Some engineering students were shooting the bull in the dorm one night, and began to talk about the nature of God. They all agreed immediately that God was an engineer, but what kind?
One said, "God is a structural engineer. Look at the human body, with its skeletal system and circulatory system -- pure design perfection."
The second said, "Ah, but what runs this human body? The brain! The nervous system! God is an electrical/chemical engineer!"
The third one, quiet till then, said, "Yes, but who but a civil engineer runs a waste disposal system through a recreational area?"
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Phone Interviews
I just had one. I will say that I do not particularly care for them. I much prefer in person meetings/talks/interviews. Over the phone timing is more awkward, interruptions can occur more readily. I also feel compelled to say things and continue and often feel afterward as though the conversation, on my part, was forced. Moreover, not actually seeing the people interviewing you, makes it harder to get a feeling for how things are going or went, which leads to searching for flubs and mistakes, of which you will always find/remember many. In addition I have to concentrate much harder on what is being said, and really work to not get distracted. The amount of effort that this takes me is phenomenal, and that is when I am very interested in the goings on of the phone call, as I was for this interview. In this case I was additionally thrown off by the fact that I forgot about the one hour time difference and the call came an hour earlier than I expected it. I didn't have anything to drink and my mouth went dry over the course of the interview. That only provided me with further distraction. I'll find out how it went for sure in a few days.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Banning Tag?!?
Holy shit. I know there are stupid rules due to fear of lawsuits, but this one really burns me up. Actually, it wouldn't be so bad, and I would probably simply consider it funny sad, except for this:
"Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. 'I've witnessed enough near collisions,' she said."
First off: her son feels safer? Is he a loser or are the other kids in his school little shits? There were myriad tag style games when I was in grade school and I remember not everyone playing. Hell, I don't think that I played all the time. It went something like this: "Hey, ____, do you want to play tag?" "Not really." "Okay, hey, (someone else), do you..." Sometimes tag was not played. Kids that didn't play were not picked on and ridiculed, well, not for that anyway, kids can be nasty. If any child feels threatened by tag at recess then either they have been raised horribly, or there is zero teacher supervision and a bunch of mini-ass holes.
Second, and this provides us with the likely correct solution to the last statement: she has witnessed enough near collisions? Are you kidding me? What the hell does that even mean? Is this woman so rediculously overprotective that the notion of two kids running into each other is this terrifying? Wait, don't answer that, I already know and the response is "she shouldn't be breeding." They're kids; they play; sometimes they get hurt. So what? It's people like this with absolutely zero sense of appropriate response/risk/fear that allows zealots to strip away our rights in the name of safety.
The sad thing is that it was likely the best decision for the school. If crazy woman's terrified son had ended up with a broken arm/sprained ankle/bruised ego then she would go and sue the district for tens or hundereds of thousands, forcing the schools to decide between heat and books. Also I feel sorry for the boy. His mother probably also keeps the home antiseptically clean, which will induce him to have severe allergies and asthma in the future if not already.
Final note to parents out there: overprotection of your children is counterproductive. It is the freedom to make mistakes, including those which can lead to injury/sickness/embarassment that help us to grow and learn. A 13 year old who learned by five that cuts, scrapes, and bruises hurt is less likely to inflict such injuries on others (and by 13 those injuries could be far more severe). The more insulated the less empathy and the less humane the person.
"Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. 'I've witnessed enough near collisions,' she said."
First off: her son feels safer? Is he a loser or are the other kids in his school little shits? There were myriad tag style games when I was in grade school and I remember not everyone playing. Hell, I don't think that I played all the time. It went something like this: "Hey, ____, do you want to play tag?" "Not really." "Okay, hey, (someone else), do you..." Sometimes tag was not played. Kids that didn't play were not picked on and ridiculed, well, not for that anyway, kids can be nasty. If any child feels threatened by tag at recess then either they have been raised horribly, or there is zero teacher supervision and a bunch of mini-ass holes.
Second, and this provides us with the likely correct solution to the last statement: she has witnessed enough near collisions? Are you kidding me? What the hell does that even mean? Is this woman so rediculously overprotective that the notion of two kids running into each other is this terrifying? Wait, don't answer that, I already know and the response is "she shouldn't be breeding." They're kids; they play; sometimes they get hurt. So what? It's people like this with absolutely zero sense of appropriate response/risk/fear that allows zealots to strip away our rights in the name of safety.
The sad thing is that it was likely the best decision for the school. If crazy woman's terrified son had ended up with a broken arm/sprained ankle/bruised ego then she would go and sue the district for tens or hundereds of thousands, forcing the schools to decide between heat and books. Also I feel sorry for the boy. His mother probably also keeps the home antiseptically clean, which will induce him to have severe allergies and asthma in the future if not already.
Final note to parents out there: overprotection of your children is counterproductive. It is the freedom to make mistakes, including those which can lead to injury/sickness/embarassment that help us to grow and learn. A 13 year old who learned by five that cuts, scrapes, and bruises hurt is less likely to inflict such injuries on others (and by 13 those injuries could be far more severe). The more insulated the less empathy and the less humane the person.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Foley
I think that Dan Savage (of Savage Love, not to be confused w/ Michael Savage) has the best commentary on the Foley scandal, so I won't say much.
