Jan 2004
Walking A Mile In Another Woman's Shoes
01/27/2004 15:56 Filed in: Culture Watch
Rebuttals (we love rebuttals!) from the Maternity Zone
My blog "Smackdown in the Kroger Parking Lot" has received more feedback than any blog I've written previously. I have already shared one response at the end of yesterday's blog, but the two I've received today comes from two mothers with an opposing viewpoint. I try not to argue with mothers of any kind, so I am going to give them their own space. Then I will give some very brief commentary that hopefully won't get me smacked.
First, a response from a mother of two:
For years it always bugged me when anyone left a shopping cart anywhere
other than the corral. If I happened to park anywhere near one of these
lonely stray carts, I would also push it into the store to use myself.
However, I have to admit that since I now have small children there are
instances when I do not return the cart to its proper resting place. The
reason, you might ask? Simple! My children are worth more than a $25,000
car any day. You see normally it is quite easy for me to unload my
groceries, buckle my children in their car seats, lock the doors of the
minivan and push the cart to the corral. (Quite frankly there are people in
today's society who would report you to child services for something as
simple as that.) BUT if the corral is not very close to my car (within easy
eyesight or a few seconds sprint) I refuse to leave my children in the car
alone even if it is locked. Also, I have to say that what used to be a
severe aggravation to me now actually helps me out. I LIKE to pull into
spaces where there is a cart nearby because I can get the cart and load up
my children. That is much easier on me that carrying one child while making
sure the other has a tight hold of my coat or shirt. Believe me, I do
understand your aggravation. I used to be one that ranted on this subject.
I suppose I have just learned to mellow with my life circumstances - or
should I say my little blessings!
And now from a mother of three:
First, you are a man, thus, you suffer from tunnelvision. Don't feel bad, most men do. We all do at some point or another, just men think in straight lines while women think in circles. Let me widen your tunnel....
As a mother of three, of which at one point all three were 6 and under, it is extremely hard to get inside a grocery store, or Walmart type stores, with all the stuff. 3 young bodies, of which at least one has fallen asleep on the way to the store, a giant and bulky infant carrier with a giant and bulky infant inside it, a purse with way too much stuff stuffed in it, a baby bag with 1737 different emergency needed items in it, and of course, my half drunk soda and the boys leftover chicken McNuggets that they want to finish in the store. All of these items of which at some point in the parking lot will be grabbed by the giant infant and flung in various directions for the sake of watching the flight. So then, if said mother happens to be attempting to carry all of these things for LACK OF A LEFT BUGGY in the parking lot she must set down said infant carrier to retrieve the thrown item while dropping everything about her and her 2 sons beginning a slugfest while entering traffic.
So the obvious solution that I learned upon having my first giant infant in the giant, bulky and leaden infant carrier, was you try and park next to the cart corral. Of course the odds of getting next to the cart corral are very slim because usually a giant Wal Mart parking lot only has 2 or 3 corrals and that means about 15 spots abut the 3 corrals and in the average parking lot there are about seventeen million cars at any given time. Kroger has less, but they only have one corral.
Now also when the Kroger boy comes out to collect buggies, the first place he goes is to the corral so he can get a bunch easily and come in and show his manager he did something. So the corrals are generally empty. And if I am not close to one, I have to leave my sleeping giant infant in a car in 110 degree heat and lock the door to trot across the lot and get a buggy. You think you give mean looks to people???? Try getting one from some old lady walking by that sees you lock your kid in the car and trot away. I actually had one call the police on me once and we had a Smackdown right there....but that is another story. I called her names, she didn't like that.
So for the last 15 years of my life, when I am going to a grocery store and have a young child in the car (Andrea at 8 still falls asleep on the way to the store) I cruise the parking lot looking for spots where lazy people have left there buggies. I then pull in the spot next to the lazy persons buggy, open my doors put my giant infant and the giant carrier in the buggy along with my bags, and cokes, and toys and blankets and everything else. As the kids got older (and at present), I keep a pillow and a blanket in my trunk and throw them in the buggy and lay Andrea on it to keep sleeping and have a peaceful stroll up the produce aisle.
At some times I have parked next to a perfectly good leftover lazy person's buggy, only to have the Kroger boy jump out of no where and grab that buggy to return it to the store. Where then I'm running across the parking lot and hollering at the buggy boy to give me back my buggy---NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now if I happened to be parking next to a nice lazy man who intends on leaving his buggy askew so I may then steal it and some well intentioned blonde man with a mission were to jump out and grab the lazy man's buggy and grab it with an evil stare, said well intentioned blonde man would find out what it was like to have a 35 pound baby bag with 3 bottles of apple juice, 6 diapers, 17 toys, 1 box of baby wipes and 2389 other various and sundry items impact with his left cranium. It would not be pretty......but he might find himself finding his tunnelvision had been cured just a bit.
Now one can understand what it is like to have zooming wind blown buggies impact with my very pretty green, clearcoat finished Mustang. The thing with that is just park far away from everything. After all, we are not lazy are we???? So the extra walk would do us good. I park away anyway because of cars opening there doors and dinging me. But when I have a sleeping Andrea, I opt for the dings so I can throw her in the buggy and have a happy trip. And of course there is the add in comment from my dear hubby, who is currently on crutches and says he's not about to hobble his buggy back to the corral when there is that perfectly good mom with children eyeballing his buggy from the next slot.
