The Seal of Approval

Are Universities for the Public Good?

Stevie Holdway — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:33:18 +0000

It's all about interpretation...

Public used to be such a nice word. It used to be a nice word simply because it’s implication was completely selfish. When people used to say the ‘public good’ they were undoubtedly thinking of an extra £30 on their dole money or a cut on their taxes. People however, like the selfless sycophants that they are, took the nice meaning of public away from us and replaced it with the rather a rather more vulgar expression that encompassed the economy, schools and other such horrifying prospects to give them a misplaced feeling of anti-scrooge morality.

That’s why I am going to revert back to the original meaning when I attempt to solve the rather unimpactingly hypothetical (yes, I did just make up a word) but yet still quite entertaining question of whether universities are for the public good. If you are looking for a cheap answer without endeavouring to read all the undoubtedly long winded strings of big words put together for my own amusement then the answer is: yes they are.

Well if you are reading this paragraph then I am almost certain that you are a fan of big words and have come to realise the reason I said ‘yes’ was because it was longer than the word ‘no’ because that’s how much of a petty person I am. Anyway onto something more objective – which considering the question seems completely pointless because if anyone presented any real facts for this argument there would be a radical change in society and no Lord Browne you do not count – such as the reasoning why I believe universities to be a selfish indulgence that is comparable to sugar or water-boarding prisoners in your basement.

Firstly it seems that the United Nations considers access to education to be a fundamental human right and quite frankly I don’t blame them. If I was representing a country in the United Nations I think I would have seen quite enough of screaming old-men with the IQ of an eight year old (which coincidentally also totals eight) making decisions with their only judgement being the way the wind is blowing and the mould on a piece of cheese. However most countries seem to think that the required amount of education should never amount to anything more substantial than teaching boys to bake pies, teaching girls to change a light bulb and then teaching the boys not to make a joke about the girl changing the light bulb. If I was in a state that completely supported the right to an education I would expect that education to be bordering on the comprehensive without any economical thought into “who the devil will do my plumbing!?”.

And while we are on the subject of economy and I’m in the mood for a conversational tangent, blaming metaphysical numbers and figures in order to deny people education is like denying your daughter food for a month because her tiddlywink score just doesn’t cut the mustard against her little brother Timmy’s.

Anyway tangent over and let’s get back to some first class ranting about university – or the lack of, or the too much of, or whatever we are arguing these days. Now from the back of your trouble addled brain I can already hear the snidey, infantile, voice cleverly pointing out that if everyone is entitled to higher education then the value of a degree will go down and the job market may actually be in the danger of becoming balanced again. It’s to this voice I say don’t fear because it is absolutely right but call me a traditionalist when I say that I would rather see myself intellectually fulfilled living a life of relative enlightenment that can only be gained from attending an institution that encourages critical thinking of our outside world than to see a job market that is essentially fueled by “stupid people”.

Anyway, speaking of stupid people I don’t think I have the stamina to continue this kind of heated debate with a listener who, at best, is a figment of my imagination with no capacity whatsoever to argue back. Also if you would care to note I didn’t actually mention many reasons why university is beneficial to the public (ergo, you) but I feel I don’t have to. If something has to justify itself on many different points other than the original premise that concept is obviously very flawed. For example, I don’t see many other reasons to attend an educational institute other than to get educated.

Goodnight my pretties.

(Yes I know the end was a bit rubbish but hey, I’m an anti-climactic person)

Pay What You Want (for this post)

Stevie Holdway — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:50:15 +0000

Well my time at university is being fruitful for my imagination. So far I have had about three different ideas for businesses and services and each one has got me really excited. I’d thought I should flesh out my latest one and share it with the world.

Personally I’m all for free culture. When I say free culture I mean the ability for producers and consumers to collaborate together and reap the mutual benefits of this collaboration. Mostly it’s the consumer who benefits as they get content for which they are then free to do what they want with. They can give it to their Mum, they can remix it and (most importantly) they can enjoy it without having an obligation to purchase it.

Producers have often had the raw end of the stick where most of them publish just for the love of doing it. I’ll be the first to admit that the possibility of making something for people to enjoy outshines financial incentives (which has often been proven in psychological studies) but that doesn’t mean people can make a living off creating free content. For quite a while people have been trying to capitalise on what they produce while still providing the consumers with the freedoms that Free Software or the Creative Commons offer and non of them have been particularly effective.

The problem lies with why should someone give you money for something you produce or free? The answer I propose is to replicate a traditional commerce system as much as possible. Quite a few people have tried out the “pay what you want” model. The effort was pioneered by musicians such as Radiohead where you would reach a purchase page and you could enter the value you wanted to pay for their album.

In effect the model imposes a non-obligation purchase where people can pay nothing at all but are put off by various elements, such as graphics, that make them feel wrong by not paying.

The Humble Bundle "guilts" people into donating money to the developers.

How can you be sure that people will pay? Simply because it has proven to be effective. The Humble Bundle deal has so far had over 100,000 downloads and has so far raised over $1,000,000. This is a great example of being open while still making money.

