Wednesday, May 26, 2010

GRE Issue Task 5

No comments:
No business should sacrifice the quality of its products or services for the sake of maximizing profits.

The speaker asserts that, in any business, maximum profit goals should not render the quality of products and services to be sacrificed. I strongly agree with this claim. I see that instead of leveraging profit by reducing cost, the loss of quality will only stimulate a downward trend of revenue. This inclination works out for all kinds of businesses, as elaborated below.

Let us begin with tangible products, namely toys, food, and electronic devices. A corporation may skip a single step in its production to cut its production cost. Assuming that it is the safety check such as rounding sharp tips in children toys, bacterial scanning in food, or electrical stability in home theater sets, those products will be harmful. As soon as they find it, people will throw it away and the company will lose its market. Even worse, there is a possibility that consumers will sue the company because its products have hurt them.

Service-based business is our next target. How do you think of a hotel with a bad service quality would be? People will not recommend it to their peers, let alone they will come back again. What about an airport which always make its passengers feel stressful due to its lack of friendly officers and complicated administration? Even if there is no rival to worry about, individuals will fly more often if they know they will find themselves feel comfortable in the airport. Furthermore, I suggest that the airport should add more facilities related to its passengers’ needs, such as a free hotspot area or a handphone charger booth. Despite of their maintenance costs, these facilities will attract more customers, and result in more profit as what every corporation strives for.

Last but not least, this issue is also viable in the internet, particularly the social media sites. Facebook, for instance, has to restrain itself from accepting too many advertisements in its site. A bigger number of marketing deals with big companies will generate a bigger sum of money in the short term, but visitors will consider it as a quality loss. They will distaste Facebook for its letting a bunch of third-parties attacking them with unnecessary campaigns, and eventually rely on other sites in the same category. As lack of visitors means the death of an internet-based business, Facebook would wither and die as a consequence. This possible disaster is why Facebook should strictly maintain its quality rather than pursuing profit maximization.

As now it is clear that sacrificing the quality for profit will only result in undesirable ends, I appeal that every business leader should find a way to gain more profit by maintaining or even increasing the quality of its products and services. In the end of the day, the market will respect it and the corporation will stand out among its competitors.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

GRE Issue Task 4

No comments:
As adults, we prefer to define ourselves more by our occupation than by our affiliation with social groups.

The speaker claims that grown-ups have a bigger inclination to identify themselves to their occupations compared to which social groups they belong to. In my point of view, it is a reckless statement for its generalizing every adult and every single occupation to have the same attitude toward his job. Such behavior, I am certain of it, differs based on some factors explained below.

First of all, let us see how the speaker could make such assertion. I admit that there are those who are happier to be associated by their professions than to be highlighted as a part of any social groups. It is mostly seen, as far as I am concerned, in the eyes of people love their jobs by heart. They pick up their job for their passion to it despite of what others say about this job. For a painter, for instance, drawing his pieces is in his heart and soul, and he can only recognize himself as a painter since he does not mind of being a part of any larger community. Other individuals with a strong proclivity to their employment are those with conventionally-successful profession such as doctors, business directors, and lawyers.

However, we must not forget that there are those who are not fortunate enough to grab the job of their dreams. What about an agriculture faculty graduate whose only choice is working in a bank? Could he identify himself as a banker? Moreover, if his family members are farmers and he used to live between them, there is a big possibility that he would relate himself more to his family background than to his livelihood. Another factor is the society’s negative assumption to certain professions. Low-income occupation, namely factory labors and drivers, might not be something people want to define themselves by. In addition, we should not forget that rich people tend to associate themselves with their wealth, no matter what they do for their living.

Now it is viable that someone’s occupation may not always be his first choice to identify himself. How he loves the job, how people think about it, and how he used to live would affect this inclination. Therefore, the speaker’s statement is only accessible to some adults, not all.

Saturday, May 22, 2010


No comments:
Come sip the breeze
of this very morning
is it salty or sweet?

