| Best cat macro ever. |
[Jun. 15th, 2008|01:00 pm] |
I could generalize it, but I think it would be missing something, so I'm just going to pull ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) wieimmer's macro wholesale from ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) stupid_free.
For those who love drama...
 
God, flame wars are great. |
|
|
| |
[Jun. 8th, 2008|01:03 am] |
|
I wonder if it's fair to say to someone who says "I don't believe in evolution because I've never seen a duck give birth to a non duck", that "I've never seen a higher order creature give birth to an identical higher order creature". The definition of species is mutable enough that I don't think I'd be completely out of order to say that someone who looks so different from me that I would breed with them could theoretically qualify as a different species (hypothetically, of course. I'm pretty reasonable about looks and where my genitals will go). |
|
|
| Today's random thought. |
[Jun. 7th, 2008|12:47 am] |
I've been sort of a small "l" libertarian for a while, mostly since I've never been a market fundamentalist, nor a believer that rights exist separate from laws. However, I've never really came up with a sloganesque way of phrasing it to other libs (I'm contrarian even with my own kind). Anyhow, here was my statement:
"If communism fails because it assumes people are inherently good, libertarianism fails because it assumes people are inherently responsible."
And that about sums up the way I see the world. I usually don't think people are actively bad (napoleon's maxim "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" comes to mind. You have no idea how peaceful that makes life in general), just that they will usually pick the path of least resistance which is a form of laziness, or perhaps just short-sitedness. |
|
|
| A Week of Gifts. |
[May. 13th, 2008|01:43 pm] |
As opposed to being addled by alcohol, being high on caffeine often results in generally good ideas rushing to the surface. This week I've decided to dedicate myself to giving seven romantic gifts to my fiance, aided by my friend, Venti Cups o'Joe.
Day #1
Not wanting to set the bar too high right off the get go, I've decided today would be a good day to sneak into her house and do some cleaning. This isn't to say that B's a slob, by no means is she, just that it's been a rather hectic week, and some stuff has built up and I think it's kind of bugging her.
It all started well enough, I knocked out the dishes, laundry, picking up, and sweeping. In fact, it all went so smoothly that I decided to keep doing stuff. This of course, as all spur of the moment desires made for a rather poor plan. Luckily the good stuff and happiness went by during the evening before the bad stuff came out, you know, like a hefty dose of cuddling followed by a bit of snogging. OK, zogging lotz n'lotz of snogging.
What could happen badly from merely cleaning up a bit you ask? Well, how about a potential couple hundred dollars of damage to her dress clothes? It apparently didn't occur to me that she just put her work clothes in the dirty hamper to separate them; that she would eventually take them to the dry cleaners. Before you ask, I knew that those sort of clothes were washed differently (thank you for making me do laundry, mom), so I was smart enough to put them in as their own load on delicate.
She had a brief shocked look on her face as she saw them in the washer (it was the last load I did, so they went over the time limit of cleaning), but after a moment, she relaxed and started hanging them, telling me she was happy. This was all well and good, but she decided to hang them on the bar for the shower curtain, which would be fine in most houses, except hers, of course. In her place, the bar is held in place by a friction shoe, as opposed to screws. I'm amazed she got as much on there as she did before the bar gave way and I heard he go "Ouch!".
Well. Let's just hope tommorrow goes better... |
|
|
| Women in Science |
[May. 12th, 2008|12:07 am] |
While the piece is a look at why women may or may not choose a career in science, it ends up being a much more interesting look at being a graduate student in the sciences, and why science is in many ways a suboptimal field. Link.
In fact, the writer turns the question around and asks why men bother with the sciences in the first place. His explanation? Rather amusing, but I don't think it's too far off:
Having been both a student and teacher at MIT, my personal explanation for men going into science is the following: - young men strive to achieve high status among their peer group
- men tend to lack perspective and are unable to step back and ask the question "is this peer group worth impressing?"
Going from this idea:
Consider Albert Q. Mathnerd, a math undergrad at MIT ("Course 18" we call it). He works hard and beats his chest to demonstrate that he is the best math nerd at MIT. This is important to Albert because most of his friends are math majors and the rest of his friends are in wimpier departments, impressed that Albert has even taken on such demanding classes. Albert never reflects on the fact that the guy who was the best math undergrad at MIT 20 years ago is now an entry-level public school teacher in Nebraska, having failed to get tenure at a 2nd tier university. When Albert goes to graduate school to get his PhD, his choice will have the same logical foundation as John Hinckley's attempt to impress Jodie Foster by shooting Ronald Reagan.
