There used to be a piece of furniture that was standard in any library of more than, say, 100 books. It was large, heavy, and cumbersome, and the space it occupied could have been replaced with every book ever written by Stephen King, plus all those by Nora Roberts. The more research-minded could have stored the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary in its space, and perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica as well. This piece of furniture was the card catalog.
I don't miss the card catalog.
What I do miss is the reverence with which the card catalog was held - reverence enough that one day in school we all trooped over to the school's library to be shown how to use that vast monstrosity of alphabetized index cards, sorted by author, title, or subject. "Pay attention," we were all told, "you'll need to know this."
As it turned out, we didn't need to know it. Or at least, not for very long. By the time we got to college there were electronic catalogs, and just around the corner was that greatest of all catalogs: the internet search engine. Need to know when the Russo-Japanese war was fought? Google it. Want to know who wrote "Leaves of Grass?" Ask Jeeves. Curious as to how the chunnel was dug? Plug it into Yahoo. The search engine bypasses the card catalog entirely, taking you directly to the information you want - if you know how to use it.
Was anyone taught how to actually use a search engine? Perhaps I was absent that day. But it seems to me that the electronic search engine can take more time to use thant he card catalog, if you don't really know what you're doing. Which is why I rejoiced when I found this little tool (rejoiced? well, I tagged it for delicious, which is pretty much the same thing, right?). As you create your search query on this overlay of Google, using any or all of several advanced options, it shows you how to create the same search directly in a standard search box. Basically, it teaches you all of the syntax and operators needed to make a quick, useful search. Halleluijah.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The exam answers you wish you gave
I don't know where these came from originally, but I first saw them in an email at school. Click to enlarge.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Survival of the most valued
Yesterday on NPR, or perhaps the day before, I heard a spot on the domestication of the cat. Current theory proposes that early, proto-domesticated-cats would have been valued for their abilities to catch and destroy vermin. We can also propose that those cats who were encouraged to stay (or at least, not chased away) would have been those who were the most pleasing to the people in need of vermin control. Part of a cat's appeal would be the nature of its voice, and as cat owners know, there is something appealing in [most] house cats' calls. There is something endearing about the timbre, volume, inflection - something about their calls is socially encouraging.
The speaker compared the socially encouraging nature of house cats' voices to those of wildcats in the zoo, which he found sounded "permanently angry". Truthfully, I might be permanently angry if I was incarcerated in a zoo, and I don't know that I've ever seen a zoo inmate that I'd have called happy, but the point for this discussion is that wildcats, which I gather are genetically similar enough to house cats to successfully mate with them, have voices that are much less pleasant to our ears. The proposal, therefor, is that humans have unnaturally selected house cats for their voices, and for other features we find desirable.
At first glance, this may not seem much different than any form of natural selection - those cats whose traits best enabled them to survive in the world of humans flourished, while those cats who always seemed to be pissed-off failed to survive and procreate. But to look at the issue this way overlooks one key difference. This selection of cats was driven by human intervention. There may not have been a plan behind it, but there was definite intent - "oh, this cat is cute and has a pleasant voice; I think I'll feed it and provide it with shelter."
The phenomenon we describe as natural selection looks only at the relationship between the individual and its environment, and does not consider any guiding intelligence on the part of either. In the case of house cats (and dogs, and domesticated species generally) we find an element of intelligent design, for although we cannot design a species from scratch (yet), we can selectively breed individuals to enhance traits we prefer and reduce traits that we don't. We have hijacked Darwin.
Which leads me to a discussion of healthcare. Individuals who in the natural course of events would die without reproducing are allowed, through the tools and techniques of medicine, to survive, and their genes, including those that made them sickly and inclined to die, are preserved in the gene pool. Thus, instead of naturally shedding undesirable, and even harmful, genes; which would keep the gene pool and the species strong; we keep them and make our species as a whole weaker.
If our medical technology ever gives up or out, then we as a species may be doomed.
The speaker compared the socially encouraging nature of house cats' voices to those of wildcats in the zoo, which he found sounded "permanently angry". Truthfully, I might be permanently angry if I was incarcerated in a zoo, and I don't know that I've ever seen a zoo inmate that I'd have called happy, but the point for this discussion is that wildcats, which I gather are genetically similar enough to house cats to successfully mate with them, have voices that are much less pleasant to our ears. The proposal, therefor, is that humans have unnaturally selected house cats for their voices, and for other features we find desirable.