It isn't that he (Foley) is gay, or that he is a pedophile, or that he did anything illegal. It is simply that, because he is a Republican, everything is getting downplayed. Clinton got a consentual hummer from a leagal (of age) woman. It was stupid, immoral, deceitful, whatever other things you want to call it. It stalled congress, days of testimony, senators and representatives stood on their soapboxes to decry the moral depravity of the President. There was an impeachment. With Foley we get told they were inappropriate e-mails and let's move on. I got no love for many Republicans' draconian notions of sex, but I can deal with it if they have the character to be honest and consistent. They have not. The hypocrytical behavior that they exhibit is beyond immoral. This is why they have to go. It isn't that there are no good Republicans, it's just that they are not running the show in DC. Party does not come before country, state or district. Ever.
It isn't that he (Foley) is gay, or that he is a pedophile, or that he did anything illegal. It is simply that, because he is a Republican, everything is getting downplayed. Clinton got a consentual hummer from a leagal (of age) woman. It was stupid, immoral, deceitful, whatever other things you want to call it. It stalled congress, days of testimony, senators and representatives stood on their soapboxes to decry the moral depravity of the President. There was an impeachment. With Foley we get told they were inappropriate e-mails and let's move on. I got no love for many Republicans' draconian notions of sex, but I can deal with it if they have the character to be honest and consistent. They have not. The hypocrytical behavior that they exhibit is beyond immoral. This is why they have to go. It isn't that there are no good Republicans, it's just that they are not running the show in DC. Party does not come before country, state or district. Ever.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
School Violence II
The school violence all over the news is being brought back to guns (more slowly, probably because we have a "kill 'em all" cowboy gun slinger as president...but he is sucha a good Christian). Guns are an issue in this country thanks to that pesky second ammendment, but what is the solution?
I've never been a big fan of guns, not real ones anyway. I do see the appeal, though. I also don't have any issue with hunting. If I lived in a more rural area I would likely own a couple guns and shoot things for food. Beyond hunting rifles and shotguns, however, most firearms are designed for killing other people. That is also how they are used. I have no problem with an outright ban on every firearm except for a handful that could be protected as hunting or historic weapons. Firing ranges, police and a few others could still get licences for handguns, with special id tags to keep them from working for other than their designated purpose (this is not hard). However, in an odd twist, I do not think that there should be nearly the regulation of hunting firearms that there is now.
Unlike driving, which is a privilege, owing a firearm is a Constitutionally granted right. Now I do think that, unlike the Geneva convention, the second ammendment really is quaint. A free standing militia is not necessary for the security of this country, actually it seems the opposite is true, as it was a militia man who gave us the Oklahoma City bombing. Militias were meant as a guard against government run amok (McVeigh felt ours had and needed to be forcibly stopped), but even the Michigan milita would stand little chance against the US army and state troopers and local police. But in the absense of the repeal of the second ammendment, there should not be as much regulation on firearms sales. No felons, sure, but nothing beyond a quick background check. No registering serial numbers, no implanting chips, no tracking gun purches/purchacers.
Of course I also think that gun crimes should be severly punished while drug crimes should not. Gun criminals have abused their Constitutional right. They are un-American. Now what was I saying about forgiveness?
I've never been a big fan of guns, not real ones anyway. I do see the appeal, though. I also don't have any issue with hunting. If I lived in a more rural area I would likely own a couple guns and shoot things for food. Beyond hunting rifles and shotguns, however, most firearms are designed for killing other people. That is also how they are used. I have no problem with an outright ban on every firearm except for a handful that could be protected as hunting or historic weapons. Firing ranges, police and a few others could still get licences for handguns, with special id tags to keep them from working for other than their designated purpose (this is not hard). However, in an odd twist, I do not think that there should be nearly the regulation of hunting firearms that there is now.
Unlike driving, which is a privilege, owing a firearm is a Constitutionally granted right. Now I do think that, unlike the Geneva convention, the second ammendment really is quaint. A free standing militia is not necessary for the security of this country, actually it seems the opposite is true, as it was a militia man who gave us the Oklahoma City bombing. Militias were meant as a guard against government run amok (McVeigh felt ours had and needed to be forcibly stopped), but even the Michigan milita would stand little chance against the US army and state troopers and local police. But in the absense of the repeal of the second ammendment, there should not be as much regulation on firearms sales. No felons, sure, but nothing beyond a quick background check. No registering serial numbers, no implanting chips, no tracking gun purches/purchacers.
Of course I also think that gun crimes should be severly punished while drug crimes should not. Gun criminals have abused their Constitutional right. They are un-American. Now what was I saying about forgiveness?
School Violence I
School violence has decreased dramatically over the past 20-30 yrs. It's true, I'm not going to get the links, though you should feel free. Some of that is related to metal detectors and drug sniffing dogs and strict policies regarding weapons and guests/visitors. Some of it is PC thuggery. Some of it is a more accepting society and some of it is detachment. There are probably other reasons, and those reasons can be discussed ad nauseam, so I won't; I'll just say that schools are "safer" than they were in the 80's, despite perception.