So, thus, my story. I hope it helps. And makes you understand a bit more how others see the world and how hopefully it will make you understand why some crazy woman smacked you in the head with her baby bag in Krogers parking lot when you were simply trying to be a good and exemplary citizen.
I suppose that the above points are valid. In spite of risking getting hit in the head by a baby bag, I think I may still go by my suggestion and take a cart in to use it. I mean some kid's going to come gather them at some point anyway. And I'm still worried about them running willy-nilly across the parking lot. And I guess from now on, I will excuse mothers with little children for leaving their carts in the parking lot. BUT... anyone else leaving their cart where it doesn't belong may look up to see me leaping from the top of a hummer after all.
My blog "Smackdown in the Kroger Parking Lot" has received more feedback than any blog I've written previously. I have already shared one response at the end of yesterday's blog, but the two I've received today comes from two mothers with an opposing viewpoint. I try not to argue with mothers of any kind, so I am going to give them their own space. Then I will give some very brief commentary that hopefully won't get me smacked.
First, a response from a mother of two:
For years it always bugged me when anyone left a shopping cart anywhere
other than the corral. If I happened to park anywhere near one of these
lonely stray carts, I would also push it into the store to use myself.
However, I have to admit that since I now have small children there are
instances when I do not return the cart to its proper resting place. The
reason, you might ask? Simple! My children are worth more than a $25,000
car any day. You see normally it is quite easy for me to unload my
groceries, buckle my children in their car seats, lock the doors of the
minivan and push the cart to the corral. (Quite frankly there are people in
today's society who would report you to child services for something as
simple as that.) BUT if the corral is not very close to my car (within easy
eyesight or a few seconds sprint) I refuse to leave my children in the car
alone even if it is locked. Also, I have to say that what used to be a
severe aggravation to me now actually helps me out. I LIKE to pull into
spaces where there is a cart nearby because I can get the cart and load up
my children. That is much easier on me that carrying one child while making
sure the other has a tight hold of my coat or shirt. Believe me, I do
understand your aggravation. I used to be one that ranted on this subject.
I suppose I have just learned to mellow with my life circumstances - or
should I say my little blessings!
And now from a mother of three:
First, you are a man, thus, you suffer from tunnelvision. Don't feel bad, most men do. We all do at some point or another, just men think in straight lines while women think in circles. Let me widen your tunnel....
As a mother of three, of which at one point all three were 6 and under, it is extremely hard to get inside a grocery store, or Walmart type stores, with all the stuff. 3 young bodies, of which at least one has fallen asleep on the way to the store, a giant and bulky infant carrier with a giant and bulky infant inside it, a purse with way too much stuff stuffed in it, a baby bag with 1737 different emergency needed items in it, and of course, my half drunk soda and the boys leftover chicken McNuggets that they want to finish in the store. All of these items of which at some point in the parking lot will be grabbed by the giant infant and flung in various directions for the sake of watching the flight. So then, if said mother happens to be attempting to carry all of these things for LACK OF A LEFT BUGGY in the parking lot she must set down said infant carrier to retrieve the thrown item while dropping everything about her and her 2 sons beginning a slugfest while entering traffic.
So the obvious solution that I learned upon having my first giant infant in the giant, bulky and leaden infant carrier, was you try and park next to the cart corral. Of course the odds of getting next to the cart corral are very slim because usually a giant Wal Mart parking lot only has 2 or 3 corrals and that means about 15 spots abut the 3 corrals and in the average parking lot there are about seventeen million cars at any given time. Kroger has less, but they only have one corral.
Now also when the Kroger boy comes out to collect buggies, the first place he goes is to the corral so he can get a bunch easily and come in and show his manager he did something. So the corrals are generally empty. And if I am not close to one, I have to leave my sleeping giant infant in a car in 110 degree heat and lock the door to trot across the lot and get a buggy. You think you give mean looks to people???? Try getting one from some old lady walking by that sees you lock your kid in the car and trot away. I actually had one call the police on me once and we had a Smackdown right there....but that is another story. I called her names, she didn't like that.
So for the last 15 years of my life, when I am going to a grocery store and have a young child in the car (Andrea at 8 still falls asleep on the way to the store) I cruise the parking lot looking for spots where lazy people have left there buggies. I then pull in the spot next to the lazy persons buggy, open my doors put my giant infant and the giant carrier in the buggy along with my bags, and cokes, and toys and blankets and everything else. As the kids got older (and at present), I keep a pillow and a blanket in my trunk and throw them in the buggy and lay Andrea on it to keep sleeping and have a peaceful stroll up the produce aisle.
At some times I have parked next to a perfectly good leftover lazy person's buggy, only to have the Kroger boy jump out of no where and grab that buggy to return it to the store. Where then I'm running across the parking lot and hollering at the buggy boy to give me back my buggy---NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now if I happened to be parking next to a nice lazy man who intends on leaving his buggy askew so I may then steal it and some well intentioned blonde man with a mission were to jump out and grab the lazy man's buggy and grab it with an evil stare, said well intentioned blonde man would find out what it was like to have a 35 pound baby bag with 3 bottles of apple juice, 6 diapers, 17 toys, 1 box of baby wipes and 2389 other various and sundry items impact with his left cranium. It would not be pretty......but he might find himself finding his tunnelvision had been cured just a bit.