I must admit, I take a perverse pleasure from impressing the wrong folks (ie fellow geeks) too. In fact, the only difference between me and a bad kid who goes around jumping from moving vehicles to impress girls is that he's got a few STDs to show for his efforts.
However, going in further, he gives some wonderful career advice: Don't pick a job just based on what you love, pick it also based on the combination of money, time, and responsibility. In his example:
A friend of the author says that most medical doctors choose the wrong specialty: "They pick based on what part of the body they think is the most interesting. They should really pick based on whether or not they want to have the responsibility of running an office, having employees, and marketing themselves or whether they want a shift job and can walk away at the end of the shift." She finds some of her colleagues less than optimally happy because they chose to be plastic surgeons and don't enjoy being the boss and not being able to take eight weeks of vacation per year. On the other hand, she finds some emergency medicine doctors who, while they enjoy the freedom and flexibility to work as much or as little as they choose in any given year, would prefer to have the responsibility and prestige of running their own practice.
|
|
|
| |
[May. 10th, 2008|12:23 am] |
The minimum effort required to excel. Well, I have to admit that's a beautiful way of describing a good life. Now, if only it was me, as opposed to B- who came up with it.
I guess, in a sense, this is underachievment, as you can always do more, but in the larger picture, what's the point of going past the amount it takes to impress the people around you? One could argue about the virtues of perfection, and I guess, if perfection makes a person happy, that's fine, but for those of us who find the marginal utility of an action approaching zero as the ideal is reached, it represents a certain inefficiency of effort, a waste of possible happiness.
Sometimes, I wonder if this sort of attitude makes me a slacker, and to be honest, it does, as my 2.2 high school GPA would attest. However, that was when I was in full "I could care less mode", when going to the cubs game was way more interesting than going to class. What a pleasant surprise it was to find that just going to classes and doing homework would put me consistently in the top ten percent of my class in college. Just a little bit of work, and people were amazed with the ease that I did things. Of course, to be fair, I'm happy I slacked off in high school, if for no other reason, the ability to make a mistake and deal with the consequences. A lesson in humility if you will.
|
|
|
| Hello. |
[May. 9th, 2008|01:53 am] |
Do things ever change?
Endless conduits of chance
Thrive on weak breezes.
Possibilities forgone
Reality begotten.
Unmade bed; fallow,
Ripening buds on the sheet,
A hair, not mine, rests.
Mem'ries of kisses adorn
Their now empty residence.
I stare at the screen.
My books hold no interest
Leg muscle twitches
Hours together are swift,
Moments alone, forever. |
|
|
| Romantic Consequences, Ennui, and Hope. |
[Jan. 29th, 2008|12:30 pm] |
It would seem there are three likely outcomes for a Romantic: To succeed in their quest to impress themselves on whatever quest they've decided on, to fail at said quest, or to feel like they really haven't even tried and to fall into a fit of ennui (to fail even to fail). I don't think there's a way for a person to escape the impulse, the internal drives are pretty strong, and unfortunately, the type seems to self select, and as time goes on, more of the world seems to fit within the intuitive/emotive framework, and given the excesses inherent to the mindset, the later two options probably become the most common.
Yet, something tells me that somewhere in the soul there's reason for hope. The way I feel it, the world (more importantly, society) is a construct of man, and at some level, meaningless in the greater scheme of things. The only path for us is to follow what goes on inside our heads and hearts, as they are the only things we have some modicum of control over. So, we have no purpose, and the self is the standard. Still, this bothers me. I know that a lot of this view is built on the self selecting mechanism of conversations, reading, writings, et al. So, even my dream is a fantasy which was imposed on me. Irrationality compounding irrationality.
The more I think about it though, the more I start to see an underlying order. Society is an arbitrary construct, but individuals tend to follow certain patterns when taken in mass, just as individual atoms which exist under the abstract, unpredictable rules of quantum physics, end up behaving very predictably in thermodynamics. A lot of the patterns become pretty obvious when we think about it, for example, if people see other people sitting around a park, they tend to feel comfortable as well, and it remains that way until some start leaving, as people leave, other elements can infest the area, which encourage folks to stay away.