At first glance, this may not seem much different than any form of natural selection - those cats whose traits best enabled them to survive in the world of humans flourished, while those cats who always seemed to be pissed-off failed to survive and procreate. But to look at the issue this way overlooks one key difference. This selection of cats was driven by human intervention. There may not have been a plan behind it, but there was definite intent - "oh, this cat is cute and has a pleasant voice; I think I'll feed it and provide it with shelter."
The phenomenon we describe as natural selection looks only at the relationship between the individual and its environment, and does not consider any guiding intelligence on the part of either. In the case of house cats (and dogs, and domesticated species generally) we find an element of intelligent design, for although we cannot design a species from scratch (yet), we can selectively breed individuals to enhance traits we prefer and reduce traits that we don't. We have hijacked Darwin.
Which leads me to a discussion of healthcare. Individuals who in the natural course of events would die without reproducing are allowed, through the tools and techniques of medicine, to survive, and their genes, including those that made them sickly and inclined to die, are preserved in the gene pool. Thus, instead of naturally shedding undesirable, and even harmful, genes; which would keep the gene pool and the species strong; we keep them and make our species as a whole weaker.
If our medical technology ever gives up or out, then we as a species may be doomed.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Revenge effect
Edward Tenner, in his book Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences ((C) 1996, Knopf), coined the phrase revenge effect to describe the unintended negative consequences of technology. An example is the revenge effect of the air conditioner: air conditioners work by exporting heat and excess moisture from a building, making the air inside the building more comfortable; the revenge effect is that, since the air conditioners move this heat and moisture outside, the outside world becomes hotter, more humid, and less comfortable. This is most noteworthy in cities, where thousands, if not millions, of air conditioners do their part to made the outside air (and the inside air, for those who lack air conditioning) hot, humid, and miserable. Like this air-conditioning example, many revenge effects undermine the expected gains of the involved technology.
Revenge effects can be found in many, many disciplines, but some of the largest revenge effects involve disasters. New Orleans is an easy example: dikes and walls allowed the city to expand into otherwise flood-prone low lying areas, with the revenge effects being 1) the constant requirement for pumping water out of the city, and 2) catastrophic flooding when the dikes broke. But New Orleans is not the only example.
For many years, the forestry service had a policy of suppressing all forest fires, whether naturally occurring or not. At the time, this seemed a good idea, uncontrolled fire being generally a destructive thing, and money, men, and machines were poured into this effort, successfully containing and extinguishing forest fires. The eventual result, however, was the build-up of the underbrush that such fires had previously periodically cleared out. Today, forest fires burn hotter and fiercer than they used to, destroying trees that tended to survive normal fires, because the flames feed off of the built-up underbrush. Our previous fire suppression activities have made today's fores harder to suppress.
I have previously discussed risk homeostasis as it relates to driving, and arguably, this is another type of revenge effect.
Revenge effects are difficult to avoid, in part because they are difficult to predict. Everything is interrelated and interconnected. But they do deserve special attention, because the astute observer may see them before they become severe. Of course, the solution may well have revenge effects of its own. Two steps forward; one step back.
Revenge effects can be found in many, many disciplines, but some of the largest revenge effects involve disasters. New Orleans is an easy example: dikes and walls allowed the city to expand into otherwise flood-prone low lying areas, with the revenge effects being 1) the constant requirement for pumping water out of the city, and 2) catastrophic flooding when the dikes broke. But New Orleans is not the only example.
For many years, the forestry service had a policy of suppressing all forest fires, whether naturally occurring or not. At the time, this seemed a good idea, uncontrolled fire being generally a destructive thing, and money, men, and machines were poured into this effort, successfully containing and extinguishing forest fires. The eventual result, however, was the build-up of the underbrush that such fires had previously periodically cleared out. Today, forest fires burn hotter and fiercer than they used to, destroying trees that tended to survive normal fires, because the flames feed off of the built-up underbrush. Our previous fire suppression activities have made today's fores harder to suppress.
I have previously discussed risk homeostasis as it relates to driving, and arguably, this is another type of revenge effect.