People feel that they are more dangerous. Steven Colbert tells us that this means they are more dangerous. It's not true, of course, but it is funny. The main reason people feel this way is likely the intense media and internet coverage. In 1986 if some 14 yr old shot a 15 yr old over drugs in a central Phily school, chances are good that no one outside of the metro area would have even heard about it. Not true today. While that incident would get less coverage than the Amish schoolhouse or other sleepy community shootings, for reasons ranging from racism to indifference, to expectations, it would still be on CNN and on internet news sites within the hour. It plays into this notion that school violence is getting out of hand. It would run. People would think schools are becomming more violent. Further news stories that seem to verify this imaginary trend would be over-reported. The same thing happened after Columbine for several years and then died off. It will die off again, but not for a while, and people's attitude will linger much longer.
Random acts of violence will always occur. It is impossible to provide 100% security. As the total amount of crime goes down, the coverage of the remaining crimes will increase (news needs to fill the void, and happy news doesn't keep viewers tuned in). Detailed coverage of a single crime is at least as effective as superficial coverage of many crimes in inciting fear. (If you know about the warnings and motivations you are more likely to see danger around you, whereas if you just hear about a bunch of killings, you are more inclined to think that it can't happen to you.) Fear only makes life more painful and difficult. We should see hope. We should forgive.
Forgiveness is a strange notion to most Americans, despite our purported religious zeal. It has been mentioned several times in the Amish story, and every time it is discussed the surprise is tangible. Why? It should not be. We have become so accustomed to revenge and punishment that we see the lack of those ideas as strange. Politicians who proclaim their Christian values so often call for murder and death that true Christian ideals seem foreign to us. Sure a Buddhist would forgive, but a Christian. That is not their way (at least not in this country). That is a disgusting thought, but it is true. It is borne out every day when king W talks. He is angry, vengeful and hate filled. His supposed Christianity is well known. Forgiveness must be un-Christian. I wonder about my depression.
People feel that they are more dangerous. Steven Colbert tells us that this means they are more dangerous. It's not true, of course, but it is funny. The main reason people feel this way is likely the intense media and internet coverage. In 1986 if some 14 yr old shot a 15 yr old over drugs in a central Phily school, chances are good that no one outside of the metro area would have even heard about it. Not true today. While that incident would get less coverage than the Amish schoolhouse or other sleepy community shootings, for reasons ranging from racism to indifference, to expectations, it would still be on CNN and on internet news sites within the hour. It plays into this notion that school violence is getting out of hand. It would run. People would think schools are becomming more violent. Further news stories that seem to verify this imaginary trend would be over-reported. The same thing happened after Columbine for several years and then died off. It will die off again, but not for a while, and people's attitude will linger much longer.
Random acts of violence will always occur. It is impossible to provide 100% security. As the total amount of crime goes down, the coverage of the remaining crimes will increase (news needs to fill the void, and happy news doesn't keep viewers tuned in). Detailed coverage of a single crime is at least as effective as superficial coverage of many crimes in inciting fear. (If you know about the warnings and motivations you are more likely to see danger around you, whereas if you just hear about a bunch of killings, you are more inclined to think that it can't happen to you.) Fear only makes life more painful and difficult. We should see hope. We should forgive.
Forgiveness is a strange notion to most Americans, despite our purported religious zeal. It has been mentioned several times in the Amish story, and every time it is discussed the surprise is tangible. Why? It should not be. We have become so accustomed to revenge and punishment that we see the lack of those ideas as strange. Politicians who proclaim their Christian values so often call for murder and death that true Christian ideals seem foreign to us. Sure a Buddhist would forgive, but a Christian. That is not their way (at least not in this country). That is a disgusting thought, but it is true. It is borne out every day when king W talks. He is angry, vengeful and hate filled. His supposed Christianity is well known. Forgiveness must be un-Christian. I wonder about my depression.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Big Brother is Watching You
United States Dept of the Interior report states employees spend thousands of hours a week at various recreational sites. Now I think that porn and gambling are anathema in the workplace, but for reasons of viruses, worms, bandwidth hogging and sexual harassment, but only 4700 of the million plus suspect log entries were for those purposes. The thousands of hours/week and million plus logs also covered 7700 employees. This likely constitutes less time than is spent in the lavatories and is hardly a danger to "productivity."
It just sounds bad. That's it, though. It is measureable, people can see facts, and no one thinks spending time gambling at work is really ethical...at least in principle. The real fact is that productivity and time wasting are often very difficult to measure. If you have a union or government job, then that job often has a very detailed description, and many times you are not even allowed to do "work" that is not part of that description. This means that if an efficient employee finishes all of their work for the day by 10:00 a.m. then they cannot do any more work that day. They also can't go home. This is true to varying degrees in varying jobs. There are limits to what can be accomplished in a day, both for time constraints and for "availibility" reasons. We tend to frown more upon people who leave work early, even though those people may be going to accomplish something meaningful elsewhere, than we do upon those who "burn the candle at both ends" even if they really are not actually doing more work.