In a way, this says that I need to look deeper into my emotional, intuitive responses, to see what lies underneath them. That's made the world a bit of a game to me, which has some unfortunate effects in conversation since I tend to want to talk about these things. It hasn't affected what I do, since it definitely brings me a great deal of pleasure when I follow those ideals I sculpted, and conversely, pain when I do not. I know it's fake, and it makes me insincere in some ways, but it's easy enough to accept since my ultimate sincerity lies in acknowledging what I've done to myself, and I guess that's the greatest, and most comforting thing I've ever thought. |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 27th, 2008|06:35 pm] |
Just saw this great new word from australia on the volokh conspiracy. It really is a beautiful way of describing one of the kinds of people that bug me:
"Wowsers" - It refers to a person whose mission in life is to prevent anyone and everyone from doing anything that might be fun, he regards the whole world as a sort of giant prison, with himself as the warden. |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 26th, 2008|11:04 am] |
Via katiebgood (for some reason, I don;t have the command console to make the link thingy to her journal, so my apologies), Miss piggy feminism:
http://fox1013.livejournal.com/933681.html
Some highlights:
6. She believes in women's rights. (More specifically, she means that SHE is right, and she DESERVES rights. She is not, perhaps, marching Washington for equality of EVERYONE, but she also refuses to stand idly by while HER rights are being violated. Ever.)
10. If you think she's getting 70% of what the bear's making, you are clearly not watching carefully enough.
8. Try telling her those pants are too tight for someone her size. Just. Fucking. Try.
Hilarious. |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 24th, 2008|05:51 pm] |
Every so often in life, we forget the little things. In my case, I forgot the 22nd was Lord Byron's birthday.
I thought this bit from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage would be apt for today.
CLXIV
But where is he, the Pilgrim of my song,
The being who upheld it through the past?
Methinks he cometh late and tarries long.
He is no more -- these breathings are his last;
His wanderings done, his visions ebbing fast,
And he himself as nothing: -- if he was
Aught but a phantasy, and could be class'd
With forms which live and suffer -- let that pass --
His shadow fades away into Destruction's mass. |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 22nd, 2008|02:37 pm] |
First of all, thanks to everyone for the congratulations on my engagement.
Next, a pox on you all who were unable to see the lovely star nosed mole as cute. My defeat at B's hands was a humiliation which will live on as miserably as once accidentally saying her sister's botched attempts at opening a package looked like a banana fornicating a football. Ah, those memories of messups early in relationships. Like I've always said, I'm amazed the species goes on.
Now, onto a meaty post. (which will be xposted to _discussion.)
I just purchased Tim Harford's new book "The Logic of Life", and reading the chapter The Dangers of Rational Racism, I came across an intriguing experiment that discussed the logic of racism, and how the effects can be hard to disentangle.
The gist of the experiment:
A group of students was divided into 'workers' and 'employers'. The workers were randomly assigned a color, purple or green. The workers were allowed to set aside a certain amount of money they got into getting an education which would improve their chances on a test which would be put on their resume (the test, resume, and education were all fictitious, a random dice roll, with a bonus added to those who paid for 'education', but the employer group didn't know this. The employers merely guessed that a higher test score would increase their chances of getting 'employed', which got them money).
The employers were presented with these two pieces of info, test score, which hinted at an education, but didn't confirm it, and the color. The employers were given a bonus at the end of twenty rounds for all the educated employees they hired (so guessing it, if possible, was to their benefit).
In sum, getting emploeyd got people money, and employing people with education equaled money.
Results:
By chance, a substantial portion of the greens in the first round had decided not to purchase the education. So, in the second round, the employers noted the test score difference and started hiring 'purples', guessing, based on the test scores, that the purples had purchased educations (the actual education being hidden inside the test score result, which was randomized, and then bumped up for the ed purchase).
As the rounds went on, the greens started noticing that the education purchase got them no real increase in the chance of being hired, so they stopped purchasing it, on the grounds 'that it's not worth it', which in reality, it turned out not to be. The employers wouldn;t hire the greens at the rounds progressed because, well, they had lower test scores on average (from not buying the education). Both sides knew of this because the stistics were available for each round, so they were informed consumers.
Now, my question is this:
In the above experiment, who is more írrational, The 'employers', who are trying to pick people who will bring them the most money, or the 'workers', who aren't purchasing the education? |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 21st, 2008|02:02 pm] |
First question. Disagreemnt with B. Is this cute?