Now one can understand what it is like to have zooming wind blown buggies impact with my very pretty green, clearcoat finished Mustang. The thing with that is just park far away from everything. After all, we are not lazy are we???? So the extra walk would do us good. I park away anyway because of cars opening there doors and dinging me. But when I have a sleeping Andrea, I opt for the dings so I can throw her in the buggy and have a happy trip. And of course there is the add in comment from my dear hubby, who is currently on crutches and says he's not about to hobble his buggy back to the corral when there is that perfectly good mom with children eyeballing his buggy from the next slot.
So, thus, my story. I hope it helps. And makes you understand a bit more how others see the world and how hopefully it will make you understand why some crazy woman smacked you in the head with her baby bag in Krogers parking lot when you were simply trying to be a good and exemplary citizen.
I suppose that the above points are valid. In spite of risking getting hit in the head by a baby bag, I think I may still go by my suggestion and take a cart in to use it. I mean some kid's going to come gather them at some point anyway. And I'm still worried about them running willy-nilly across the parking lot. And I guess from now on, I will excuse mothers with little children for leaving their carts in the parking lot. BUT... anyone else leaving their cart where it doesn't belong may look up to see me leaping from the top of a hummer after all.
|
Miniblog/Random Thought, #1
01/26/2004 15:53 Filed in: Miscellaneous
Doubtful About the Democrats
01/26/2004 15:52 Filed in: Politics
Is it just me or is there a dearth of leadership among the current candidates for the Democratic nomination?
Realize that since I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I am speaking strictly as an outsider. But I've watched some of the debates among the candidates vying for the nomination of the DNC. I've been following the primaries. I've paid attention as the position of frontrunner was at first Howard Dean and--as of this writing--has shifted to John Kerry.
I, too, chuckled at what has now been called Howard Dean's "I have a scream" speech. Yes, it was a bit goofy. But what really got my attention was when I began to reflect on Diane Sawyer's charge in her interview with Dean that his speech did not seem very presidential (something to which he agreed).
Diane's right. It wasn't presidential. And then I started reflecting on all the candidates. None of them seem all that presidential. In fact, I can't honestly picture any of them in the Oval Office. Can you? Really? Come on...can you really picture Howard Dean as your president? Wesley Clark? John Edwards? Al Sharpton? Sheesh.
What does it mean to be "presidential"? Well, it means lots of things, but I think that ultimately it means a person has the ability to be taken seriously as the leader of the country. Real leadership is the key. To me, regardless of whether you like George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton before him, both of them had true leadership ability.
Of the democrats, it's hard to picture any of these guys (and I can say guys since Carol Mosely Braun dropped out), save one, making major decisions with wisdom and forethought. When Wesley Clark was a general, did he wear that silly grin even in the heat of battle?
The only candidate who comes off with any credibility (i.e. the only candidate I can really take seriously as presidential material) is Joe Lieberman, but he is in the single digits in the polls. Why is he not popular? He's not popular because like his buddy, Al Gore, he has no charisma. "So what?" you might ask. Well, in our visual (think television) culture, charisma is everything.
In fact, I think this is why Bush beat Gore, Clinton beat Dole and Bush, and Bush beat Dukakis. Do I need to take it back any further for you to see it? It applies at least back to Kennedy and the first televised debates. In our culture, the prettiest candidate wins--the one who comes across best on television. Granted, there are other factors--qualifications, state of the economy, platform promises, etc....but I believe charisma is the major factor in the voting public's mind.
So back to the democratic candidates--don't most of these guys--and I know this sounds mean--come across to you as a bunch of clowns? The current Bush and his father I could picture in the office. Even Clinton didn't defy the imagination for the position. But I can't picture any of these current contenders as president.
The buzzword I'm hearing right now is electability. That means the Democrats are trying to figure out, not which is the best candidate for the position, but which one has the best chance of defeating incumbent, George W. Bush. But you know what? I don't think any of them do.
What do you want to bet that George W. isn't losing any sleep these days?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, I've received mail from a number of you regarding yesterday's blog, "Smackdown in the Kroger Parking Lot." One of you had this to say in regard to my suggestion that we should all grab a loose cart and take it in when we go to the grocery store:
BTW, I've been doing just that for a couple of years. I love to get parked, jump out of my car and grab a cart and put it up while some idiot is still fumbling for their key, etc. After getting it back in the proper place for the carts, I love to glance at them and always hope they learned something. But mostly those type folks never learn. Some folks think the world owes them extra favors.
I will never forget the time I wouldn't let a little fellow drag a cart past my car. I told him I would take it because I didn't want to bump my car with it. He looked dumb but tried to be helpful and stated, "Ma'am, it won't hurt the car for it to get bumped." I informed him that most cars are very expensive and cost a minimum of $25,000 and that I did not want my car bumped or scratched with a shopping cart. And I don't think he got it. He will be 40 years old one day, make his final payment on a car and a grocery boy will try to drag one by his vehicle.......and a little light will go off in his head from 25 years earlier.
Realize that since I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I am speaking strictly as an outsider. But I've watched some of the debates among the candidates vying for the nomination of the DNC. I've been following the primaries. I've paid attention as the position of frontrunner was at first Howard Dean and--as of this writing--has shifted to John Kerry.
