Stephen Fry on Steve Jobs and the iPad

Posted on by

Of all the early reviews of the iPad, this one by Stephen Fry soars above the rest for me. During his visit to Apple HQ, he gets time with Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs. Fry is shameless and open in his love of all things Apple reminds me of the decision to buy my first Mac.

“We are human beings; our first responses to anything are dominated not by calculations but by feelings. What (Jonathan) Ive and his team understand is that if you have an object in your pocket or hand for hours every day, then your relationship with it is profound, human and emotional. Apple’s success has been founded on consumer products that address this side of us: their products make users smile as they reach forward to manipulate, touch, fondle, slide, tweak, pinch, prod and stroke.”

On Steve Jobs:

“For some, his personal magnetism is almost of a dangerous, Elmer Gantry kind.”

Jobs on Life and Career:

“I don’t think of my life as a career,” he says. “I do stuff. I respond to stuff. That’s not a career — it’s a life!”

Fry’s hand-on review of the iPad:

“It is possible that the public will not fall on the iPad, as I did, like lions on an antelope. Perhaps they will find the apps and the iBooks too expensive. Maybe they will wait for more fully featured later models. But for me, my iPad is like a gun lobbyist’s rifle: the only way you will take it from me is to prise it from my cold, dead hands.”

[via @jonzissou]

Religion and ego

Posted on by

Brian Hines finds it strange “that religiosity is so often associated with humility, selflessness, and lack of ego. Actually, the religious impulse is highly egotistical.”

How would religious belief be affected if it was known that our sensations of being connected with, of under the care of, a higher power were entirely contained within our own personal mind/brain?

The mystical and spiritual experiences would feel the same. But no longer would we believe that we were contacting a transcendent divinity. We couldn’t claim a special relationship with some supernatural being, because that “higher power” would be us.

An expanded us, to be sure. An us that encompassed normally untapped areas of the mind/brain. An us that wasn’t as split, searching, anxious, uncertain, and self-doubting as we are now.

This would eliminate a lot of unnecessary religious egotism. No one would be a member of a chosen people, or a special beloved of God. We’d all just be human beings, having human experiences, making the best use possible of our human psyches.

I’m grateful we live in a country where it’s still okay wonder and write about such things. And yet, any candidate fo higher office who dared make such a connection between religion and ego would be toast.

Principles for reporters & bloggers in a networked era

Posted on by
From Paul Bradshaw, Online Journalism Blog. Mr. Bradshaw’s post has lot of useful links that I did not include below.
  • To verify & contextualise what’s online
    • Because finding things to publish isn’t difficult – for anyone.
    • Because the voices that stand out online are those that dig behind the statistics, or give meaning behind the headlines.
    • Because curating context is as important as curating content.
  • To digitise what’s not online & make it findable
    • Because in a networked world, information that’s not online is, to all intents and purposes, for most people hidden.
    • Because journalists have always sought to bring hidden information to a wider audience – but in the networked era that’s no longer a one-way process. SEO, tagging, linking and social media marketing are just as important as publishing.
    • Because online, information has a life of its own: adaptable, aggregatable, mashable.
  • To empower communities & make connections between
    • Because the web is a tool as much as a channel.
    • Because journalists have always been generalists whose strength is in making connections between diverse areas – in the networked era that role is reinvented as a connector.
    • Because serving communities sometimes means looking out as much as looking in.

Philip Pullman on censorship and free speech

Posted on by

Philip Pullman is the author of His Dark Materials, the book I just finished reading. His latest book is titled The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. Pullman, addressing an audience at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford, was asked about whether his latest book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, was offensive. Here’s his reply:

“It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don’t have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don’t have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read. That’s all I have to say on that subject.”