personal interest in the outcome of this lawsuit. That said, I really wish it wasn’t happening. I really wish that we weren’t so tied to money that it has come to this. Are writers, authors, and members of the guild, to say nothing of the music industry, really this stupid?

Here’s the thing in plain English. Google wants to scan and index hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books, magazines and newspapers. Google understands that many authors might not want this to happen. They have thus provided an opt-out program. They set a deadline for this offer. Several authors protested the existence of the deadline, saying the opt-out should be available at any time. Essentially they’re asking Google to expend the effort to index their work and then waste that effort and discard it. That doesn’t even begin to make sense to me. If these authors are so concerned with their copyrights they out to be on the ball about and able to meet a deadline.

The irony is of course that the Authors Guild is suing on behalf of all their members (I.e. an opt out style), which in essence is the very thing they’re trying to stop Google from doing. To the best of my knowledge there is no way for a member of the Authors Guild to opt out. At least Google gives you the option.

But the bigger issue is why do these writers care at all? Isn’t being indexed by Google in fact a good thing? Won’t that open an avenue for more people to discover their work? Such was my initial reaction, nicely and perhaps most eloquently expounded by Tim O’Reilly in a recent NYTimes op/ed piece:

-
A search engine for books will be revolutionary in its benefits. Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors than copyright infringement, or even outright piracy. While publishers invest in each of their books, they depend on bestsellers to keep afloat. They typically throw their products into the market to see what sticks and cease supporting what doesn’t, so an author has had just one chance to reach readers. Until now.
-
Google promises an alternative to the obscurity imposed on most books. It makes that great corpus of less-than-bestsellers accessible to all. By pointing to a huge body of print works online, Google will offer a way to promote books that publishers have thrown away, creating an opportunity for readers to track them down and buy them.
-

Now that just plain makes sense. So who objects to this and on what grounds? I’ve spent two days now digging around on Google (yes the irony is steak knife thick in my house) trying to figure out why these writers are opposed to Google scanning their work. And why the Author’s Guild doesn’t mind Google indexing the content of their website…

The argument, as best as I can follow it, seems to be that Google will be profiting and the authors will not directly. But as O’Reilly and others point out, that just isn’t true. So what then? Why oppose this. The Author’s Guild website (I refuse to link to it) talks a lot about people stealing my work and all the money I will be losing from that. So is Google going to profit off these works? Well that depends how you look at it. In some sense yes they are; they will of course do their usual ads amongst content to generate revenue. But I think the argument can be made that the success of the ads rest more on Google’s service than on the individual works being indexed. That is, what will draw people in is the fact that Google is doing this; Google makes the service available. In other words, I think Google’s name is a bigger draw than the authors themselves. I think Google could generate a handsome profit just working with public domain works.

This is the point at which I apparently part ways with a number of authors. I wholeheartedly agree with O’Reilly, and desperately hope that Google wins this suit. I would love to see some of my favorite authors raised out of obscurity, Frank Stanford, Bernadette Mayer; I could point out great overlooked writers all day long. Most of their works are out of print and the publishing rights in the hands of people who either don’t want to or can’t afford to bring them out in print again. By indexing these works Google can hopefully introduce more people to their words. And that’s the point of writing right? Communication? Or is it only about the money these days? Frankly I think writers ought to get down on their hands and knees and thank god that they live in the only century in the history of man where they can feed themselves by writing. And don’t even try to say that’s because copyright laws protect their work. It’s because of the printing press and all the other technologies that have enabled the cheap production of printed books, not a bunch of laws written three centuries ago.

See, I write for webmonkey, which is owned by wirednews.com, which is owned by Lycos, which I believe is owned by someone else, who may in fact be owned by someone else. It’s entirely possible that the chain is infinite. I write in a situation of built-in, absolutely guaranteed obscurity. The tiniest plankton in a vast ocean of money. The toilets seats in Lycos’ office probably cost more than I do. Certainly no one at Lycos is sitting around thinking about how they can get my articles out to a wider audience. And that’s fine, I don’t expect them to, the articles have a limited audience by their very subject matter. It’s entirely possible that my Dad is the only one who actually goes out and finds them. Most people that write me tend to start off saying, hey I stumbled across your article the other day, or I was search for __ and ran across your article. In other words most people find me because of Google or other search engines.

Now this brings us to an interesting thing. Sometimes I forget what I wrote, so I go look for it again. Unfortunately Webmonkey’s search powers are, um, well, pathetic. So I often have to Google a title to even find out the url so I can reread it. But when I do these searches interesting things happen. It turns out that a lot of sites reprint webmonkey articles. Some of them are probably within fair use guidelines, some of them are not. At first I was a little disturbed by this discovery. After all these people are earning ad revenue off of my writing. Of course my writing is in fact owned by Lycos, so I really have no claim or very little claim at best. Not enough money to worry about. But what if it were? Major print magazines pay in the neighborhood of a dollar or two per word, sometimes even more. But let’s say for instance that my 3000 word article netted me $6000. Not only would my bank account be in much better shape (though the lump in the mattress might be a bit awkward for sleeping), I would in fact be even less concerned with other sites reprinting my work without compensating me. Only one site irritates me because it’s trying to pass of my code as the authors own, but whatever, it happens. Move on.