Currently I envisage a website that operates like Steam or iTunes but works entirely on the pay what you want model. People who create content can upload it to the site (and perhaps include charity donations in their revenue) and share what they create while creating a “guilt” barrier to earn them revenue. Once purchased, the site will organise and track their purchases and offer download links.

In effect it is a free ecosystem where both the producer and the consumer benefit.

Will draw up more mockups and stuff later. Keep tuned it.

[canvas]A New Project[/canvas]

Stevie Holdway — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:17:23 +0000

Anybody who would like to regard themselves as well informed on the internet these days has undoubtedly heard of HTML5 being used in context of bringing a more interactive experience to the user. (For those who are itching at using HTML5 as a colloquialism, keep your boots on. I understand your pain and am only using the term for convenience)

Well, I have had an idea for a nice little HTML5/JavaScript project that I think could gain some traction. The video game market at the moment is completely fragmented and very platform isolated. Consumers are often forced into buying multiple consoles if they wish to play a broad amount of games and even then they are locked to the hardware quite dramatically (I am looking at you Microsoft and Sony). With recent innovations in the direction of WebGL and canvas, I think there is a real argument to be made in a browser based video game platform.

Am I being ambitious? Certainly. Am I asking the impossible? Who knows?

The concept, however, I still like. The idea to have a completely integrated social environment written in HTML5 in the browser (like Playstation home and the xBox dashboard) that is then a launching point for games written in HTML5 is very attractive. All you need to play your games or access platform apps is a standards compliant web browser and minimum hardware specs.

Of course, this method will never be a complete replacement for native games. Despite the speed increases in JavaScript engines such as V8 and JaegerMonkey, JavaScript is getting increasingly faster but still not fast enough to beat a natively compiled application. For casual games though it would serve as an admirable platform.

This is a random text blurt out of my idea. I am going to make some concept mock-ups shortly (tomorrow, if I have time).

Have fun!

Don’t Run with Scissors

Stevie Holdway — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:00:33 +0000

The Policeman’s Ball

Stevie Holdway — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:00:29 +0000

Who’s been pulling?

Stevie Holdway — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:00:01 +0000

This stupid t-shirt.

Stevie Holdway — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:00:14 +0000

God’s followers.

Stevie Holdway — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:00:33 +0000

A warning to sensitive viewers…

Stevie Holdway — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:00:32 +0000

The Diary of Garry the Pigeon

Stevie Holdway — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:29:31 +0000

Gary liked to think he is pretty courageous in the face of humans. He allowed an unheard of intimacy of half a meter and was never afraid to show his pecker. In between eating crumbs and dodging humans Garry filled his day with flying and other activities that are unmentionable in the context of a friendly story.

Usually, this lifestyle suited Gary perfectly fine. He often woke up each day feeling a renewed sense of unequivocal fulfilment and went about his daily tasks in a manor that any bird of prey would call living life to the full.

This lifestyle of unquestioning bliss carried on for several pigeon years and as each day passed by Garry felt he grew a little wiser. One day though a thought hit Garry square on the beak. Analysing this thought in a purely physical sense would lead us to the assumption that the thought Garry was hit by was a kid on a skateboard not looking where he was going. Since pigeons’ grasp of philosophy is somewhat more metaphysical Garry took a few moments of reflection on what his bash induced delirium caused.

In those few moments questions appeared in front of Garry like a dam bursting and flooded his subconscious with feelings of doubt and unease: What is it to be me? What do I mean to others? Is that little prick at least grazed after hitting me? Luckily for Garry, at least one of these trouble questions was positively resolved by looking across his shoulder which, by pigeon standards, took a lot of effort and reassured Gary of no lasting damage.

As Gary flew off the questions that clouded his consciousness at the cost of a few brain cells almost appeared in front of his eyes. Being a species that differs to humanity, Garry couldn’t justify his life based on religious teachings; they simply exclude him. He also couldn’t keep living by his previously apathetic views as they had little meaning and made him feel empty.

Garry was stuck: all of a sudden he was in a world that didn’t make logical sense. This troubled Garry quite a lot and a troubled pigeon is a useless pigeon. How can a measly creature of the air expect to contribute to nature with such a crushing existential crisis?

So Garry got himself a cheese and onion pasty (kindly donated by an old women who would not stop screaming) and sat down to some serious thinking. His first satisfying thought emerged and carried with it the words, ‘we are what we leave behind for others’. This satisfied Garry for a time until he worryingly discovered that under-qualified humans cleared up what he left behind. This idea was no good, he needed a new one.

Then his thoughts turned to the idea that the only world that exists is the one that he sees for himself. Garry flew far and wide to extend his world but was ultimately disappointed when the only thing he discovered was old, saggy, birds and a Gala bingo hall.

Garry was about ready to give up until a stroke of genius washed over his feathers. While recuperating from being blasted by a hose-pipe Garry realised that the world doesn’t change based on his experiences but his experiences allow for free thought that allows him to justify the world. He thinks therefore he is and the only justification his life requires is his ability of free thinking and perception.

Of course, Garry is a fictional character but he has illustrated that you can construct ideas and make judgements on life too. At the end of the day, life is what you perceive it to be.

Have fun.