Picture the sky to me
for all I can see in you
is how you love its blue

and do you hear
the thrum of our life
is running out its rhyme?

May 21st 2010, 6:24 am

GRE Issue Task 3

No comments:
I made this issue myself.

The existence of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter has led to various criminal acts, especially to teenagers. Therefore, such sites should be banned completely from the Internet.

The speaker stated that social networking sites should be abolished for its risking the safety of us and our family. I assert that this strong opposition is based on tangible reasons, but stripping these sites from our life forever is unnecessary. In that case, I propose the idea that this risk is preventable and we can live side by side with them in peace if we know how to do it.

To begin with, I will provide you with a brief elaboration on what “risk” means in this issue. Some people believe that as you joined these sites, you exposed your identity. Facebook is full of advertisements craving for not only the users’ eyeballs, but also specific details about them—yes, about you! These preys have a wide range of tricks to manipulate you to give them your identity as well as your friends’. There are those fascinating applications, namely quizzes, games, and groups who can obtain an access to your profile and use it for their ends. I think it is still insignificant, of course, when their intentions are to use this information as their research for a new product or to attack you with a whole lots of other product campaigns. The problem is what about if such tricks are used by deliberate villains? These malign individuals might find out where their potential victims live, when they go to school, what do they like, and then they might create a perfect plan to lure them out to the real world. That is how we ended up having a portion of undesirable news about kidnapping, rape, fraud, and even murder stemmed from these sites some people cannot live without.

As a counter-attack, I would like to point that Facebook has a privacy setting, as well as other sites in this category do. Any member can protect themselves from anyone, including those in her own Facebook friend list, prohibiting undesired and unexpected parties to take a peek on her photos, notes, profile information, and others. Even if you do not touch the privacy setting, you do not have to share genuine specific information about yourselves. Just use a nickname and go tell your friends that it is you by the private message service or when you see them offline. In addition, the applications’ sharing your identity always asks your permission to do it. If you want to be safe, you can simply ignore them.

Nevertheless, I regret to admit that some users are not aware of this rule, and hence their very private identities are viable to random people. This incognizance is caused by the complicated items in the privacy setting. These ignoramuses just want to have some fun, and reading the “cryptic” explanation hurts their delicate brains. Another possibility is they do not have any idea that this setting exists because there are those young users interacting in Facebook or Friendster as their first online experience.

What should be done, then? The U.S. Senators have urged Facebook to simplify their rules and setting, but it is not only the Facebook administrator team’s job to ensure our young people are safe. Parents and teachers have the same obligation to raise online safety awareness among teenagers, to explain the rules and consequences to them, and to forbid those under sixteen years old to maintain an account in these sites. In the end of the day, social networking sites will remain exist with minimum risk.

Monday, May 17, 2010


No comments:
Asa yang kutanam
bahkan sejak kau belum mengada
adalah untuk dirimu seorang, sayang
sebagai bekal perjalanan panjang
menjalin makna dan indah
sebelum mentari terbenam

Senin, 17 Mei 2010, 17.27 WIB

Monday, May 10, 2010

Two New Books Soon!

No comments:
These are books I've translated waiting to be published anytime soon by Ufuk Press.

Branded Outlaw by L. Ron Hubbard
This one was fun! I found myself missing the old western movies!
Read its synopsis here.

The Collapse of Lehman Brothers
Lawrence G. McDonald & Patrick Robinson

It was the toughest book I've translated so far.
However, it taught me a lot about investment banking.
Read its synopsis here.


life (37) hobby (22) movie (21) review (20) GRE (16) poem (12) study (12) work (11) game (8) social (8) translation (7) business (6) dream (6) economy (6) novel (6) music (5) Facebook (3) friendship (3) linguistics (3) manga (3) marketing (3) self-actualization (3) IELTS (2) language (2) money (2) culture (1) gender (1) leadership (1) literature (1) name (1) peace (1)