There are a lot of companies out there named after animals, or that use an animal as their symbol.
I found a list online (linked below) that names the top seven animals used by companies as their symbol. A couple of the animals among their list are eagles and wolves; which I thought were rather obvious choices.
There were no mythical animals or creatures on the list at all, maybe they were just outside the list's parameters. But, I think there are a considerable number of businesses out there named after phoenixes and dragons.
I think the turritopsis nutricula would be an excellent symbol for almost any kind of business. It's unique, it's potentially immortal, and it stays relevant by reverting to an immature state before growing back into maturity.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Seven-Top-Animal-Symbols-Used-By-Company-Name-Generators&id=793718
Monday, May 23, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Paperless World
I recently joined an online writer’s group and someone there started a discussion about “which do you write on first: paper or a computer?”
My first thought was “first? it’s 2011! Who still uses paper?” although I’ll admit I still do most of my brainstorming on paper; I like drawing circles and squares around my ideas and then connecting them with little web diagrams. But I don’t think I’ve actually written a complete sentence out long-hand in years.
Anyway, I added my two cents to the discussion, and here it is, (in a slightly edited and expanded form):
The entire world is slowly moving in the "paperless" direction, as it should be. I predict that within ten years, with the growth of the different types of eReaders and other technology out there, all paper, even paper copies of books, will be a thing of the past.
Is that a bad thing? No. Obviously it’s good for the environment; Less obviously it’s good for the logistics of books. By ‘logistics of books’ I mean that digital books are easier to produce, transport, purchase and store than hard books are. Reading, writing, editing, studying and purchasing (not to mention borrowing) digital books are completely different processes than they are for paper books. The technology we have today is simply ahead of our culture, and there is a whole new set of skills and ways of doing things that we need to develop.
There are a lot of people who get angry when the topic of paperless books gets brought up, and this is understandable; The act of reading and how one reads is a deeply personal and even a spiritual topic. However this passion is not born of one way being better than another, it is merely a form of nostalgia.
When the printing press was invented there were many people against it, mainly monks whose job it had been to copy out entire books and manuscripts long-hand. The traditions that surrounded the culture of copying books long-hand had permeated the lives of those involved, and it was nostalgia and the fear of change and the unknown, that prompted their resistance to that change. But despite this I think we would be hard pressed to find a good argument for copying books long-hand, rather than printing them today.
The same thing is true of any technological advance in communication, telegraph or telegram, telephone, email, texting, Instant messaging etc.
When the telephone was invented and began to be used on a widespread basis many people were against it as well, and argued that it was killing the art of conversation. I remember reading something a man wrote in the 1960's; He said he refused to talk on the phone because he couldn't see the other person's face and therefore couldn't tell how they really felt about the conversation. They could be rolling their eyes and silently mocking him the whole time. Is that a valid point? yes, but most of us don't let it stop us from using the phone, we have all learned the different sets of skills needed to talk on the phone and to talk with someone face to face.
The arguments, I believe, around using paper to write on are of a similar type as these I've just mentioned. Typing, even for someone who types with only two or three fingers, is faster and easier on your hands than writing with a pen. The ease with which one can edit with word processor programs is almost infinitely more efficient and effective than editing with pen and paper. I think writing and editing on a computer require a different set of skills, which take time and effort to learn; Such as saving and backing up your files, and organizing them effectively. But, to me, the question of using a computer to write and edit versus using paper is like comparing using a printing press to make hundreds of copies of a book versus using a small army of monks to do the same thing long hand.
However, at least one very good argument against writing and editing on a computer remains, and that is that staring at a monitor all day is hard on your eyes. This is a proven fact and a very real concern for writers, especially those who wish to spend most of their day writing. Until recently, technology has not had any solution to this problem. Computer monitors emit light, and no matter what color scheme you use or how you have the brightness or contrast set your eyes will get tired faster looking at emitted light (such as from a monitor) than they will looking at reflected light (such as from paper).
The technology eReaders use, however, has solved this problem. If you haven't already done so, go down to your favourite retailer and check out a kindle, or Sony eReader, or something similar. The screen does not emit light and is just like reading off paper. As soon as this technology can be translated to large monitors for computers, I think the last good argument for using paper for the printed word, at all, will have disappeared.
My first thought was “first? it’s 2011! Who still uses paper?” although I’ll admit I still do most of my brainstorming on paper; I like drawing circles and squares around my ideas and then connecting them with little web diagrams. But I don’t think I’ve actually written a complete sentence out long-hand in years.
Anyway, I added my two cents to the discussion, and here it is, (in a slightly edited and expanded form):
The entire world is slowly moving in the "paperless" direction, as it should be. I predict that within ten years, with the growth of the different types of eReaders and other technology out there, all paper, even paper copies of books, will be a thing of the past.
Is that a bad thing? No. Obviously it’s good for the environment; Less obviously it’s good for the logistics of books. By ‘logistics of books’ I mean that digital books are easier to produce, transport, purchase and store than hard books are. Reading, writing, editing, studying and purchasing (not to mention borrowing) digital books are completely different processes than they are for paper books. The technology we have today is simply ahead of our culture, and there is a whole new set of skills and ways of doing things that we need to develop.
There are a lot of people who get angry when the topic of paperless books gets brought up, and this is understandable; The act of reading and how one reads is a deeply personal and even a spiritual topic. However this passion is not born of one way being better than another, it is merely a form of nostalgia.
When the printing press was invented there were many people against it, mainly monks whose job it had been to copy out entire books and manuscripts long-hand. The traditions that surrounded the culture of copying books long-hand had permeated the lives of those involved, and it was nostalgia and the fear of change and the unknown, that prompted their resistance to that change. But despite this I think we would be hard pressed to find a good argument for copying books long-hand, rather than printing them today.
The same thing is true of any technological advance in communication, telegraph or telegram, telephone, email, texting, Instant messaging etc.
When the telephone was invented and began to be used on a widespread basis many people were against it as well, and argued that it was killing the art of conversation. I remember reading something a man wrote in the 1960's; He said he refused to talk on the phone because he couldn't see the other person's face and therefore couldn't tell how they really felt about the conversation. They could be rolling their eyes and silently mocking him the whole time. Is that a valid point? yes, but most of us don't let it stop us from using the phone, we have all learned the different sets of skills needed to talk on the phone and to talk with someone face to face.
The arguments, I believe, around using paper to write on are of a similar type as these I've just mentioned. Typing, even for someone who types with only two or three fingers, is faster and easier on your hands than writing with a pen. The ease with which one can edit with word processor programs is almost infinitely more efficient and effective than editing with pen and paper. I think writing and editing on a computer require a different set of skills, which take time and effort to learn; Such as saving and backing up your files, and organizing them effectively. But, to me, the question of using a computer to write and edit versus using paper is like comparing using a printing press to make hundreds of copies of a book versus using a small army of monks to do the same thing long hand.
However, at least one very good argument against writing and editing on a computer remains, and that is that staring at a monitor all day is hard on your eyes. This is a proven fact and a very real concern for writers, especially those who wish to spend most of their day writing. Until recently, technology has not had any solution to this problem. Computer monitors emit light, and no matter what color scheme you use or how you have the brightness or contrast set your eyes will get tired faster looking at emitted light (such as from a monitor) than they will looking at reflected light (such as from paper).
The technology eReaders use, however, has solved this problem. If you haven't already done so, go down to your favourite retailer and check out a kindle, or Sony eReader, or something similar. The screen does not emit light and is just like reading off paper. As soon as this technology can be translated to large monitors for computers, I think the last good argument for using paper for the printed word, at all, will have disappeared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