I, too, chuckled at what has now been called Howard Dean's "I have a scream" speech. Yes, it was a bit goofy. But what really got my attention was when I began to reflect on Diane Sawyer's charge in her interview with Dean that his speech did not seem very presidential (something to which he agreed).
Diane's right. It wasn't presidential. And then I started reflecting on all the candidates. None of them seem all that presidential. In fact, I can't honestly picture any of them in the Oval Office. Can you? Really? Come on...can you really picture Howard Dean as your president? Wesley Clark? John Edwards? Al Sharpton? Sheesh.
What does it mean to be "presidential"? Well, it means lots of things, but I think that ultimately it means a person has the ability to be taken seriously as the leader of the country. Real leadership is the key. To me, regardless of whether you like George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton before him, both of them had true leadership ability.
Of the democrats, it's hard to picture any of these guys (and I can say guys since Carol Mosely Braun dropped out), save one, making major decisions with wisdom and forethought. When Wesley Clark was a general, did he wear that silly grin even in the heat of battle?
The only candidate who comes off with any credibility (i.e. the only candidate I can really take seriously as presidential material) is Joe Lieberman, but he is in the single digits in the polls. Why is he not popular? He's not popular because like his buddy, Al Gore, he has no charisma. "So what?" you might ask. Well, in our visual (think television) culture, charisma is everything.
In fact, I think this is why Bush beat Gore, Clinton beat Dole and Bush, and Bush beat Dukakis. Do I need to take it back any further for you to see it? It applies at least back to Kennedy and the first televised debates. In our culture, the prettiest candidate wins--the one who comes across best on television. Granted, there are other factors--qualifications, state of the economy, platform promises, etc....but I believe charisma is the major factor in the voting public's mind.
So back to the democratic candidates--don't most of these guys--and I know this sounds mean--come across to you as a bunch of clowns? The current Bush and his father I could picture in the office. Even Clinton didn't defy the imagination for the position. But I can't picture any of these current contenders as president.
The buzzword I'm hearing right now is electability. That means the Democrats are trying to figure out, not which is the best candidate for the position, but which one has the best chance of defeating incumbent, George W. Bush. But you know what? I don't think any of them do.
What do you want to bet that George W. isn't losing any sleep these days?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, I've received mail from a number of you regarding yesterday's blog, "Smackdown in the Kroger Parking Lot." One of you had this to say in regard to my suggestion that we should all grab a loose cart and take it in when we go to the grocery store:
BTW, I've been doing just that for a couple of years. I love to get parked, jump out of my car and grab a cart and put it up while some idiot is still fumbling for their key, etc. After getting it back in the proper place for the carts, I love to glance at them and always hope they learned something. But mostly those type folks never learn. Some folks think the world owes them extra favors.
I will never forget the time I wouldn't let a little fellow drag a cart past my car. I told him I would take it because I didn't want to bump my car with it. He looked dumb but tried to be helpful and stated, "Ma'am, it won't hurt the car for it to get bumped." I informed him that most cars are very expensive and cost a minimum of $25,000 and that I did not want my car bumped or scratched with a shopping cart. And I don't think he got it. He will be 40 years old one day, make his final payment on a car and a grocery boy will try to drag one by his vehicle.......and a little light will go off in his head from 25 years earlier.
PageMaker: 1984-2004, R.I.P.
01/26/2004 15:23 Filed in: Technology
The program that changed the way publishing is done faded away yesterday into computer history...
You know, "cut and paste" used to literally mean just that: cut and paste. When I was in college (1986-1990) my friends who were getting graphic design degrees were still creating layouts the old-fashioned way with scissors and tape. I remember talking with one of my friends who was majoring in graphic design about the potential of actually using a computer to create layouts. She was very skeptical. She felt that computer-aided graphic design (we actually were calling it desktop publishing a the time) was just a passing fad. Ha.
I had this conversation to begin with because just a few days earlier, I had been blown away by my first glimpse of what a computer could do in this area. It was late summer, 1989 and I was given a newsletter by a Chinese friend of mine. He wanted me to read his newsletter that detailed the horrible things done by the Chinese government to the student rebellion in Tiananmen Square. Although I was very interested in the subject matter of his newsletter, I was more amazed that he was claiming ownership of one of the most professional-looking newsletters I had ever seen. There were no graphics, but the text was laid out so well and professionally, I was sure he had used a printing press. Then I found out that he had done this on a computer, and I just couldn't believe it.
A little background. In 1984 Apple released the first Macintosh computer. It was significant because it was the first commercially available computer with a graphical user interface (the same kind of interface you use on a computer today regardless of what kind of computer you use). Although the computer was released at the beginning of 1984, it took a few months before software started showing up for the platform. But even then what the Mac needed was a "killer app"--a software package that would cause people to buy the computer just so they could use it.
The next year was significant for the Macintosh and graphic design in general because in 1985, Apple released the first commercially available laser printer, the Laserwriter, and Aldus software released what would become the Mac's killer app: PageMaker 1.0. This changed everything because for the first time a person could create a document that looked the same on the computer as it looked when it was printed (I mean if you never created a newsletter using WordPerfect for DOS, you just can't appreciate this fact). Plus, with the LaserWriter, you could print a crisp, clean, professional-looking copy. With a Mac, a LaserWriter and Aldus PageMaker, a person essentially had his or her own print house for only a fraction of what it would have cost before.