Next thing. Continuing on the gross topic. Which is scarier, Japanese Giant Hornets, or Bullet Ants? http://www.cracked.com/article_15816_5-most-horrifying-bugs-in-world.html
The bullet ants shrieks as they fall from trees, by the way. Just thought I should mention that. Oh, and their sting is rated as, well, like being shot. Hence the name. Still, the thought of an ant falling out of tree shrieking scares me even more. |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 20th, 2008|12:29 am] |
Matrxius' comment yesterday reminds that I haven't mentioned that I'm engaged (sorry ladies). I'll get around to posting a picture later, but for those of you who are curious, it's the girl I met and talked about back in March. We'll be getting hitched in mid November (We didn't want to be too close to her sister's wedding in June).
There are a few aspects of the relationship that I've enjoyed so far:
1. Intellectual equality. B has no problem calling bullshit. Which is a good thing since I'm generally good at generating ideas, which sometimes pushes other people's creativity down, but not so good at editing and shaping them as I'm sure many of you have noticed in my entries and comments. This is an unexpected and very useful bit of being together, teamwork.
2. Physical affection. I've never been with someone who actually wants to cuddle so much- I love it. I also enjoy the fact that I'm not the only one doing it. Women often get into the bad habit of letting the guy do all the touching and massaging etc... It's nice that the distribution is close. That way you don;t feel like you're just a masseuse instead of a boyfriend.
3. Low maintenance, low maintenance, low maintenance. I just can;t stress how nice it is to be with someone who enjoys when your around, but doesn't require constant contact via phone or whatnot. Someone who's comfortable with herself, so she's not always worried about what I;m doing, Basically someone who's company reduces the total amount of stresses in my life instead of increasing them. |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 19th, 2008|12:09 am] |
All the good ones are taken....
I've heard that sort of thing before, but I don;t think I've ever really thought about it until tonight. I went to a party with my fiance, Beth, and we spent a sizable chunk of it talking to a girl in her thirties who was still single, and not doing all that well in the dating game. Obviously, frustration in the field of love is a specialty of mine, so I paid particular attention to her discussions of struggles with bad first dates and such. To varying extents,the conversation kept to meta topics of dating concerning differing styles, needs, relationships between economics and choices of partners, stuff like that. Quite high brow as these things go. As it went on I realized something: I was on.
This is a bit unusual for me. Not so much in that I'm awkward talking with people, but in the sense that if I was actively attempting to approach a girl, I would have made several errors, as it was, I had Beth next to me, and conversation was easy. Well, I thought to myself, this is odd. I seem kind of intelligent, witty, just enjoyable. I must look like quite a catch (Modesty is something for other folks. One of my comments tonight was, "Well we get along really well. I'm kind of full of myself- and so is Beth."), so how does this happen? I think the answer is pretty obvious: It's a lot easier to look good when you're already doing OK.
I think this was one of the times when I realized how good me and Beth are together, how well we play off each other, and how are strengths are sometimes similar (like how we both tend to view things very pragamtically. Very "here's a problem. OK, well here's a possible solution), and sometimes complementary (she's soft stated in her ways, but strong in her beliefs, whereas I tend to be very forward, but easy to find grounds for agreement with). |
|
|
| |
[Jan. 18th, 2008|04:07 am] |
I don't remember the last time I won an award
Battleground Analysis Congratulations! You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground. The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out. A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
Link: Battleground God The bullet I bit was based on whether or not god could create a square circle, or have 1+1= 72. I'd argue that she could. There's no reason to think that a given universe has to be euclidean (ours isn;t, although it's generally flat). If I design the geometry of reality, and define the coordinate system, I'd think these sorts of things would be doable. The better question would be "could god change things, and make a square circle in the current universe?" That'd be more of a question I'd probably say no to.
|
|
|
| |
[Jan. 17th, 2008|05:33 pm] |
Quiz stolen from meus_ovatio
The metaphysician test:
Your Score: The Chaos Magician You scored 90 Materialism and 80 Phenomenology! You're a chaos magician! Or at least, you should seriously look into it. You're skeptical of absolute truth and of the individual self, and realize that nothing is true and everything is permitted. You want a strict scientific approach to reality but are willing to forgo the poverty of reductionism. You can commune with spirits and make yourself an avatar of gods you realize may not have scientific validity, but treat them as real as your Aunt Petunia. All in all, the religious experience needs to be just that, experienced; as Frank Zappa once said, talking about music is like dancing about architecture. So what are you waiting for? Go make the world your magical playground. Thinkers you may agree with: Phil Hine, Peter Carroll, Grant Morrison, Alan Moore Thinkers to challenge you: Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker
Heh. In some ways, yes, that is a little how I experience the world. Of course, I could just enjoy the title a lot. Chaos Magician. That just sounds fracking cool. But, on a deeper level, to a larger than might be expected way, I acknowledge a large portion of my reality is shaped by how I want to perceive -throgh physical means at the very least (building or getting stuff), or when that proves insufficient, it gets changed by changing my perception of it (rationalizations like sweet lemon and sour grpaes are a very basic example of this sort of thinking in action).