I guess the question we have come down to is how much compensation is enough? And along with that comes larger questions, am I being paid for the writing, that is the act of writing, or am I being paid for the words I write? Do I own the act of writing or the words I’ve written? I don’t know that anyone can own words. The whole notion of ownership seems a non-sequitur and a logical paradox… in the end I don’t own the language, so what do I own—the order of the words? It’s a labyrinth of circular logic. But I don’t see the harm in Google indexing them and making them available to a wider audience.

In fact I think that Google’s plan is wonderful and I wish they would go ahead and skip the authors that are against it and just use my stuff instead. I’d love to land ahead of some people in the old search rankings. I already see the upside of being reprinted. I’ve gotten several jobs based on the exposure I receive just from webmonkey reprinting them. In fact, averaged out, I would say each article I’ve written has led to at least one writing or programming gig. Exposure is a good thing. Never a bad thing.

Opponents of the Google plan claim that Google does not have the right to index the content. Probably these writers are also behind the Aerospace industries recent drive to start charging model airplane manufacturers for using actual diagrams to build scale models. I think both claims are insane. No one is trying to pass off your work as his or her own. Google is of course a company and companies make money, that’s what they do, so I’m not so naive as to think that Google’s motivations are pure. That said, I don’t care what Google’s motivations are, I think the idea is wonderful, the exposure helpful to both authors and readers.

See the thing is, without readers you aren’t going to get any money whatsoever. This, as my friend likes to say, equals bad. Writers dream of living off their writing. Money is an unfortunate motivator, but a motivator nonetheless. I started writing for Webmonkey for the money. The idea of getting paid to write was intoxicating. But something funny happened along the way, I found that I got to meet lots of great people, and help them solve little programming problems. To this day I have only had one bit of negative feedback out of the 4000+ people that have contacted me over the years. And though I might sometimes be slow to respond, I do enjoy solving problems for people. And yes to money may still be a motivation, but it’s not the only one, I have fun writing and I have fun responding to people. This might sound really lame, but it means a lot to me when people take the time to comment on something I’ve written, even if that something is a dry technical article on computer programming.

Writing is participating in something bigger than you. It’s a contribution to the body of humanity’s knowledge and I think authors ought to respect that. I have friends that are far better writers than I with books on the shelves at Barnes and Noble and they have never seen a dime. The fact that you could even make money writing would come as a shock to some of them. The Authors Guild is not acting on their behalf, it is not acting on my behalf, it’s acting on the behalf of selfish, wealthy writers whose words the world would be better off losing anyway. My message to them is simple. Stop writing and become a banker, you’re wasting the world’s time and effort. My message to Google is, go forth, index all you want, give away pdfs if you want, just don’t index the aforementioned writers, they don’t deserve to be found, let them drift off into obscurity where they belong. I look forward to seeing their remaindered copies in the dollar bin.

- - - -

- - -

- -

- - - - - - -

- -

Thoughts?

Please leave a reply:

- -

- - -

- -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.txt b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8b86b30..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/new-luddites.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,44 +0,0 @@ -The New Luddites -================ - - by Scott Gilbertson - - Saturday, 08 October 2005 - -