Revenge effects are difficult to avoid, in part because they are difficult to predict. Everything is interrelated and interconnected. But they do deserve special attention, because the astute observer may see them before they become severe. Of course, the solution may well have revenge effects of its own. Two steps forward; one step back.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Yes, sir; no, sir
I've written about my SAT students' propensity to address me as Mr Badger, rather than just calling my by my first name as my DAT and MCAT students tend to do. I'm now teaching at West Point, as well, and my students here address me as "sir". I find this a bit humorous, a bit peculiar, a bit touching, and at times a bit unsettling.
Part of my reaction relates to my feeling very much their contemporary, in spite of the fact that I'm instructing them on the MCAT, which I have taken, and they haven't. Admittedly, though, I am as old as they are plus half again, and maybe that makes me less their contemporary than I tend to feel.
There is also the sense I have that using sir when addressing an instructor or authority figure (or maybe even a civilian, based on my encounters on campus) has been all but beaten into them. I'm not sure that they always realize that they're saying it. No doubt there are some psychological or sociological observations that could be made about that.
I'm having difficulty stating why I find it a bit touching, though. Maybe if I figure that out I'll come back and leave it as a comment.
Part of my reaction relates to my feeling very much their contemporary, in spite of the fact that I'm instructing them on the MCAT, which I have taken, and they haven't. Admittedly, though, I am as old as they are plus half again, and maybe that makes me less their contemporary than I tend to feel.
There is also the sense I have that using sir when addressing an instructor or authority figure (or maybe even a civilian, based on my encounters on campus) has been all but beaten into them. I'm not sure that they always realize that they're saying it. No doubt there are some psychological or sociological observations that could be made about that.
I'm having difficulty stating why I find it a bit touching, though. Maybe if I figure that out I'll come back and leave it as a comment.
Friday, January 11, 2008
FBI wiretap disconncted due to unpaid phone bill
The Bush, Jr administration has long argued that surveillance of potential terrorists (such as yours truly, no doubt) is so important that the government should not need to seek a court order before tapping suspect phone lines. Given the level of importance here, I was more than a little amused and bemused to learn that the success of these highly important wiretaps is threatened not only by the ACLU and the Supreme Court, but by the poor accounting practices. It appears that a wiretap includes the establishment of a new phone line, presumably running from the tapped line to J. Edgar Hoover's desk, and somehow the FBI had overlooked paying the bill for some of those lines for long enough that they were disconnected for nonpayment.
I suppose that I'm relieved, both because the government isn't getting a free ride and because someone has stood up to Bush, Jr and won. Perhaps Verizon can get us out of Iraq, too.
For those who are at work and can't listen to the NPR segment, here's the story from a few other agencies: ABC, Reuters, MSNBC, BBC,
I suppose that I'm relieved, both because the government isn't getting a free ride and because someone has stood up to Bush, Jr and won. Perhaps Verizon can get us out of Iraq, too.
For those who are at work and can't listen to the NPR segment, here's the story from a few other agencies: ABC, Reuters, MSNBC, BBC,
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Attend the tale, but wait till it comes out on DVD
Well, and so I've now seen Burton's Sweeney Todd. And it's not bad, but it's not great, either.
I was very impressed by Rickman as Turpin - I thought he did a great job. Cohen did a good job, too. And I didn't think that any of the actors were bad, though on the other hand I wasn't impressed by the singing abilities of either Depp or Carter. I thought "By the Sea" was very cleverly done, and by extension so was Epiphany" (though "Epiphany" seemed peculiar until it was revealed that he wasn't actually running around with a razor and being ignored by everyone). The setting was appropriately dim and dreary.
But I found the contrast between the underplayed singing and the lush score to be bit jarring, and several of the actors seemed to make a real distinction between singing and speaking, which I found to be a bit disruptive to the movie's flow. There also seemed points where the actors clearly waited for the score to catch up before
singing. I remember that in the stage production's wigmaker's sequence Sondheim included some spoken lines ("Repeat that. Repeat that!""Yes, Mr Todd.") to cover the change in key before Anthony sang in response to Sweeney, and the movie might have benefited from similar devices. Alternately, it might have been better off as a non-musical, perhaps using Sondheim's music as underscoring or background music.
So, see it, because it is a good story, but you don't need to see it in the theaters.
I was very impressed by Rickman as Turpin - I thought he did a great job. Cohen did a good job, too. And I didn't think that any of the actors were bad, though on the other hand I wasn't impressed by the singing abilities of either Depp or Carter. I thought "By the Sea" was very cleverly done, and by extension so was Epiphany" (though "Epiphany" seemed peculiar until it was revealed that he wasn't actually running around with a razor and being ignored by everyone). The setting was appropriately dim and dreary.