Of course, on another level, I might just have an intellectual taste for holding discordant thoughts and putting them together. I think this might be closer to the truth of things, but it works well for me since I get to pull some of the cooler stuff out of things I see. Especially since, in the end, most of it isn't real (or at least really important) anyway. |
|
|
| Pericles |
[Jan. 16th, 2008|11:42 pm] |
Some people say classics are things that are often talked of highly, but rarely read or heard. I can't say that I necessarily disagree; it's easy to talk about some things in high terms, but to not have actually gotten around to experiencing it. Well, I can take one of those things off of that list: Pericles' Funeral Oration. My God. Every person who lives in a country that calls itself a democracy should be required to read this. It's really citizenship 101. Granted, I usually get goosebumps when people start talking about duty and responsibility, but this was even past that. It was one of the best essay length reads (ie a page or two) I've ever seen.
Some bits that really got me:
Our love for beauty does not make us extravagant, and our love of things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used and not as something to boast about.
The way we live differs in another respect from that of our enemies. Our city is open to all the world. We have never had any aliens' laws to exclude anyone from finding our or seeking anything here, nor any secrets of the city that an enemy might find out about and use to his advantage.
Our form of does not imitate the laws of neighboring states. On the contrary, we are rather a model to others.
No man is kept out of public office by the obscurity of his social standing because of his poverty, as long as he wishes to be of service to the state.
And not only in our public life are we free and open, but a sense of freedom regulates our day-to-day life with each other. We do not flare up in anger at our neighbor if he does what he likes. And we do not show the kind of silent disapproval that causes pain in others, even though it is not a direct accusation.
And we pay special regard to those laws that are for the protection of the oppressed and to all the unwritten laws that we know bring disgrace upon the transgressor when they are broken.
Inasmuch as my country (any country, really) lives up to these, I think they approach a certain level of perfection as a society, within the limits of what man is able to achieve at a given technological and cultural level. I really enjoy how Pericles stresses the idea that citizens, not the state itself, through their own actions and efforts are what make a state great, and are the actual source of it's power. In fact, if anything bothers me, it's a sort of self enforced powerlessness that makes people not even try to change things, or worse, to not even participate.
|
|
|
| Belli's Rules on Begging. |
[Jan. 3rd, 2008|04:55 pm] |
Some rather discomforting time spent on the Red Line train with a beggar has made me decide to put my rules on the giving or not giving of money, goods, and services into writing. I'd imagine most of these wouldn't apply to all people, but hey, I'm just putting mine out there...
1. All people deserve the time of day, until proven otherwise.
This isn;t to say that one should put oneself at risk, but simply an acknowledging nod satisfies the requirement's of human courtesy. Now, to be fair, some folks are going to be more pissed off than pleased. However, those folks are generally out there for things they don;t need, and pissing them off is worthwhile. For those who are legitimately begging, this at least establish them as humans with dignity.
2. In most cases, I will offer something from a nearby store.
In the big picture, this often means spending a dollar more than I might otherwise give. Money is too easily converted. I don;t mind helping, but I like to know what I;m getting. Sort of the World Bank view of charity.
3. Sorry, I only give to one person a day, if at all.
Hey, I'm not rich, and if I was, I'd be donating to bigger organizations, which do more good than I could by using volume.
4. If you entertain me, be it with pleasant conversation or a good joke, I'm highly inclined to help, even if I think you're just buying booze.
After all, you brightened my day, I have no problem brightening yours. Besides, I like to encourage good, non-creepy behavior. If I most beggars left me feeling a little happier afterwards, I;d imagine most others would like them too.
5. The primary quality for my giving to you isn't need, it's deservingness.
Do something to show me you're a good person who deserves to be helped, and I'll be highly inclined to go out of my way.
6. If you act creepy or aggressive, I'm going to talk with you to A. Calm you down, and B. To waste your time so you don't bug others.
Just keep it in mind... |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