- -

- - - -It might just be what I happen to read, but the big topic of late on this here internet seems to the Author's Guild lawsuit against Google. For those that haven't heard, the Author's Guild has brought a class action lawsuit against Google to try and stop Google from indexing scanned books. I am a writer and I make about half of my income from writing (the other half comes from programming) so I have a personal interest in the outcome of this lawsuit. That said, I really wish it wasn't happening. I really wish that we weren't so tied to money that it has come to this. Are writers, authors, and members of the guild, to say nothing of the music industry, really this stupid? - -Here's the thing in plain English. Google wants to scan and index hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books, magazines and newspapers. Google understands that many authors might not want this to happen. They have thus provided an opt-out program. They set a deadline for this offer. Several authors protested the existence of the deadline, saying the opt-out should be available at any time. Essentially they're asking Google to expend the effort to index their work and then waste that effort and discard it. That doesn't even begin to make sense to me. If these authors are so concerned with their copyrights they out to be on the ball about and able to meet a deadline. - -The irony is of course that the Authors Guild is suing on behalf of all their members (I.e. an opt out style), which in essence is the very thing they're trying to stop Google from doing. To the best of my knowledge there is no way for a member of the Authors Guild to opt out. At least Google gives you the option. - -But the bigger issue is why do these writers care at all? Isn't being indexed by Google in fact a good thing? Won't that open an avenue for more people to discover their work? Such was my initial reaction, nicely and perhaps most eloquently expounded by Tim O'Reilly in a recent NYTimes op/ed piece: - ->A search engine for books will be revolutionary in its benefits. Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors than copyright infringement, or even outright piracy. While publishers invest in each of their books, they depend on bestsellers to keep afloat. They typically throw their products into the market to see what sticks and cease supporting what doesn't, so an author has had just one chance to reach readers. Until now. - ->Google promises an alternative to the obscurity imposed on most books. It makes that great corpus of less-than-bestsellers accessible to all. By pointing to a huge body of print works online, Google will offer a way to promote books that publishers have thrown away, creating an opportunity for readers to track them down and buy them. - -Now that just plain makes sense. So who objects to this and on what grounds? I've spent two days now digging around on Google (yes the irony is steak knife thick in my house) trying to figure out why these writers are opposed to Google scanning their work. And why the Author's Guild doesn't mind Google indexing the content of their website… - -The argument, as best as I can follow it, seems to be that Google will be profiting and the authors will not directly. But as O'Reilly and others point out, that just isn't true. So what then? Why oppose this. The Author's Guild website (I refuse to link to it) talks a lot about people stealing my work and all the money I will be losing from that. So is Google going to profit off these works? Well that depends how you look at it. In some sense yes they are; they will of course do their usual ads amongst content to generate revenue. But I think the argument can be made that the success of the ads rest more on Google's service than on the individual works being indexed. That is, what will draw people in is the fact that Google is doing this; Google makes the service available. In other words, I think Google's name is a bigger draw than the authors themselves. I think Google could generate a handsome profit just working with public domain works. - -This is the point at which I apparently part ways with a number of authors. I wholeheartedly agree with O'Reilly, and desperately hope that Google wins this suit. I would love to see some of my favorite authors raised out of obscurity, Frank Stanford, Bernadette Mayer; I could point out great overlooked writers all day long. Most of their works are out of print and the publishing rights in the hands of people who either don't want to or can't afford to bring them out in print again. By indexing these works Google can hopefully introduce more people to their words. And that's the point of writing right? Communication? Or is it only about the money these days? Frankly I think writers ought to get down on their hands and knees and thank god that they live in the only century in the history of man where they can feed themselves by writing. And don't even try to say that's because copyright laws protect their work. It's because of the printing press and all the other technologies that have enabled the cheap production of printed books, not a bunch of laws written three centuries ago. - -See, I write for webmonkey, which is owned by wirednews.com, which is owned by Lycos, which I believe is owned by someone else, who may in fact be owned by someone else. It's entirely possible that the chain is infinite. I write in a situation of built-in, absolutely guaranteed obscurity. The tiniest plankton in a vast ocean of money. The toilets seats in Lycos' office probably cost more than I do. Certainly no one at Lycos is sitting around thinking about how they can get my articles out to a wider audience. And that's fine, I don't expect them to, the articles have a limited audience by their very subject matter. It's entirely possible that my Dad is the only one who actually goes out and finds them. Most people that write me tend to start off saying, hey I stumbled across your article the other day, or I was search for __ and ran across your article. In other words most people find me because of Google or other search engines. - -Now this brings us to an interesting thing. Sometimes I forget what I wrote, so I go look for it again. Unfortunately Webmonkey's search powers are, um, well, pathetic. So I often have to Google a title to even find out the url so I can reread it. But when I do these searches interesting things happen. It turns out that a lot of sites reprint webmonkey articles. Some of them are probably within fair use guidelines, some of them are not. At first I was a little disturbed by this discovery. After all these people are earning ad revenue off of my writing. Of course my writing is in fact owned by Lycos, so I really have no claim or very little claim at best. Not enough money to worry about. But what if it were? Major print magazines pay in the neighborhood of a dollar or two per word, sometimes even more. But let's say for instance that my 3000 word article netted me $6000. Not only would my bank account be in much better shape (though the lump in the mattress might be a bit awkward for sleeping), I would in fact be even **less** concerned with other sites reprinting my work without compensating me. Only one site irritates me because it's trying to pass of my code as the authors own, but whatever, it happens. Move on. - -I guess the question we have come down to is how much compensation is enough? And along with that comes larger questions, am I being paid for the writing, that is the act of writing, or am I being paid for the words I write? Do I own the act of writing or the words I've written? I don't know that anyone can own words. The whole notion of ownership seems a non-sequitur and a logical paradox… in the end I don't own the language, so what do I own—the order of the words? It's a labyrinth of circular logic. But I don't see the harm in Google indexing them and making them available to a wider audience. - -In fact I think that Google's plan is wonderful and I wish they would go ahead and skip the authors that are against it and just use my stuff instead. I'd love to land ahead of some people in the old search rankings. I already see the upside of being reprinted. I've gotten several jobs based on the exposure I receive just from webmonkey reprinting them. In fact, averaged out, I would say each article I've written has led to at least one writing or programming gig. Exposure is a good thing. Never a bad thing. - -Opponents of the Google plan claim that Google does not have the right to index the content. Probably these writers are also behind the Aerospace industries recent drive to start charging model airplane manufacturers for using actual diagrams to build scale models. I think both claims are insane. No one is trying to pass off your work as his or her own. Google is of course a company and companies make money, that's what they do, so I'm not so naive as to think that Google's motivations are pure. That said, I don't care what Google's motivations are, I think the idea is wonderful, the exposure helpful to both authors and readers. - -See the thing is, without readers you aren't going to get any money whatsoever. This, as my friend likes to say, equals bad. Writers dream of living off their writing. Money is an unfortunate motivator, but a motivator nonetheless. I started writing for Webmonkey for the money. The idea of getting paid to write was intoxicating. But something funny happened along the way, I found that I got to meet lots of great people, and help them solve little programming problems. To this day I have only had one bit of negative feedback out of the 4000+ people that have contacted me over the years. And though I might sometimes be slow to respond, I do enjoy solving problems for people. And yes to money may still be a motivation, but it's not the only one, I have fun writing and I have fun responding to people. This might sound really lame, but it means a lot to me when people take the time to comment on something I've written, even if that something is a dry technical article on computer programming. - -Writing is participating in something bigger than you. It's a contribution to the body of humanity's knowledge and I think authors ought to respect that. I have friends that are far better writers than I with books on the shelves at Barnes and Noble and they have never seen a dime. The fact that you could even make money writing would come as a shock to some of them. The Authors Guild is not acting on their behalf, it is not acting on my behalf, it's acting on the behalf of selfish, wealthy writers whose words the world would be better off losing anyway. My message to them is simple. Stop writing and become a banker, you're wasting the world's time and effort. My message to Google is, go forth, index all you want, give away pdfs if you want, just don't index the aforementioned writers, they don't deserve to be found, let them drift off into obscurity where they belong. I look forward to seeing their remaindered copies in the dollar bin. diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.amp b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.amp deleted file mode 100644 index 84de297..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.amp +++ /dev/null @@ -1,179 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Sainte Chapelle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sainte Chapelle