I can't overstate how much PageMaker changed everything. I was very interested in these things myself, although I was an English major, not a graphic design major. And by the early nineties, even though I had no formal training, I was able to use PageMaker (albeit on a Windows machine) to do real graphic design and become my major source of outside income while I pursued my masters degree (in theology, not graphic design).
In 1994, Adobe merged with Aldus. Adobe already had the second killer app for the Macintosh: Photoshop. This should have been a marriage made in heaven, but it wasn't. To make a long story short, Adobe dropped the ball. In the mid nineties, QuarkXPress became the dominant graphic layout program for designers. Although PageMaker was still a very powerful program, it was falling further behind in development than Quark. In fact, now the average book or magazine you will hold in your hands has been created digitally on a Mac using QuarkXPress (Even Microsoft, the developer of Windows, has a Mac-based PR department for all their books, manuals and advertisements).
By the late nineties, Adobe was faced with a choice--beef up PageMaker to bring it up to par with Quark or create a new product. You would think it would have been easier to just retool PageMaker, but by that time, PageMaker had earned a reputation for being inferior to Quark. The name itself carried a negative image among designers (that's in spite of the fact that most professional print houses will still accept PageMaker files to this day).
So Adobe made the decision to create a brand new product from scratch. It was created to be a "Quark-killer." It's called InDesign and is now in its second major release. Quark still has the majority of designer's hearts, but InDesign is quickly catching up having gained momentum because Quark waited so long to update its software to run natively in Mac OS X which it only recently did.
In the meantime, Adobe tried over the past two or three years to reposition PageMaker as a "business design application." This is in spite of the fact that it was originally created for professional designers. They added toolbars in attempt make it easier to use. However, I've observed the average secretary try to use PageMaker and it is essentially too difficult for them to use. A secretary doesn't have time to learn how to use PageMaker to really make use of it and justify its price. Since the average office uses Windows machines anyway, I usually recommend a program like Microsoft Publisher for such needs.
By the way, PageMaker has become so neglected that version 7 (the current and last release) really only added the aforementioned toolbar to version 6.5 that had been released way back in 1997!
So that brings us to yesterday. Yesterday (January 5, 2004), Adobe released a press release that said they were discontinuing development for PageMaker on all platforms. And to give incentive to PageMaker users to upgrade to InDesign, they are releasing a special InDesign CS PageMaker edition that includes special plug-ins to InDesign that will make it easier for PageMaker holdouts to transition their work to InDesign.
So PageMaker is dead. Finished. No more. The final chapter has been closed for the program that changed everything for graphic designers everywhere...the program that helped create the entire electronic design industry.
The death of PageMaker should feel more significant, but it has been so neglected by Adobe for so long that it seems like a poor animal put out of its misery at this point.
For what it's worth I have been using InDesign for specialized graphic design projects (which I don't do all that much anymore anyway) for the last three years. Yes, I, too, quit PageMaker for InDesign a while back, but I felt like I should upgrade to the better product, not the neglected product. I didn't need the 7.0 toolbar anyway!
You know, "cut and paste" used to literally mean just that: cut and paste. When I was in college (1986-1990) my friends who were getting graphic design degrees were still creating layouts the old-fashioned way with scissors and tape. I remember talking with one of my friends who was majoring in graphic design about the potential of actually using a computer to create layouts. She was very skeptical. She felt that computer-aided graphic design (we actually were calling it desktop publishing a the time) was just a passing fad. Ha.
I had this conversation to begin with because just a few days earlier, I had been blown away by my first glimpse of what a computer could do in this area. It was late summer, 1989 and I was given a newsletter by a Chinese friend of mine. He wanted me to read his newsletter that detailed the horrible things done by the Chinese government to the student rebellion in Tiananmen Square. Although I was very interested in the subject matter of his newsletter, I was more amazed that he was claiming ownership of one of the most professional-looking newsletters I had ever seen. There were no graphics, but the text was laid out so well and professionally, I was sure he had used a printing press. Then I found out that he had done this on a computer, and I just couldn't believe it.
A little background. In 1984 Apple released the first Macintosh computer. It was significant because it was the first commercially available computer with a graphical user interface (the same kind of interface you use on a computer today regardless of what kind of computer you use). Although the computer was released at the beginning of 1984, it took a few months before software started showing up for the platform. But even then what the Mac needed was a "killer app"--a software package that would cause people to buy the computer just so they could use it.
The next year was significant for the Macintosh and graphic design in general because in 1985, Apple released the first commercially available laser printer, the Laserwriter, and Aldus software released what would become the Mac's killer app: PageMaker 1.0. This changed everything because for the first time a person could create a document that looked the same on the computer as it looked when it was printed (I mean if you never created a newsletter using WordPerfect for DOS, you just can't appreciate this fact). Plus, with the LaserWriter, you could print a crisp, clean, professional-looking copy. With a Mac, a LaserWriter and Aldus PageMaker, a person essentially had his or her own print house for only a fraction of what it would have cost before.
I can't overstate how much PageMaker changed everything. I was very interested in these things myself, although I was an English major, not a graphic design major. And by the early nineties, even though I had no formal training, I was able to use PageMaker (albeit on a Windows machine) to do real graphic design and become my major source of outside income while I pursued my masters degree (in theology, not graphic design).
