Buying people gifts

People have commented at various times that I have wierd views on some things. Rather than list all those things here, (which would take some time), I will address just one that has come to mind recently; present buying. A fairly materialistic topic I plan to ramble on about a little before putting forward some ideas on how to get the right present. This blog can also be a list of the gifts I am after so the next time someone asks what I want for christmas I can have a ready list :)

Present buying is a very delicate business where all sorts of assumptions, estimates, guessing, mind-reading and future-reading is required. The questions that most often come up i think are:
- Price. How much should you spend?
- Appropriateness. Persons character/ethics/morals vs funny/bad taste gifts?
- Investment. How much do you want to invest in the relationship with this person?
- Sentimentality. How much thought (or the appearance of thought) do you need to put in?

Apart from price the others are really hard to quantify. So at risk of sounding like a price nazi I will focus mainly on price since I don't really know what to say about the other areas.

For me:
- Presents to nuclear family (brother, sister, parent, child, husband/wife) have no price limit. If I can afford it I would like to buy it.
- Presents to other family members are worth $20.
- Presents to your inner circle of friends could stretch to $50 for the right gift. (I went to $150 recently but that is a story in itself).
- Presents to good friends are $20.
- Presents to others consist of a beers/card/$10 value or as low as a hug/handshake/pat on the back.

Now that is a rough guide that I personally use. The price is where we start to get into the issues of mind-reading and soul-searching about what the person really means to you.
Firstly categorising the persons value can be tough. Family is family, but friends.... Do you rate them on the past, the present or what you hope from your friendship in the future? Banking on the future has inherent risk. What if the friend does not value you as highly as you value them? In that case you are handing over a present of value you are unlikely to see the equivalent of returned while the recipient must surely take the value of the present as a means of weighing your relationship and what expectations you have of them when it is their turn to next give you a gift.

Family, though easy to categorise (for me), carry their own issues. Giving a $2000 present to a family member is not out of the question, but it can carry a heavy burden of guilt for the family member receiving it since they may not be able to afford to reciprocate and may feel that you yourself have gone to too great a length and perhaps overstretched yourself financially.

Regardless of whether family or friend there can be an emotional level of giving a present in that you are putting your chips on the table and saying this is what you are worth to me. Almost quantifying the value of your friendship in the form of some kind of material wealth.

With the arduous struggle of price out of the way lets look at finding the right present. This one is amazingly subjective and is the part where you are lost without any real process to guide you. Questions to ask are: What do they need? What are their interests? Have they mentioned something they wanted in passing?

Most often in the westernised world everyone has everything they need. Too often I think they also already have what they really want. This makes for very hard present buying and a joke or novelty present tempting. These presents can be rewarding though they carry some risk of backfiring or being unapprecited generally.

One of the key (perhaps the key) ingredients in a good present, especially when it is for someone close to you, has nothing to do with the present itself. It is the appearance of having invested a great deal of thought into whatever it is that you have actually bought. Loved ones especially like the idea that they have occupied a good deal of your thoughts leading up to the event triggering the purchase of a present. Whether this is the case or not it is always best to be able to present the view that "I really thought about it and hoped you would like this gift I eventually bought." I think it is best to be able to say this honestly, but less scrupulous people may take the short term gains of lying vs the long term loss of credibility.

So now I have finished the rambling part. Here is where I can help you. I think there are a few laws to buying presents that may help to guide you in the right direction and they focus on the permanence of an item.

Consumable item - When in doubt buy a consumable, whether it is candy, liquor, flowers, chocolates, tickets to an event/facial/massage, film, etc. They are all good. Why are they good? If the person likes them they will consume them. If they do not like them they will say they do then dump them in the bin and say they consumed them. Their main drawback are not carrying the weight of a more permanent present that will constantly remind the receiver of how thoughtful you are.

Semi-Consumable (Lasts for say 1 year) - These presents are best when you have an inkling of what the person might like. They are something that lasts a long time but is slowly consumed or has a definite expiry. I.e. If they are a rockclimber then chalk for their chalkbag, subscription to a magazine, a pot-plant, a diary, a membership, a frisbee, hobby consumables (like paint, brushes), basic clothing (like socks, underpants), DVD movie's (yes I think they are a consumable), etc.

Permanent (visible) - These presents are things that are become a part of the recipients day to day life that they do not actually use. Like wall hangings, rugs, vases, decorations, garden lights/gnomes, furniture, etc. Again it is strongly advised that the recipient be involved in the purchasing of the present as they will be the ones who have to look at it every day or come up with a reason why no one knows where it is the next time you visit.

Permanent (common-use) - These presents are more usually the things they NEED presents. Items they will likely be using most days of their lives. I.e. a new wallet, new boots, a nice jacket, crockery, etc. You should definitely get the recipient involved in these purchases since they will use them everyday.