- October 28, 2005 - - -

I feel strangely like I live here. This feeling stems partly of course from the fact that I'm staying in an apartment rather than a hotel.

But add to that last night's dinner with Laura's friend Justine, and couple that with Laura being sick and it all adds up to a feeling of belongingness that leads me to believe that I live here. To which I should add, were it not for the language barrier, I could really enjoy living here. Paris is rather expensive, but in the end probably only a little more so than New York. Oh that and the little fact that the French wouldn't let me live here without tripping through some serious bureaucratic red tape. But were the world what it ought to be, I would move to Paris in a flash. Who knows maybe someday I will.

Yesterday we went to see Sainte Chapelle, cathedral from the 1240s, built by a brilliant architect that history apparently did not recorded.

But it's kind of great that know one knows who designed the building because it adds an air of anonymous grandeur to it. One obvious thing about the chapel's design, whoever did it, is it's intended to inspire fear and awe. Just daring to look upward at the ceiling induces a dizzying sense of vertigo.

The chapel was originally built to house what was supposedly the crown of thorns from Christ's crucifixion along with other relics that Louis the IX had purchased from the holy lands. No word on what became of those, though you have to wonder about a King who believed a crown of thorns would last 1200 years. Whatever the history of the place, Sainte Chapelle today is full of spellbinding stained glass, amazing and beautiful to watch the sun stream through.

- - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.html b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.html deleted file mode 100644 index fba34ad..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,334 +0,0 @@ - - - - - Sainte Chapelle - by Scott Gilbertson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

Home → - -
- - jrnl - - -

- - -

Sainte Chapelle

- -

Paris, France

- – Map -

- October 28, 2005 - -

I feel strangely like I live here. This feeling stems partly of course from the fact that I’m staying in an apartment rather than a hotel.

But add to that last night’s dinner with Laura’s friend Justine, and couple that with Laura being sick and it all adds up to a feeling of belongingness that leads me to believe that I live here. To which I should add, were it not for the language barrier, I could really enjoy living here. Paris is rather expensive, but in the end probably only a little more so than New York. Oh that and the little fact that the French wouldn’t let me live here without tripping through some serious bureaucratic red tape. But were the world what it ought to be, I would move to Paris in a flash. Who knows maybe someday I will.

St. Chapelle, Paris, France Yesterday we went to see Sainte Chapelle, cathedral from the 1240s, built by a brilliant architect that history apparently did not recorded.

But it’s kind of great that know one knows who designed the building because it adds an air of anonymous grandeur to it. One obvious thing about the chapel’s design, whoever did it, is it’s intended to inspire fear and awe. Just daring to look upward at the ceiling induces a dizzying sense of vertigo.

The chapel was originally built to house what was supposedly the crown of thorns from Christ’s crucifixion along with other relics that Louis the IX had purchased from the holy lands. No word on what became of those, though you have to wonder about a King who believed a crown of thorns would last 1200 years. Whatever the history of the place, Sainte Chapelle today is full of spellbinding stained glass, amazing and beautiful to watch the sun stream through.

St. Chapelle, Paris, France The remarkable thing about it is that all that stained glass tells the entire story of the Bible in roughly one-foot square panels. It was interesting to see after the modern, conceptual art stuff at the Pompidou, since, as Laura pointed out, Sainte Chapelle felt quite conceptual. In a sense the entire Bible (i.e. all history from this perspective) is unfolding simultaneously, quite a so-called post-modern idea if you think about. And yet it was conceived and executed over 800 years ago. Kind of kicks a lot pretentious modern art in its collective ass.