I am really back and forth on whether companies should monitor thier employees' internet usage. I don't like the idea for the reasons above, but it really can be a time sink. Of course multi-tasking means that it would be difficult to prove in either case. Personal freedoms may be one reason that I am interested in academics. It is not that they don't demand productivity/results, because they do, but they don't so much look over your shoulder 24-7...well at least not after you get tenure.
It just sounds bad. That's it, though. It is measureable, people can see facts, and no one thinks spending time gambling at work is really ethical...at least in principle. The real fact is that productivity and time wasting are often very difficult to measure. If you have a union or government job, then that job often has a very detailed description, and many times you are not even allowed to do "work" that is not part of that description. This means that if an efficient employee finishes all of their work for the day by 10:00 a.m. then they cannot do any more work that day. They also can't go home. This is true to varying degrees in varying jobs. There are limits to what can be accomplished in a day, both for time constraints and for "availibility" reasons. We tend to frown more upon people who leave work early, even though those people may be going to accomplish something meaningful elsewhere, than we do upon those who "burn the candle at both ends" even if they really are not actually doing more work.
I am really back and forth on whether companies should monitor thier employees' internet usage. I don't like the idea for the reasons above, but it really can be a time sink. Of course multi-tasking means that it would be difficult to prove in either case. Personal freedoms may be one reason that I am interested in academics. It is not that they don't demand productivity/results, because they do, but they don't so much look over your shoulder 24-7...well at least not after you get tenure.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
US Science Education
Apparently science education in the U.S. lags behind other nations. Gee. I wonder why. Most likely because we have a very anti science group of folks ruling the halls of power in D.C. Not that I'm bitter...
Really, though, the article is not good. First off is for the obvious: we are not doing science education very well here, okay, but there are no solutions presented.
The article itself, however, is problematic. It starts with the comment that "faults science curricula for assuming children are simplistic thinkers." While this is true, to a certain extent, the statement should really be turned around. Science curricula actually assume that the teachers are not sufficiently well educated in sciences to teach it well. This sounds somewhat nasty, but keep in mind that in many cases the first science education a child receives is from a teacher whose major was education (possibly with an emphasis) and who is qualified to teach several different subjects. There is less specializaiton in elementary and middle school, and by the time students reach high school they already have been taught to have science presented in a specific way. There are educators who are working to change this, but it is not so simple a process as just changing the science curricula. Guidelines provided by science groups like NAS (national acadamy of sciences) are content (e.g. a student should know the parts and functions of a cell) not methods and many different curricula could get the info across.
Nevermind that, though, because it isn't new, and scientists, in particular, are aware of it, if only through the poor understanding presented by friends, family, politicians, press, etc. The problem with the article is related to the prase "simplistic thinkers" opens the door for all of the psuedo science crackpots to push (including the Creationist/ID wackjobs). Science can become very complicated, very quickly, and psuedo-science advocates take advantage of that. The vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge becomes a double edged sword because no one person can be sufficiently advanced to be an expert in every one of the things that are covered in science from K-12. Because of that the psuedo-sci supporters can often win "debates," even if they out and out lie.
Since it is a popular front, take, for example, evolution. Evolution is taught in biology, but the evidence for evolution comes from genetics, geology, species diversity, human history, the fossil record, anatomy, and biochemistry, basically many fields covering all of the physical sciences. Most biology teachers understand very basic notions related to some of the genetics, some of the fossil record, some of the diversity, the radio dating aspects of geology and anatomical aspects like vestigal appendiges (note that most bio majors will not have a significantly more advanced understanding). An anti-evolution puppet would not trash all of the science, but would pick one or two fairly specific aspects to take apart, typically ones that are not directly related to biology. A sufficiently knowledgeable scientist would decimate such attacks, but few and far between is the elementary/middle/high school teacher that could do so.
Science education is lacking in the U.S., to be sure, but the directions offered to "fix" science education are vague, misleading, and open to attack from those who seek to make science what they want it to be rather than what it is. The key to improving science education is not to focus on what science has discovered, but rather what science is, and using discoveries, theories, and changes in perception through history as examples.
Really, though, the article is not good. First off is for the obvious: we are not doing science education very well here, okay, but there are no solutions presented.
The article itself, however, is problematic. It starts with the comment that "faults science curricula for assuming children are simplistic thinkers." While this is true, to a certain extent, the statement should really be turned around. Science curricula actually assume that the teachers are not sufficiently well educated in sciences to teach it well. This sounds somewhat nasty, but keep in mind that in many cases the first science education a child receives is from a teacher whose major was education (possibly with an emphasis) and who is qualified to teach several different subjects. There is less specializaiton in elementary and middle school, and by the time students reach high school they already have been taught to have science presented in a specific way. There are educators who are working to change this, but it is not so simple a process as just changing the science curricula. Guidelines provided by science groups like NAS (national acadamy of sciences) are content (e.g. a student should know the parts and functions of a cell) not methods and many different curricula could get the info across.