In 1994, Adobe merged with Aldus. Adobe already had the second killer app for the Macintosh: Photoshop. This should have been a marriage made in heaven, but it wasn't. To make a long story short, Adobe dropped the ball. In the mid nineties, QuarkXPress became the dominant graphic layout program for designers. Although PageMaker was still a very powerful program, it was falling further behind in development than Quark. In fact, now the average book or magazine you will hold in your hands has been created digitally on a Mac using QuarkXPress (Even Microsoft, the developer of Windows, has a Mac-based PR department for all their books, manuals and advertisements).
By the late nineties, Adobe was faced with a choice--beef up PageMaker to bring it up to par with Quark or create a new product. You would think it would have been easier to just retool PageMaker, but by that time, PageMaker had earned a reputation for being inferior to Quark. The name itself carried a negative image among designers (that's in spite of the fact that most professional print houses will still accept PageMaker files to this day).
So Adobe made the decision to create a brand new product from scratch. It was created to be a "Quark-killer." It's called InDesign and is now in its second major release. Quark still has the majority of designer's hearts, but InDesign is quickly catching up having gained momentum because Quark waited so long to update its software to run natively in Mac OS X which it only recently did.
In the meantime, Adobe tried over the past two or three years to reposition PageMaker as a "business design application." This is in spite of the fact that it was originally created for professional designers. They added toolbars in attempt make it easier to use. However, I've observed the average secretary try to use PageMaker and it is essentially too difficult for them to use. A secretary doesn't have time to learn how to use PageMaker to really make use of it and justify its price. Since the average office uses Windows machines anyway, I usually recommend a program like Microsoft Publisher for such needs.
By the way, PageMaker has become so neglected that version 7 (the current and last release) really only added the aforementioned toolbar to version 6.5 that had been released way back in 1997!
So that brings us to yesterday. Yesterday (January 5, 2004), Adobe released a press release that said they were discontinuing development for PageMaker on all platforms. And to give incentive to PageMaker users to upgrade to InDesign, they are releasing a special InDesign CS PageMaker edition that includes special plug-ins to InDesign that will make it easier for PageMaker holdouts to transition their work to InDesign.
So PageMaker is dead. Finished. No more. The final chapter has been closed for the program that changed everything for graphic designers everywhere...the program that helped create the entire electronic design industry.
The death of PageMaker should feel more significant, but it has been so neglected by Adobe for so long that it seems like a poor animal put out of its misery at this point.
For what it's worth I have been using InDesign for specialized graphic design projects (which I don't do all that much anymore anyway) for the last three years. Yes, I, too, quit PageMaker for InDesign a while back, but I felt like I should upgrade to the better product, not the neglected product. I didn't need the 7.0 toolbar anyway!
Smackdown in the Kroger Parking Lot
01/25/2004 03:45 Filed in: Culture Watch
Could a simple lack of etiquette be a sign of the coming apocalypse?
Okay, first of all, I realize that I get a bit grumpier every year as I get older. Nevertheless, it seems to me that people are less and less courteous today than they used to be. One minor example of this is the subject of this blog.
Yesterday, I stopped at Kroger to pick up a few groceries. I saw an open parking spot about 3/4 of the lot away from the store and began to turn in that direction. As I am doing this, I happen to notice a woman (whom I shall describe as looking middle-aged and middle-class) who had just loaded her groceries into the vehicle next to my open spot. Finished with her now-empty cart, she proceeded to push it--not to corral where once-used carts are supposed to go--but rather into my open parking spot!
Seeing me pulling into the spot (and perhaps the look of consternation upon my face) she quickly developed a look of "Oh! I've been caught." Then, instead of pushing the cart in my soon-to-be parking space, she pushed it into the empty space in front of mine, smiled at me, got in her SUV and drove off.
I don't understand this. I admit there are a number of things I can be a bit lazy about. For instance, I often procrastinate grading papers (which I should be doing right now instead of writing this blog). But to me, leaving your shopping cart in the middle of the super-market parking lot is the equivalent of not picking up after yourself. I've got lots of bad habits (some perhaps even worse than this), but I've never sent some 16-year-old super-market clerk off after my cart because I was too lazy to put it where it goes.
I've noticed more and more people doing this. And I've even tried to put together a profile on who it is who commits such an egregious offense. But overall, I've found that laziness and discourteous behavior knows no distinction of gender, race, or social status. I've seen all kinds of people do this lately--men and women of various racial backgrounds and (from outward appearances and the vehicles driven) are from various levels of income.
This is a minor thing, I know, but it is one of those things that just aggravates the fire out of me. It makes me want to have a WWF Smackdown right in the middle of the Kroger parking lot. I want to come leaping off the top of the nearest Hummer, knocking the shopping cart offender to the ground and with my finger in his or her startled face, growl "Hey Buddy! Is that where that buggy really goes?"
I mean, besides being inconsiderate, shopping carts rolling around in the parking lot willy-nilly is both a safety hazard and a source of little dings in the doors of your mini-van.
What's the solution? Beats me. I've tried shaming people with "Sir, would you like me to put up your cart for you?" But things like that and other instances of not minding my own business such as telling some little girl at the movie theater that her boyfriend didn't wash his hands in the bathroom is just going to get me beat up one day.