- -

- - -

- -

- - - - - - -

- -

Thoughts?

Please leave a reply:

- -

- - -

- -

- - - - -

- - - - - - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.txt b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0a23cf6..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/sainte-chapelle.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ -Sainte Chapelle -=============== - - by Scott Gilbertson - - Friday, 28 October 2005 - -I feel strangely like I live here. This feeling stems partly of course from the fact that I'm staying in an apartment rather than a hotel. - -But add to that last night's dinner with Laura's friend Justine, and couple that with Laura being sick and it all adds up to a feeling of belongingness that leads me to believe that I live here. To which I should add, were it not for the language barrier, I could really enjoy living here. Paris is rather expensive, but in the end probably only a little more so than New York. Oh that and the little fact that the French wouldn't let me live here without tripping through some serious bureaucratic red tape. But were the world what it ought to be, I would move to Paris in a flash. Who knows maybe someday I will. - - St. Chapelle, Paris, France

Yesterday we went to see Sainte Chapelle, cathedral from the 1240s, built by a brilliant architect that history apparently did not recorded. - -But it's kind of great that know one knows who designed the building because it adds an air of anonymous grandeur to it. One obvious thing about the chapel's design, whoever did it, is it's intended to inspire fear and awe. Just daring to look upward at the ceiling induces a dizzying sense of vertigo. - -The chapel was originally built to house what was supposedly the crown of thorns from Christ's crucifixion along with other relics that Louis the IX had purchased from the holy lands. No word on what became of those, though you have to wonder about a King who believed a crown of thorns would last 1200 years. Whatever the history of the place, Sainte Chapelle today is full of spellbinding stained glass, amazing and beautiful to watch the sun stream through. - - St. Chapelle, Paris, France

The remarkable thing about it is that all that stained glass tells the entire story of the Bible in roughly one-foot square panels. It was interesting to see after the modern, conceptual art stuff at the Pompidou, since, as Laura pointed out, Sainte Chapelle felt quite conceptual. In a sense the entire Bible (i.e. all history from this perspective) is unfolding simultaneously, quite a so-called post-modern idea if you think about. And yet it was conceived and executed over 800 years ago. Kind of kicks a lot pretentious modern art in its collective ass. - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.amp b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.amp deleted file mode 100644 index 823601c..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.amp +++ /dev/null @@ -1,332 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Travel Tips and Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Travel Tips and Resources

- October 19, 2005 - - -

[Update 7/23/06 -- I promised when I got back I would update this to fit with what I learned. So here we go… everything added post-trip is in red. I updated a few things again in 2014.]

When I started planning for this trip I had no idea the volume of research it would entail. Every website of helpful information that I found led to ten more things I knew nothing about. Digging for information on travel insurance would accidentally lead me to investigate world phones which would then point me toward… you know how the internet goes. And goes and goes. The process was something akin to trying to pull one thread out of the world's largest ball of yarn. It was one of those searches that brings to mind the old saying that knowing what you don't know is more important than what you know.

With that in mind I started compiling links and outlining general topics based on my research. Eventually I decided that I would write it all down. Partly as a resource for you my dear traveler, but also partly so I wouldn't forget anything.

Naturally I can't cover everything in detail, but I thought I could cover the basics as I've encountered them. A lot of folks have written very helpful pages for would-be round-the-world travelers, but many links on those sites were out of date or pointed to products and services that were no longer available. Hopefully potential travelers will find this page helpful. I'll be updating it as time goes on and things become more or less relevant to me. This is really more of a resource than it is a review, but where appropriate I'll offer my opinions. Just keep in mind that this page is meant as an overview and where possible I have added external links to other resources that go into more detail.

Guides, Flights, and General Planning Suggestions

Guidebooks

Once you have an idea of how you're going to pull this off, the next step is figuring out where you want to go. Once you know where you want to go, it's time to buy guidebooks. Do yourself a favor and head down to the actual bookstore. You can buy it online later if it's cheaper, but look guidebooks over carefully before actually purchasing any.

When searching for a good guidebook at you local bookseller, first look at each publisher's guide to your hometown or some place you have a local's knowledge of. See how the guide's description of your hometown and suggestions for what to do, what to see, where to stay etc, matches the reality of what you know. Of course a guidebook can't give you a local's knowledge of a place, but seeing how a publisher treats something familiar helps to give you some idea of how they're treating unfamiliar places. This isn't gospel by any means. No guidebook series has the same quality for every location. It may be that they cover your town really well and suck when it comes to Nepal. Or the opposite could be true as well. The quality depends on the authors and there are usually different authors for each location covered. Take my suggestion as a hint, not the final word. Believe me the guidebook section at Borders can be overwhelming, this tip might make it seem more manageable. [Note that it helps if your hometown is a major city, I grew up in and around Los Angeles.] Keep in mind that the turnaround time on a guidebook is roughly two years, so when you buy one the information is already two years out of date.

