11:40 am. E calls me saying she just woke up and will take about one hour to get to the university. We were supposed to meet today, so I tried to be here on time. Surprisingly, I was not late and here I am since 11:34.
As I have to wait for an hour, I decided to spend it in one of the library's computers.
After logging in, I've noticed I did what I always do first: I checked my e-mail. And I checked the other one, which I use less, right after. Then I signed in in a few sites I'm registered on. One of them is, obviously, this blog.
It made me wonder if we have priorities in the web or not.
Is it a universal web-stablished priority to check our e-mails first? Even when we're not expecting none, or even when we really don't want to (for those who always have 100 messages in their inbox)?
Or are web-priorities as varied as the ones we run our lives with?
I would dare to say this is the right guess and I would too dare to say web-priorities depend exactly on our life-priorities. And web-priorities become, at some point, part of our life-priorities.
I admit the order of my web-priorities depend intirely on what I find more important to me.
I check my personal e-mail accounts first, turn on MSN or Yahoo Messenger and then Skype.
The last thing I do is checking my university e-mails.
People who have an e-mail account they use exclusivly for work check it first thing in the morning when they get to their jobs and maybe last thing in the evening when they don't want to think about work.
And I too admit web-priorities sometimes rule my every-day-life, as I keep turning the computer on and spending hours on it.
I sadly recognise I'm addicted to the web.
But at least I have web-priorities and don't get confused by my web-choices.
And this makes me feel a bit more secure until my computer crashes down for some reason.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
You should see "Once" twice!
From director John Carney, Once is the story about a Dublin guy and a Czech immigrant girl who meet randomly in the street and get to know each other during the week they spend together.
He plays guitar in the streets to earn money and works with his father in a store fixing vacuum cleaners.
She plays the piano, does odd works during the day and takes care of her mother and daughter.
Unnamed Girl helps unnamed Guy recording a demo of the music that ends up describing their love, while both work through their past relationships.
Girl could be any girl and Guy could be any guy. The fact that you don’t know their names and the way the scenes look fantastically real makes you think this is the kind of the love story that actually happens. With no fancy restaurants or the cliché cinema kiss scene, Once is the glorification of real feelings in the real life with a fantastic soundtrack.
For anyone who likes music or knows the right person for you might be at that corner you never checked before, this is a must see movie.
He plays guitar in the streets to earn money and works with his father in a store fixing vacuum cleaners.
She plays the piano, does odd works during the day and takes care of her mother and daughter.
Unnamed Girl helps unnamed Guy recording a demo of the music that ends up describing their love, while both work through their past relationships.
Girl could be any girl and Guy could be any guy. The fact that you don’t know their names and the way the scenes look fantastically real makes you think this is the kind of the love story that actually happens. With no fancy restaurants or the cliché cinema kiss scene, Once is the glorification of real feelings in the real life with a fantastic soundtrack.
For anyone who likes music or knows the right person for you might be at that corner you never checked before, this is a must see movie.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Smoking area: right outside.
We all know that cigarettes are not an option if you want to keep healthy. But it should be an option to quit smoking or not.
The decision of keeping smokers away from closed spaces, including clubs, pubs and restaurants resulted in two different discussions that have been almost forgotten since the 1st of July, date when London went smoke-free.
On one hand, there are the non-smokers and the non-smokers’ defenders. On the other hand, there are the ones most affected with this new law: the smokers. It might sound as a musical band’s name, but this concept is as simple as ‘the people that smoke’. So if smokers and non-smokers are both people, why should one group have more privileges than the other?
It is truly unfair to non-smokers having to bear with cigarette’s effects: absolutely true. But all this arguing about protecting people from tobacco has reached a ridiculous level. Most restaurants, pubs, clubs and airports, as other public and closed spaces, used to have an area for smokers and another one for non-smokers (that was, in most cases, much bigger). If these places had special areas for smokers, the decision of banning smokers from those same places just doesn’t seem very logical. There are ventilation systems that can be perfectly be used (and in some cases already were!) in smoking areas. What was the point of creating a whole smoke-free area?
Packs of cigarettes cost more than £3. Now, you can only smoke them at home or in the street (as long as you don’t throw them on the floor). You pay for the cigarettes and for smoking them (remember to check the fees for smoking inside closed places or for missing the ashtray). Is that all, folks?
The decision of keeping smokers away from closed spaces, including clubs, pubs and restaurants resulted in two different discussions that have been almost forgotten since the 1st of July, date when London went smoke-free.
On one hand, there are the non-smokers and the non-smokers’ defenders. On the other hand, there are the ones most affected with this new law: the smokers. It might sound as a musical band’s name, but this concept is as simple as ‘the people that smoke’. So if smokers and non-smokers are both people, why should one group have more privileges than the other?
It is truly unfair to non-smokers having to bear with cigarette’s effects: absolutely true. But all this arguing about protecting people from tobacco has reached a ridiculous level. Most restaurants, pubs, clubs and airports, as other public and closed spaces, used to have an area for smokers and another one for non-smokers (that was, in most cases, much bigger). If these places had special areas for smokers, the decision of banning smokers from those same places just doesn’t seem very logical. There are ventilation systems that can be perfectly be used (and in some cases already were!) in smoking areas. What was the point of creating a whole smoke-free area?
Packs of cigarettes cost more than £3. Now, you can only smoke them at home or in the street (as long as you don’t throw them on the floor). You pay for the cigarettes and for smoking them (remember to check the fees for smoking inside closed places or for missing the ashtray). Is that all, folks?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)