Here's an idea that might work, and maybe you can do it with me. Next time you or I go to the grocery store (or Target, Wal-Mart and other places where they have carts), and we see carts not in the corral, let's all get one and take it with us. In fact, since we're going into the store anyway, let's bypass the corral and use it ourselves or if we don't need it, put it with the others that have been gathered up for the next customers. Who knows? Maybe it will catch on and we can restore one minor form of courtesy in the world.
Okay, first of all, I realize that I get a bit grumpier every year as I get older. Nevertheless, it seems to me that people are less and less courteous today than they used to be. One minor example of this is the subject of this blog.
Yesterday, I stopped at Kroger to pick up a few groceries. I saw an open parking spot about 3/4 of the lot away from the store and began to turn in that direction. As I am doing this, I happen to notice a woman (whom I shall describe as looking middle-aged and middle-class) who had just loaded her groceries into the vehicle next to my open spot. Finished with her now-empty cart, she proceeded to push it--not to corral where once-used carts are supposed to go--but rather into my open parking spot!
Seeing me pulling into the spot (and perhaps the look of consternation upon my face) she quickly developed a look of "Oh! I've been caught." Then, instead of pushing the cart in my soon-to-be parking space, she pushed it into the empty space in front of mine, smiled at me, got in her SUV and drove off.
I don't understand this. I admit there are a number of things I can be a bit lazy about. For instance, I often procrastinate grading papers (which I should be doing right now instead of writing this blog). But to me, leaving your shopping cart in the middle of the super-market parking lot is the equivalent of not picking up after yourself. I've got lots of bad habits (some perhaps even worse than this), but I've never sent some 16-year-old super-market clerk off after my cart because I was too lazy to put it where it goes.
I've noticed more and more people doing this. And I've even tried to put together a profile on who it is who commits such an egregious offense. But overall, I've found that laziness and discourteous behavior knows no distinction of gender, race, or social status. I've seen all kinds of people do this lately--men and women of various racial backgrounds and (from outward appearances and the vehicles driven) are from various levels of income.
This is a minor thing, I know, but it is one of those things that just aggravates the fire out of me. It makes me want to have a WWF Smackdown right in the middle of the Kroger parking lot. I want to come leaping off the top of the nearest Hummer, knocking the shopping cart offender to the ground and with my finger in his or her startled face, growl "Hey Buddy! Is that where that buggy really goes?"
I mean, besides being inconsiderate, shopping carts rolling around in the parking lot willy-nilly is both a safety hazard and a source of little dings in the doors of your mini-van.
What's the solution? Beats me. I've tried shaming people with "Sir, would you like me to put up your cart for you?" But things like that and other instances of not minding my own business such as telling some little girl at the movie theater that her boyfriend didn't wash his hands in the bathroom is just going to get me beat up one day.
Here's an idea that might work, and maybe you can do it with me. Next time you or I go to the grocery store (or Target, Wal-Mart and other places where they have carts), and we see carts not in the corral, let's all get one and take it with us. In fact, since we're going into the store anyway, let's bypass the corral and use it ourselves or if we don't need it, put it with the others that have been gathered up for the next customers. Who knows? Maybe it will catch on and we can restore one minor form of courtesy in the world.
Mars and the Missing Spirit
01/22/2004 15:29 Filed in: Technology
What's really going on up there?
According to the latest reports, NASA is in a quandary because there has been no real contact from the Mars rover Spirit in 24 hours. Is this any surprise? How many of these modules have we sent to the Red Planet that didn't even get as far as the Spirit has? I mean most of them mysteriously disappear upon descent it seems.
So after all the stunning color pictures, where is the Spirit?
Okay, can I say what no one else is willing to say even though we're all thinking it? We really know why the Spirit and all other rovers and probes have immediately or eventually failed...one word...MARTIANS
I've read Bradbury , and they do not want us there. NASA should get a clue and save their money for George's new moon base...
According to the latest reports, NASA is in a quandary because there has been no real contact from the Mars rover Spirit in 24 hours. Is this any surprise? How many of these modules have we sent to the Red Planet that didn't even get as far as the Spirit has? I mean most of them mysteriously disappear upon descent it seems.
So after all the stunning color pictures, where is the Spirit?
Okay, can I say what no one else is willing to say even though we're all thinking it? We really know why the Spirit and all other rovers and probes have immediately or eventually failed...one word...MARTIANS
I've read Bradbury , and they do not want us there. NASA should get a clue and save their money for George's new moon base...
Open Range
01/19/2004 15:05 Filed in: Movies and Television
A traditional western for modern times...
The movie Open Range will be released on DVD January 20. Not only is it rare to see a western these days, it's even rarer to find a good one. I originally saw Open Range when it was released at the theaters last Fall. My thoughts below are adapted from an email I sent to a few friends after viewing the movie.
Parts of Open Range are very bloody, and a few of its elements seem a bit forced, but it is a good movie overall. It had the feel of a 1950's western, although much more violent than would have been made back then. Some of the dialogue seemed so hokey (Costner: "I'd better go rustle up them cows."), but I think that it was done purposefully, not as camp mind you, but as a throw back to the kind of western that used to be made and that style is taken very seriously in this movie.
Robert Duvall was perfect, but his age is really starting to show. I think if he is smart, this (or at least Secondhand Lions with Michael Caine) will be the last of his rough and tumble action pictures. In the shootout, he is injured, though it is never really shown to what extent. Afterwards, he is seen with this hand at his waist and it almost looked like my grandfather holding his pants up after he has loosened up his from a big meal.