For my trip I ended up with a mix of Lonely Planet Guides, Rough Guides, and Let's Go Guides. They all have their strength and weaknesses, but all three are targeting budget travelers like me. They also all have websites (linked above). The sites themselves aren't that great, but each one has a forum section. If you devote the time necessary to wade through them, you can find tons of information from people that have been to your destination recently — in some cases you'll hear from people that are there right now. This is the best source for more up-to-date information than a guidebook can offer (especially for areas effected by the tsunami early this year).

I'd also like to say that a guidebook is great and it can help you plan, but don't plan too much. The more flexible you are the better your experience is going to be. Also, consider that the travelers you meet on the road are akin to kiosks of information, always listen to what others recommend. At the same time if you don't plan at all you're going to be overwhelmed and lost. Find a happy medium. Get an idea of what guidebooks suggest, check the online forums to see what others think and be open to the whims that strike you on the road.

I stand by all that, but I'll add a few things. All guidebooks suck at something so don't expect much. If it has good restaurant listings, its maps will suck and so on. Generally speaking I'd say skip the Lonely Planet Guides. Everyone you meet will have one you can glance at or borrow for a night (of course if everyone thinks that way…). The best deal I had with guidebooks was traveling with Matt and Debi. Matt had the Rough Guide to Southeast Asia which covered everything and Debi and I had individual country guides from Lonely Planet. The combination of the two gave us a nice cross referencing ability. Each had things the other didn't and we just combined the info. And I really think that's the best approach. When I leave for Central America in a few months I'll be toting the Rough Guide to Central America and first cute British girl with a Lonely Planet Guide will be my new best friend. Hopefully.

Airline Tickets

After reading the aforementioned chapter I shopped around a lot for air tickets. Tons of online and offline research. Calling travel agents, scouring airline websites, wading through price aggregator websites, talking with recent travelers on message boards, you name it, I researched it. I ended up going with AirTreks for my plane tickets. They were extremely helpful in the planning of this trip and offered many suggestions for itineraries. They also put up with me continually postponing my payment. I never felt pressured or that I was being sold on something. If you qualify, STA Travel may be able get you a better deal, but in terms of service and price for non-students I highly recommend AirTreks.

I stand by this as well. It sucks to get locked into flights way ahead of time, but the more you buy from home the cheaper it will be. I flew from Los Angeles to Paris, on to Dubai, on to Cochin, on to Kathmandu and finally to Bangkok for $1200. Coming home cost me $2000+ and I only stopped twice. Buy ahead.

That said I also suggest flying less. If I had it to do over again I would go from Delhi to Kathmandu by bus. Not that there's anything wrong with flying, it just isn't as fun. Some the best experiences I had traveling were horrendous road trips. Suffering is bonding. Learn to love it.

Vaccinations

Check the CDC's guidelines for the areas you're going to visit and budget quite a bit of time and money for vaccinations. Hepatitis B for instance requires six months between shots to get full immunity. You get your first shot, wait a month and get another. Then six months after the first you get a third. Hep A is similar. None of my vaccinations have made me sick yet, though I do still have a couple to get. Beware that these are not cheap. Generally the cheapest place to get them is through county or city clinics. Check with your insurance to see if they'll cover them, if not, try your local public health service.

If you need malaria pills be prepared to fork over some serious dough. I need malaria pills for roughly 300 days. That's 300 pills. It's roughly $40 for 12 pills here in the US. You do the math. I bought 60 pills in Tijuana and am planning to pick up the rest in India. India never signed the international drug copyright act so they make generic drugs using the same recipes as American companies, but sell them at prices the third world can afford. India is an exception though, its medicine is very advanced. You may or may not be able to get Malaria pills in the places you are visiting.

Okay here we've entered total shit land. Get the basics, measles, mumps rubella, hep A and B and screw the rest of it. Unless you can get it for free. Then load up, hey why not. As for malaria pills… I took them for about a month (Malarone) and then just kind of stopped. Malaria just isn't that big of a deal most places. If you're going to get something it's probably going to be Dengue and there's no vaccine for that anyway. Bring about ten Malarone pills. If you do get malaria you can pop like four at a time for two days and supposedly that'll knock it out. And no that isn't a traveller's myth it's actually printed on the literature you get when you pick up your proscription. On the whole I wouldn't worry about it too much, you're much much more likely to hurt yourself in an automobile or motorcycle accident than you are to catch malaria. If you do think you have malaria get your ass to the nearest real hospital around. If you're in Southeast Asia, that means Bangkok, not, for instance, The Australian Medical Clinic in Vientiane.

Passports and Visas

~~Get a US passport now before they put the RDIF chips in them. Head the post office for more details. It takes about two months to get one so plan ahead.~~. Too Late. Generally speaking most countries require you to have a passport that is good for at least six months beyond the dates of your intended travel. If you already have a passport, check to make sure that it doesn't expire anytime soon.