Nevermind that, though, because it isn't new, and scientists, in particular, are aware of it, if only through the poor understanding presented by friends, family, politicians, press, etc. The problem with the article is related to the prase "simplistic thinkers" opens the door for all of the psuedo science crackpots to push (including the Creationist/ID wackjobs). Science can become very complicated, very quickly, and psuedo-science advocates take advantage of that. The vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge becomes a double edged sword because no one person can be sufficiently advanced to be an expert in every one of the things that are covered in science from K-12. Because of that the psuedo-sci supporters can often win "debates," even if they out and out lie.
Since it is a popular front, take, for example, evolution. Evolution is taught in biology, but the evidence for evolution comes from genetics, geology, species diversity, human history, the fossil record, anatomy, and biochemistry, basically many fields covering all of the physical sciences. Most biology teachers understand very basic notions related to some of the genetics, some of the fossil record, some of the diversity, the radio dating aspects of geology and anatomical aspects like vestigal appendiges (note that most bio majors will not have a significantly more advanced understanding). An anti-evolution puppet would not trash all of the science, but would pick one or two fairly specific aspects to take apart, typically ones that are not directly related to biology. A sufficiently knowledgeable scientist would decimate such attacks, but few and far between is the elementary/middle/high school teacher that could do so.
Science education is lacking in the U.S., to be sure, but the directions offered to "fix" science education are vague, misleading, and open to attack from those who seek to make science what they want it to be rather than what it is. The key to improving science education is not to focus on what science has discovered, but rather what science is, and using discoveries, theories, and changes in perception through history as examples.
Liquid Bomb Issues
The FAA is relaxing the rediculously asinine standards on bringing liquids and gels onto airplanes...finally. For those of you who haven't paid attention, the rule was no liquids or gels could be taken through security, nor could those purchased after going through security be brought onto planes. This was stupid on so many levels that I can't possibly address them all. I'll try though...
First off, the after security thing (which is what is being relaxed). Is the FAA suggesting that you can purchase explosive liquids in airports after passing through security?!? Why the hell isn't that a security issue?!? I was very worried (one might say "terrified") on my last flight because there is a Ben & Jerrys' in Midway and I saw people purchase ice cream and I knew they were going to be getting on airplanes, and I didn't know if the airport employees realized that ice cream can be easily converted to a liquid by holding it for an extended period of time. The horror of melted ice cream that could easily conceal high levels of triglyserides that could, conceivably, cause an explosion of the waistline of the consummer, is not one that leaves after a night or two of restless slumber. (Of course the real problem is the ubiquitous airport Starbucks *shudder*.)
Second, and probably the bigger problem: the "advanced plot" that the purported terrorists were going to use would not have worked. There are lots of available explainations (like this one) but there are two key issues that, as a chemist, I feel compelled to share. One is that highly explosive compounds can be solids, or liquids, or gasses. Making you trash that water bottle, leave the shampoo, or drain your coffee cup is no more reasonable (from a safety standpoint) than making you hand over your pants, or trash your cell phone. At least pantsless, cellphoneless people on airplanes would cause amusing ackward conversation..."so, um, why do they call it a 'thong' anyway? I mean, nice ass. No, wait, um, I mean, oh, gosh it's breezy..." The other issue is that precursors to explosives are not explosives. Trying to create an explosive on an aircraft, is not just implausable, it is virtually impossible. Not that it wouldn't be dangerous, but it would be on par with someone setting fire to a sky mall catalogue (matches are allowed). The building I work in had a acetone-piranha explosion, which is basically what these wannabe suicide bombers would have (at best) created...it didn't even destroy the fume hood it was in, and it was likely quite a bit bigger than anything these terrorists could have caused.
A final point is that terrorists goal is not to kill us all and destroy our country; they cannot, not even close. Their goal is to scare us so much that we change our way of life. They are succeeding. Every time the FAA or some other government agency enacts some rediculous rule to counter an overblown or imaginary threat, the terrorists win. Every time some politician makes noise about terrorism, telling us how dangerous they are, terrifying us, the terrorists win. Every time they try and take away our rights to preserve our "security," the terrorists win. Every time we let them without speaking out or fighting back, the terrorists win.
I want my coffee back. It's cheaper and tastier. Damnit.
First off, the after security thing (which is what is being relaxed). Is the FAA suggesting that you can purchase explosive liquids in airports after passing through security?!? Why the hell isn't that a security issue?!? I was very worried (one might say "terrified") on my last flight because there is a Ben & Jerrys' in Midway and I saw people purchase ice cream and I knew they were going to be getting on airplanes, and I didn't know if the airport employees realized that ice cream can be easily converted to a liquid by holding it for an extended period of time. The horror of melted ice cream that could easily conceal high levels of triglyserides that could, conceivably, cause an explosion of the waistline of the consummer, is not one that leaves after a night or two of restless slumber. (Of course the real problem is the ubiquitous airport Starbucks *shudder*.)