Kevin Kostner's character was reminiscent of the kind of role Clint Eastwood used to play in movies like Pale Rider in which he is struggling to put a past violent way of life behind him but current circumstances force him to resort to his old ways.
Annette Benning is quite beautiful in this movie, and I don't really think I've ever seen her so attractive. With her hair long, she probably looks ten years younger than in real life.
However, the romance between Costner and Benning seemed a bit of what I call a "Love Boat" romance in which people who have only known each other for a few hours or days suddenly realize they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. She talks about the fact that it is a small town, but my gosh, did her life not exist before Costner walked into town? But again, I think this is a throw back to the genre they were trying to produce--a traditional Western with traditional values.
Another aspect that was very traditional, not just for movies, but for the culture is that Costner and Benning never kissed until after he asks her to marry him. From what I understand of 19th century courtship, this is pretty accurate as a lady would never allow herself to be kissed until at least there was an engagement of some kind.
There is a very human scene as Duvall and Costner stand over the grave of their slain friend and attempt say a few words. Duvall, although really the moral center of the two, refuses to speak to God because he is so angry with Him over the situation He has let them get in. Costner's character prays, though, but at the end of his words, also acknowledges that he is angry with God, and then says "So, I guess that means 'amen.'"
The movie seemed a bit long at times, but that may be what I have been preconditioned to in movies over the past few years. There were lots of really nice scenes and conversations that could have been easily cut out, but added to the overall charm of the characters. Leaving some of these things in and the attempt to make a more traditional movie almost makes this movie "experimental" by today's standards.
I've gotten to where I don't read any reviews anymore before I go see movies. I simply base my decision on whether I want to see it on the trailer (the marketing people would be glad to hear that I am sure). But I did read Roger Ebert's review afterwards and he is spot on in the way he describes its strengths and weaknesses. I would recommend it to you after you see the movie or if you probably won't see it at all.
I also recommend the movie to you if you like traditional westerns with traditional values (as opposed to something like Sam Raimi's 1995 The Quick and the Dead [which I also like]). Be warned though, although the genre and values are traditional, the movie is fairly violent in keeping with modern standards, so it is not for the squeamish.
The movie Open Range will be released on DVD January 20. Not only is it rare to see a western these days, it's even rarer to find a good one. I originally saw Open Range when it was released at the theaters last Fall. My thoughts below are adapted from an email I sent to a few friends after viewing the movie.
Parts of Open Range are very bloody, and a few of its elements seem a bit forced, but it is a good movie overall. It had the feel of a 1950's western, although much more violent than would have been made back then. Some of the dialogue seemed so hokey (Costner: "I'd better go rustle up them cows."), but I think that it was done purposefully, not as camp mind you, but as a throw back to the kind of western that used to be made and that style is taken very seriously in this movie.
Robert Duvall was perfect, but his age is really starting to show. I think if he is smart, this (or at least Secondhand Lions with Michael Caine) will be the last of his rough and tumble action pictures. In the shootout, he is injured, though it is never really shown to what extent. Afterwards, he is seen with this hand at his waist and it almost looked like my grandfather holding his pants up after he has loosened up his from a big meal.
Kevin Kostner's character was reminiscent of the kind of role Clint Eastwood used to play in movies like Pale Rider in which he is struggling to put a past violent way of life behind him but current circumstances force him to resort to his old ways.
Annette Benning is quite beautiful in this movie, and I don't really think I've ever seen her so attractive. With her hair long, she probably looks ten years younger than in real life.
However, the romance between Costner and Benning seemed a bit of what I call a "Love Boat" romance in which people who have only known each other for a few hours or days suddenly realize they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. She talks about the fact that it is a small town, but my gosh, did her life not exist before Costner walked into town? But again, I think this is a throw back to the genre they were trying to produce--a traditional Western with traditional values.
Another aspect that was very traditional, not just for movies, but for the culture is that Costner and Benning never kissed until after he asks her to marry him. From what I understand of 19th century courtship, this is pretty accurate as a lady would never allow herself to be kissed until at least there was an engagement of some kind.
There is a very human scene as Duvall and Costner stand over the grave of their slain friend and attempt say a few words. Duvall, although really the moral center of the two, refuses to speak to God because he is so angry with Him over the situation He has let them get in. Costner's character prays, though, but at the end of his words, also acknowledges that he is angry with God, and then says "So, I guess that means 'amen.'"
The movie seemed a bit long at times, but that may be what I have been preconditioned to in movies over the past few years. There were lots of really nice scenes and conversations that could have been easily cut out, but added to the overall charm of the characters. Leaving some of these things in and the attempt to make a more traditional movie almost makes this movie "experimental" by today's standards.
I've gotten to where I don't read any reviews anymore before I go see movies. I simply base my decision on whether I want to see it on the trailer (the marketing people would be glad to hear that I am sure). But I did read Roger Ebert's review afterwards and he is spot on in the way he describes its strengths and weaknesses. I would recommend it to you after you see the movie or if you probably won't see it at all.
I also recommend the movie to you if you like traditional westerns with traditional values (as opposed to something like Sam Raimi's 1995 The Quick and the Dead [which I also like]). Be warned though, although the genre and values are traditional, the movie is fairly violent in keeping with modern standards, so it is not for the squeamish.