Visas are much more complicated. Check the procedures for the country you intend to visit. It's called Google. But be careful, there is generally no need to pay anyone to do this for you. Find the actual embassy's website for each country and get the forms yourself. And don't be an asshole. Remember that the country doesn't have to give you a visa. Make sure you fill out all the proper forms and find out if the visa is a stamped visa (in which case you have to send off your passport with your application) or a separate piece of paper (in which case you can usually just send a copy of you passport). Be a little wary of what you put on your visa forms. Atheists are often viewed with suspicion even more so than a Christian in a Muslim country. I put down that I'm Christian and my occupation is listed as chef, which seemed less controversial than writer.

Again time and money are issues here. Take care of this as soon as you can.

Well. Yeah I agree with that. It really depends where you're headed. For India you need one ahead of time. Thailand you just get a stamp at the airport. You can get a visa for just about anywhere in Southeast Asia from any old guesthouse in Bangkok. It does take a few days. And god forbid you try to get anything remotely official during Chinese New Year.

Travel Insurance

I don't have medical insurance. For whatever reason this doesn't bother me all that much when I'm in the United States (I'm willing to concede that this makes me an idiot). However, for the purposes of traveling I decided to get some insurance. Among the things you want to look for in the realm of medical coverage are, basic medical coverage, evacuation coverage (flying you home where necessary), emergency reunion (bringing a loved one to where you are) and my personal favorite, accidental death or dismemberment. In addition to medical coverage, the policy I purchased covers things like unexpected interruptions to travel (i.e. someone at home dies or needs you to return) and luggage lost in flight.

Above and beyond medical coverage you will probably want some standard travel insurance to cover you in the event your luggage is lost or stolen, the airline you're flying on goes out of business or a war breaks out in you destination country. It's even possible to insure high-end electronic equipment. In some cases these sorts of things are bundled with medical coverage in a package deal. For instance the policy I purchased covers everything I've listed so far except for the high-end electronic stuff and the cancellation of air tickets.

As with any insurance plan the cost is going to reflect how much stuff is covered. I looked at four different companies and all had similar coverage and prices. One thing to keep in mind is that these companies don't cover many things. For instance injury due to terrorism is generally not covered or costs extra. Injury due to what insurance companies call “high risk” activity are generally not covered at all. This high-risk category can contain many things that you and I would not generally consider high risk. Examples include rock climbing, scuba diving, and mountain trekking, none of which would be high risk from my point of view. And that doesn't mean you can't do these things, just don't expect to get covered when the reef shark bites your arm off.

The other thing to bear in mind is that most of these policies require that you pay for things upfront and then file a claim and they will reimburse you when it's approved. In other words the hospital in the country that is treating you is probably going to want payment. There isn't going to be the whole list your insurer and we'll bill them process you may be accustomed to in the United States.

I have two recommendations. First off the company I ended up buying insurance from is IMGlobal. You can download a sample policy from the website. I almost went with world nomads insurance and they seemed like a good choice, but they are an Australian company and though they say they have US offices I could never find a phone number for them.

Yeah the insurance thing sucks. It costs a bunch of money, but don't be an idiot get some.

Travel Equipment - what I'm bringing

Osprey Transporter 60

Okay, well. The osprey was a uh, mixed bag. Sorry. But yes I liked it because it's one giant cavern, no pockets to dig through. The suspension could be better, but the foam padded side saved my stuff a couple of times (Generally, when traveling by bus or truck, your bag will end up on top. Some strapping young lad will then cinch it down with rope. Usually by putting the full weight of his body on the rope and then tying it off. The effect on you bag is something like a cheese cutter. The foam helps.

I've since purchased a very nice bag, the Voyage 65 from Eagle Creek. It's easily the best travel pack I've owned, highly recommended.

Sweetwater Purifier System

Most people seem to go for bottled water when traveling in third world countries. There are two reasons this is stupid: price and ecological impact. Water in most the places I'm visiting/have visited is expensive. And the bottled water in foreign countries is not Aquafina. Most other countries do not have the regulations on bottled water that we in the West do, you may well be drinking tap water. Most of it is probably fine and I'll likely buy a few myself, but it's not fail-safe. More disturbing is the ecological impact. Constantly buying and disposing of water bottles has a tremendous ecological impact on the areas you visit. It increases the burden on a country's landfills, ends up on the street, in the river and floating in the ocean. Don't be an America idiot, bring your own water filter. I chose the MSR Sweetwater filter with chlorine drops to kill viruses. I used to work for The North Face and when I decided to get a water filter this was the one I remembered. It's also the best. If you do research on this stuff keep in mind that there are water filters and water purifiers. If you're going abroad, you want a purifier.

Much as I would like to say I used the filter. I didn't. It won't be coming next time, though I stand by the reasoning for it.

ALL NEW SECTION - stuff you don't need

Mostly what I learned traveling is you don't need much. A pair of pants a pair of shorts, swim suit. Two shirts. Don't bother with t-shirts, just buy some when you're there. 3 pair underwear. 3 pairs of socks. Sandals or flip flops. Shoes. That's it. The best thing I brought was my Choco sandals. Pretty much lived in them and they have no wear to speak off (this is still true in 2014). My shoes, as noted elsewhere wore through the soles completely.