Second, and probably the bigger problem: the "advanced plot" that the purported terrorists were going to use would not have worked. There are lots of available explainations (like this one) but there are two key issues that, as a chemist, I feel compelled to share. One is that highly explosive compounds can be solids, or liquids, or gasses. Making you trash that water bottle, leave the shampoo, or drain your coffee cup is no more reasonable (from a safety standpoint) than making you hand over your pants, or trash your cell phone. At least pantsless, cellphoneless people on airplanes would cause amusing ackward conversation..."so, um, why do they call it a 'thong' anyway? I mean, nice ass. No, wait, um, I mean, oh, gosh it's breezy..." The other issue is that precursors to explosives are not explosives. Trying to create an explosive on an aircraft, is not just implausable, it is virtually impossible. Not that it wouldn't be dangerous, but it would be on par with someone setting fire to a sky mall catalogue (matches are allowed). The building I work in had a acetone-piranha explosion, which is basically what these wannabe suicide bombers would have (at best) created...it didn't even destroy the fume hood it was in, and it was likely quite a bit bigger than anything these terrorists could have caused.
A final point is that terrorists goal is not to kill us all and destroy our country; they cannot, not even close. Their goal is to scare us so much that we change our way of life. They are succeeding. Every time the FAA or some other government agency enacts some rediculous rule to counter an overblown or imaginary threat, the terrorists win. Every time some politician makes noise about terrorism, telling us how dangerous they are, terrifying us, the terrorists win. Every time they try and take away our rights to preserve our "security," the terrorists win. Every time we let them without speaking out or fighting back, the terrorists win.
I want my coffee back. It's cheaper and tastier. Damnit.
"Next Blog"
I like the "next blog" feature at the top of this and most other blogspot blogs, I've only found a handful of ones that I would continue to visit, but I suppose this one would be no exception to most people. Lots of people post photos, some of them good, many slices of life, occasionally fun to read. For most people this is an online diary. Others can read it, but that doesn't really seem to be the point. There are also a fair amount of venting, bitching sites. In one in particular (which I won't link to, because I would feel, I don't know, mean) the author repeatedly mentioned his/her gluten allergy (probably coeliac disease), and I couldn't help but have no sympathy, I'm not sure why because it seems it would be tough, but I just kept thinking how this person would have died as a baby a couple centuries back.
Occasionally I come across a good WTF site or post or thing. That happened today too. The blog site is about a county beauty pagent in MO (Missouri, or Misery, or Mizura...). Mostly no big deal, but there is the little sub-title on the banner which concludes, "...this blog will be a forum for women to be empowered, promoted and respected." I know that beauty pagent people love to spout this crap off about how pagents are about female empowerment. It is total horseshit, but it makes them feel better about themselves. It is especially true of the kiddie ones which are beyond creepy. Oh, well, enough of that.
For some pretty things to look at go here (pics, mostly landscape).
Occasionally I come across a good WTF site or post or thing. That happened today too. The blog site is about a county beauty pagent in MO (Missouri, or Misery, or Mizura...). Mostly no big deal, but there is the little sub-title on the banner which concludes, "...this blog will be a forum for women to be empowered, promoted and respected." I know that beauty pagent people love to spout this crap off about how pagents are about female empowerment. It is total horseshit, but it makes them feel better about themselves. It is especially true of the kiddie ones which are beyond creepy. Oh, well, enough of that.
For some pretty things to look at go here (pics, mostly landscape).
Monday, September 25, 2006
Backlog
I have one. Written and started posts that aren't posted yet. They'll come up eventually...not that many people read this regularly enough to really notice. There are several things I would like to address today, but don't have time for. Oh, well.
...hmm, I don't have too many posts like this. Weird.
...hmm, I don't have too many posts like this. Weird.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Info on some Republican Candidates
I'm not sure anyone reading this will recognize it for what it is. Nor do I care. Don't bother clicking the links if you aren't interested. (The date listed is meaningless.)
--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert
--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Pump Bomb
I got a kick out of this story. A guy going through airport security with his mother is asked about an item in his bag. The item is a penis pump, but to keep his mom from finding out, he says it is a bomb. That's funny. Of course he likely did lean over and wisper "pump," but as security heard "bomb" he is being charged. But what I really got a kick out of was at the end when he says about having a penis pump: " 'It's normal,' he said. 'Half of America they use it.' "
I suppose if you guage by spam that may be true, but half?!? On the other hand maybe we should see this as increasing equality between the sexes: now both men and women feel they need to improve thier body to be considered worthwhile. Heaven forbid people actually be comfortable with who they are...oh, well, I guess advertisers are happy anyway, and the manufacturers of penis pumps may have their new add: "Everyone is going to assume you have one anyway, so you might as well..."
Yare, Yare.
I suppose if you guage by spam that may be true, but half?!? On the other hand maybe we should see this as increasing equality between the sexes: now both men and women feel they need to improve thier body to be considered worthwhile. Heaven forbid people actually be comfortable with who they are...oh, well, I guess advertisers are happy anyway, and the manufacturers of penis pumps may have their new add: "Everyone is going to assume you have one anyway, so you might as well..."