Permanent (specialised) - These presents are when you really know someone and want to get them something they will use from time to time, but when they use it it will be the perfect item for their needs. Often you want to give serious consideration to bringing them along with you to make the actual purchase, otherwise a gift voucher can work though you lose a lot of the sentimentality factor. I.e. Tools, sports equipment, lingerie, makeup (I guess), high fashion clothing, etc.

As a general rule the further the present is down the list, the more sentimental it will be. However risk of buying a bad/unwanted present increases at the same rate. The permanent items in particular require careful thought and often the safety of consultation.

Okay. Now the guide is done the next thing I wanted to do is offer a list of things that I want. This may act as a further example of what a person may like gift-wise:
- Consumable items: Droste/Toblerone chocolate, Kahlua, Jack Daniels, Chicos, Guinness.
- Semi-Consumable: Sports socks and underpants like elasticised shorts, country membership to the Richmond Football Club, a Sunday Herald Sun subscription, 2006 Diary (national geographic/lonely planet type), track suit pants, 3rd Matrix movie.
- Permanent (visible): A cheap rug to replace our white wool one for the children to play on in the sun room (not too offensive).
Permanent (common-use): I need a new wallet, new headphones (quality ear buds), nice black shoes, a new PDA-Phone near the start of 2006 (with receipt).
Permanent (specialised): DVD Recorder/Hard Drive Combo.

With this guide, buying me presents should be easier than ever ;)

Physics of air filled fish

I have noticed a behaviour totally inconsequential, pointless and in some ways obvious. For some months I have known of this behaviour and even came up with a theory for it. To help any fool who reads this understand my life-that-borders-autism I thought it was time I wrote it down.

The object:
My young son has several toys for in the bath. A couple of which are kind of spherical fish made of rubber/plastic. They have only one very small opening which is via their ruby red little fish lips opposite their tails.

The behaviour:
What I found one day was that when the fish was full of air it was very bouyant (while amazing. I believe this is already well known). I thought that if I held the fish by his little tail, and pulled him down to the bottom with his previously mentioned fish lips pointing up, then the pressure of the water as it increased with depth would squeeze the air from his little spherical body.

Upon running the experiment (took almost 3 seconds including wrestling the fish from my son) I found to my dismay that my sadistic fish-crushing exercise was not to bear fruit! I pulled the fish to the bottom and not a bubble of air passed his ruby lips. I let the fish go who bobbed back to the surface winking at me mischieviously before being scooped up by my son to be chewed on.

Being of the mind that most experiments fail because there is not enough power involved I decided we needed to add more water thereby lifting the crushing force of the water on the bath bottom. I retrieving the fish from my son who was now almost to the point of having to kneel to breathe and squeezed it a few times to spray all the water out.

This time the fish was dragged to the bottom and though the pressure was great his little rubber body remained strong, refusing to give in to the waters crushing force. Somewhat saddened that the fish had won, I held tight to his tail and slowly allowed him to rise to the surface. I did not want to allow him the glory of leaping from the surface of the bath for a second time before once again mischieviously winking at me.

To my shock, part of the way up, a bubble escaped from his mouth! When the fish was travelling down to the bottom of the bath no air could be squeezed from him. On the way up though appeared to be a different story. Why when the pressure was releasing should he suddenly be leaking air?

I knew the fish was most certainly being squeezed while at the bottom of the bath yet no air escaped. Therefore my first postulate was that like the starship Enterprise, no matter what the odds, the fishs structural integrity could not be compromised. At a minimum, being spherical the fish had its shape going for it since there were no smooth planes that could easily be deformed.

So assuming an impervious rubber body, why did the fish decide to exhale a tiny lungful of air on the way back to the surface? I quickly realised that like the greek hero Achilles, the fish had a single weakness that its enemies (the pressure) could expoit. Its little ruby lips were equally capable of allowing air out and water in.

Conclusion:
On the way down, the water outside the fish was applying greater and greater pressure through the lips of the fish. The air inside was compressed by this pressure allowing water to flow into the fish. (The fish took a little drink if you will). Then on the way up, as the pressure was reduced the air expanded once again. With the fish lips at the top and water now at the bottom, the air could only expand out through the fish lips. (The fish exhaled).

So there you go. I was just surprised when I first saw bubbles released on the way UP instead of DOWN. Instinctively it seemed backwards.

PS - I know that fish do not have lips.

Hieroglyphics

Spent a bit of time learning Egyptian heiroglyphics last week. Its pretty cool the way they used determinant glyphs. But Phonetic glyphs that allow you to sound out actual ancient Egyptian words was of little use considering it is a dead language that no one now speaks.

If you are interested in learning how this ancient language works go here:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/egypttutor/

I am really interested to learn more about the language developed by Daniel Tammet. I think he calls it Manti and since he is a savant in the area of languages (among many) it is intriguing to imagine what his language will be capable of.

Getting a blog address

How hard is it? and entering those stupid graphics letters over and over just to find the name you would like to use is not valid.

Honestly a very bad start to my first ever blog experience. Doesn't anyone ever think about what a user interface will actully be used for?

Anyway. Hopefully I do more than rant on this blog.