First Aid Kit. — Bring a few Band Aids (plasters if you happen to be from any part of once massive Commonwealth of Great Britain). Maybe so gauze. Aleve comes in handy when it's only 50 cents for 650 ml of beer. Everything else is a waste. If you hurt yourself get to real hospital.

A sewing kit is handy. Actually Lifehacker has a link to an article that puts together a little survival kit that fits in an Altoids tin, which would be handy. Next time I go my first aide kit and survival kit will all fit in an Altoids tin.

A List by an Amateur. Yes this was a list compiled by an industrious young woman whose identity shall be protected. But don't laugh because you would bring this crap too. So, to help you out, I've done a bit of editing.

Essentials - -
- Address book with important phone numbers. Upload to net.
- Backpack
- Insurance ? health/travel
- Money ? card, converter, money belt, TCs, cash
- Passport
- Pencils, Pens
- Padlock
- Tickets and itinerary (airline, train, bus etc.)
-
Clothes -
- Bras
- Bikinis
- ~~Fleece~~
- ~~Hat~~
- ~~Leggings~~
- Light jacket
- ~~Trousers~~ Not plural, just one.
- ~~Sandals, shower shoes~~
- ~~Shorts~~ Not plural, just one.
- ~~Skirts~~ Not plural, just one.
- Socks
- Sunglasses
- ~~T-shirts~~
- Underwear
Toiletries - -
- ~~Anti-bacterial cream/wash~~
- ~~Comb~~
- ~~Cotton buds~~
- ~~Dental floss~~
- ~~Deodorant~~
- ~~Earplugs~~
- ~~Face wash~~
- ~~Hair products (gel, spray etc.)~~
- ~~Lip balm~~
- ~~Blusher~~
- ~~Mirror~~
- ~~Moisturizer (face and body)~~
- ~~Razors~~
- ~~Shampoo and Conditioner~~
- ~~Shaving Cream~~
- ~~Shower Gel~~
- ~~Sunscreen and After sun cream~~
- ~~Tampons~~
- ~~Toilet bag~~
- ~~Toilet paper w. core out~~
- ~~Toothbrush~~
- ~~Toothpaste~~
- -First Aid Kit - -
- ~~Anti histamines~~
- Band aids
- ~~Diarrhea tablets~~
- Insect and/or mosquito repellent
- ~~Iodine~~
- ~~Paracetemol, Tylenol etc.~~
- ~~Pepper spray~~
- Replacement salts
- ~~Vitamin pills~~
- ~~Infection cream/Hydrocoritsone~~
- -Other Items - -
- ~~Address Labels laminated~~
- ~~Batteries~~
- Books
- ~~Bottled water~~
- ~~Cards~~
- ~~Camera, film and batteries~~ Spare flash cards or memory for digital camera
- Diary (where I come from we call this a notebook. I prefer the very popular Moleskine variety.
- Duct Tape - okay but for the love of god not the whole roll. wrap some around something else you're bringing. Actually you probably don't need it, but you're talking to someone who held a radiator together for two months with duct tape and coat hanger. Seriously.
- ~~Electrical adapter and plug converter~~
- ~~Fishing Line~~
- ~~Flashlight~~
- ~~Guidebooks~~
- ~~International Student Identification Card~~
- ~~Laundry detergent~~
- ~~Matches - storm~~
- ~~Mobile phone or SIM card~~
- Passport Photos
- ~~Phone for Skype~~
- Photocopies of important documents in case they are stolen
- ~~Pillowcase to stuff with clothes~~
- ~~Plastic bags~~
- Recharger for electrical items
- ~~Rubber bands~~
- Sewing Kit ? needle, thread, safety pins
- ~~Sleeping bag~~
- ~~Swiss Army knife~~
- ~~Towels~~
- MP3 player
- ~~Watch~~
- Ziplock bags

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, hey, wait, some of that stuff is handy... like an electrical adapter and converter. And yeah, you're right. You might want to buy that. Or course I bought a nice one in the states and it blew up in India. Then I bought one for 200 baht ($5) at a black market electronics market in Bangkok that lasted for five more months and it's still going strong in 2014. So you know… do what you feel is best.

And now a word about technological gadgets. I can now say, without jinxing anything, that you were wrong Todd. Wrong wrong wrong. My laptop will not disappear the first ten minutes I'm in India. In fact it won't disappear at all. In fact i'll leave it unattended on trains, buses, trucks, restaurants, shoddy guesthouses and all manner of other stupid places and it will never be stolen. In fact I worry more about it being stolen from the coffeehouse when I use the restroom than I ever did in Southeast Asia. [Historical note: in 2005 traveling with a laptop was a rarity.]

- - - diff --git a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.html b/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.html deleted file mode 100644 index 1955481..0000000 --- a/bak/oldluxpages/jrnlold/2005/10/tips-and-resources.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,542 +0,0 @@ - - - - - Travel Tips And Resources - by Scott Gilbertson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

Home → - -
- - jrnl - - -

- - -