Yare, Yare.
Monday, August 21, 2006
The Best Government is...
Whatever works. Let's look at the general possibilities: Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy...rule of One, Few, or Many. Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism are economic terms, not government. Representative Democracy is what the U.S. Constitution outlines for our nation, though we are arguably a Plutocracy in practice (oligarchy with the few being the wealthy).
But nevermind that. What works best is what works. An absolute monarchy (autocracy) could be peachy if that monarch is very benevolent. Democracy can fail miserably if the under represented are persecuted to the point of revolt, or if various groups detest each other (kind of like in Iraq now). The quality of a government of any kind is a direct representation of the quality of the people that make up that government (in a democracy it is the quality of those in the majority). Yes, in general, more people involved means a fairer governing and turnover in elected officials means bad times are shorter, but the general notion that more people ruling is better really has more to do with the perceived nature of those who seek power, notably that they are not as likely to be decent folk. So statements about democracy being the best form of government are really just statements endorsing a statistical sampling of decency in human beings.
But nevermind that. What works best is what works. An absolute monarchy (autocracy) could be peachy if that monarch is very benevolent. Democracy can fail miserably if the under represented are persecuted to the point of revolt, or if various groups detest each other (kind of like in Iraq now). The quality of a government of any kind is a direct representation of the quality of the people that make up that government (in a democracy it is the quality of those in the majority). Yes, in general, more people involved means a fairer governing and turnover in elected officials means bad times are shorter, but the general notion that more people ruling is better really has more to do with the perceived nature of those who seek power, notably that they are not as likely to be decent folk. So statements about democracy being the best form of government are really just statements endorsing a statistical sampling of decency in human beings.
Friday, August 18, 2006
So That's Why
Many people don't like Democrats...
I live half a block from the lake in Chicago (Rogers Park, not swank) and the city beach at the end of my street is a common place for dogs and owners to hang out (mine and me included). A city provided trash can is there where dog waste accounts for approximately 90% of the trash. The trash can used to be a 55 gallon metal drum. It was recently replaced (probably 3 months ago, and, yes, this has been festering) by a lidded plastic bin of roughly equal size. I've a feeling that similar changes were made in parks throughout my little ward, if not across the city.
So, the city likely spent a fair chunk of cash to replace perfectly serviceable bins, that really didn't look too bad with ones that look like the park is a construction zone, and, moreover, are lidded, and primarily filled with dog shit. For those of you without functioning olfactory systems, scroll down to a different post, but for everyone else... If you take a foul smelling anything and seal it up, then the smell festers and gets worse, and every time you open the sealed vessel you are assaulted by the pungent odors. If, on the other hand, you leave smelly things open to the air then this doesn't happen. Science types are aware that this is due to anaerobic bacteria (which make up ~50% of the dry weight of feces...yours too) which release pungent smelling products when feeding. Exposure to air allows for aerobic bacteria, along with many critters (worms, flys, etc...) that are also aerobic in nature, to process the waste allowing it to be broken down more quickly and with less nasty resulting odors. This is also why compost piles need to be turned, or to be arranged so that they get good air flow through them (adding dry leaves). So the city spent a bunch of money to make things look (subjective) and smell (objective) worse. Wasteful spending, likely because the in-law of some alderman works for the company that makes the plastic bins. And people wonder why Americans think all politicians are corrupt.
I live half a block from the lake in Chicago (Rogers Park, not swank) and the city beach at the end of my street is a common place for dogs and owners to hang out (mine and me included). A city provided trash can is there where dog waste accounts for approximately 90% of the trash. The trash can used to be a 55 gallon metal drum. It was recently replaced (probably 3 months ago, and, yes, this has been festering) by a lidded plastic bin of roughly equal size. I've a feeling that similar changes were made in parks throughout my little ward, if not across the city.
So, the city likely spent a fair chunk of cash to replace perfectly serviceable bins, that really didn't look too bad with ones that look like the park is a construction zone, and, moreover, are lidded, and primarily filled with dog shit. For those of you without functioning olfactory systems, scroll down to a different post, but for everyone else... If you take a foul smelling anything and seal it up, then the smell festers and gets worse, and every time you open the sealed vessel you are assaulted by the pungent odors. If, on the other hand, you leave smelly things open to the air then this doesn't happen. Science types are aware that this is due to anaerobic bacteria (which make up ~50% of the dry weight of feces...yours too) which release pungent smelling products when feeding. Exposure to air allows for aerobic bacteria, along with many critters (worms, flys, etc...) that are also aerobic in nature, to process the waste allowing it to be broken down more quickly and with less nasty resulting odors. This is also why compost piles need to be turned, or to be arranged so that they get good air flow through them (adding dry leaves). So the city spent a bunch of money to make things look (subjective) and smell (objective) worse. Wasteful spending, likely because the in-law of some alderman works for the company that makes the plastic bins. And people wonder why Americans think all politicians are corrupt.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Now They Get It
This just in (on the cover of Time magazine): top tier schools not all that important. This is actually semi-related to a post I've started and not gotten up yet about how pursuit of an academic career is, umm, challenging. While it was very true 50 years ago that if you wanted success in most fields which required college degrees, going to a premier university was a huge leg up, any more: not so much. Lots of reasons for that including the fact that more people (and more highly capable people) going to college, and more new jobs being created (particularly technology related).
Even when I was applying to college way back in 1994, things were changing. Of the (likely) brightest 10 people in my high school class, at least 5 (including the top 2-3, one of whom, I think nearly, won a Rhodes Scholarship ...memory bad, don't care) went to state schools, and none of the rest went to any large, famous university (mostly smaller colleges, with varying degrees of name recognition). The fact is that ability is rewarded in the private sector, particularly if you work in a technology field. Jargon-speek (4337-speek for management types) is also helpful for advancement and something that the school you went to won't really advance. Having a B.A. in English from Harvard may help a touch when applying for various (typically business) jobs, but once you are hired for the first time your education has done all it can. You need to learn new things, and work well (smarter or harder, or both if you are a lawyer) to move up. There are ceilings related to your terminal degree, field and luck, but not the name of the school on your diploma.
Even when I was applying to college way back in 1994, things were changing. Of the (likely) brightest 10 people in my high school class, at least 5 (including the top 2-3, one of whom, I think nearly, won a Rhodes Scholarship ...memory bad, don't care) went to state schools, and none of the rest went to any large, famous university (mostly smaller colleges, with varying degrees of name recognition). The fact is that ability is rewarded in the private sector, particularly if you work in a technology field. Jargon-speek (4337-speek for management types) is also helpful for advancement and something that the school you went to won't really advance. Having a B.A. in English from Harvard may help a touch when applying for various (typically business) jobs, but once you are hired for the first time your education has done all it can. You need to learn new things, and work well (smarter or harder, or both if you are a lawyer) to move up. There are ceilings related to your terminal degree, field and luck, but not the name of the school on your diploma.
Friday, July 28, 2006
For God's Sake
Sometimes, I really hate people... Babytalk magazine had a cover which was a picture of a baby breast feeding. Insanely NOT sexual, and the breast was in profile and no nipple visable making it comprable exposure to what one sees at a beach or swimming pool. It got a reaction...
"One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it. 'I shredded it,' said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. 'A breast is a breast -- it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that.' "
If she really believes that breast feeding is a sexual thing then she should probably have her children removed either for neglect or sexual abuse.
" 'Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob,' wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old. "
So you don't look in the mirror when you are holding your child? Oh, you mean "boob" as in "breast"...does that mean that you don't nurse or that you use your sense of touch to determine whether or not Jr. has latched on properly? Because vomiting on your nursing child seems like a bad thing.
" 'I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a mother and her child.' "
Much like beatings and teaching racial epithets... What the hell is wrong with people and why can't the news people/groups indicate that those who complained are bat-shit crazy wingnut idealogues? It is breast feeding. Anyone who is excited by or offended by it has got some real problems, likely the result of a troubled childhood where there parents scared the piss out of them instilling in them the notions that looking at or exposing a breast would send them straight to hell or some such. If you don't like it, don't stare. I find women who wear too much make-up pretty gross, but, hey, if someone wants to walk around like that, she should never have to put up with my opinion or others like it, (irony warning) except from her father, who should tell her that she "looks like a whore."
On a related note CBS is appealing the FCC ruling from the Janet Jackson exposed issue. I hope they win, though not so we can have more breasts on television (there are plenty on the internet, for those who are so inclined), but so that I don't have to have my entertainment filtered by the draconian notions of morality as posited by the FCC and the wack jobs that agree with them.
"One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it. 'I shredded it,' said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. 'A breast is a breast -- it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that.' "
If she really believes that breast feeding is a sexual thing then she should probably have her children removed either for neglect or sexual abuse.
" 'Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob,' wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old. "
So you don't look in the mirror when you are holding your child? Oh, you mean "boob" as in "breast"...does that mean that you don't nurse or that you use your sense of touch to determine whether or not Jr. has latched on properly? Because vomiting on your nursing child seems like a bad thing.
" 'I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a mother and her child.' "
Much like beatings and teaching racial epithets... What the hell is wrong with people and why can't the news people/groups indicate that those who complained are bat-shit crazy wingnut idealogues? It is breast feeding. Anyone who is excited by or offended by it has got some real problems, likely the result of a troubled childhood where there parents scared the piss out of them instilling in them the notions that looking at or exposing a breast would send them straight to hell or some such. If you don't like it, don't stare. I find women who wear too much make-up pretty gross, but, hey, if someone wants to walk around like that, she should never have to put up with my opinion or others like it, (irony warning) except from her father, who should tell her that she "looks like a whore."
On a related note CBS is appealing the FCC ruling from the Janet Jackson exposed issue. I hope they win, though not so we can have more breasts on television (there are plenty on the internet, for those who are so inclined), but so that I don't have to have my entertainment filtered by the draconian notions of morality as posited by the FCC and the wack jobs that agree with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)