But I found the contrast between the underplayed singing and the lush score to be bit jarring, and several of the actors seemed to make a real distinction between singing and speaking, which I found to be a bit disruptive to the movie's flow. There also seemed points where the actors clearly waited for the score to catch up before
singing. I remember that in the stage production's wigmaker's sequence Sondheim included some spoken lines ("Repeat that. Repeat that!""Yes, Mr Todd.") to cover the change in key before Anthony sang in response to Sweeney, and the movie might have benefited from similar devices. Alternately, it might have been better off as a non-musical, perhaps using Sondheim's music as underscoring or background music.
So, see it, because it is a good story, but you don't need to see it in the theaters.
Lap cat, fat cat
A few nights ago, Scruffy, of his own accord, crawled into my lap to be petted for twenty or thirty minutes. He only left because I had to stand up - I forget why.
Of course, once he was out of my lap he ran off back to his lair.
I think it's a combination of general shyness and agoraphobia, as he sometimes will run to his shoebox, which offers him no protection at all.
Shadow, on the other hand, is overweight. That thought had been in the back of my mind for several days - her outline no longer looked quite right - though it hadn't moved forward enough to really reach conscious thought, and it has to be the reason for the real difference in weight between her and her brother. She was at the vet again a few days ago for her ear and this was pointed out to me. So, food is no longer available 24 hours a day, and I try to play with her and stir her up more that I had been, and we'll see what happens.
I'm also a little confused about her sociability. The past few times I've had visitors she has generally been willing to sniff an offered finger, but then will deliberately, unhurriedly walk off and disappear under the bed. Strange.
Of course, once he was out of my lap he ran off back to his lair.
I think it's a combination of general shyness and agoraphobia, as he sometimes will run to his shoebox, which offers him no protection at all.
Shadow, on the other hand, is overweight. That thought had been in the back of my mind for several days - her outline no longer looked quite right - though it hadn't moved forward enough to really reach conscious thought, and it has to be the reason for the real difference in weight between her and her brother. She was at the vet again a few days ago for her ear and this was pointed out to me. So, food is no longer available 24 hours a day, and I try to play with her and stir her up more that I had been, and we'll see what happens.
I'm also a little confused about her sociability. The past few times I've had visitors she has generally been willing to sniff an offered finger, but then will deliberately, unhurriedly walk off and disappear under the bed. Strange.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Don't surrender your common sense to your GPS
Yesterday, a commuter train hit a passenger car in Bedford Hills, New York. News reports state that the car's driver turned onto the tracks at the bidding of his GPS system, and mistook the tracks for the parkway that lay just beyond them.
Reports were unclear as to whether the man didn't realize that there was a railroad crossing at that location, or whether he thought he had safely passed through it when he made the turn onto the tracks, but I don't know that that matters. Photos of the wreck site show that the crossing is marked on each side with traditional cross bucks, wig-wags (the flashing red lights) and gates that lower over the roadway. A round "RAILROAD" sign appears before the crossing. To not realize that there was a railroad crossing he'd have to ignore the first set of signs and gates; to think he was through the crossing, he'd have to ignore the second set (those turned toward the traffic coming the other way - he wouldn't be able to read the signs, but those cross-bucks and the gate are unmistakable from either side). Admittedly, this all occurred after sundown, and the red lights at the crossing wouldn't have been flashing (time passed between his getting stuck and the arrival of the train), but a railroad-crossing cross buck is pretty obvious for what it is, and I have to assume that he had his headlights on.
I can therefor only guess that the driver wasn't paying attention. He surrendered his own judgment to the GPS unit, and when he heard it, or thought he heard it tell him to turn right, he complied without considering the advisability of doing so. And I'm not terribly surprised that he did, because we surrender a lot of our judgment to signs and traffic signals when we drive. The traffic light is green, and I proceed without stopping or even slowing to look for cross traffic. And this is the right thing to do, if we wish to use our roadways with anything approaching efficiency, but we have to be careful not to surrender too much, as this man clearly did.
It is probably our faith in signs and signals that leads us to believe that we can multi-task as we drive - we eat, drink coffee, fiddle with our CDs as we drive down the road. We talk on our cell phones, either using a hands-free unit or not. We shave. We put on makeup. Usually we get away with it, but incidents like this one remind us that we won't, always, so hang-up your cell phone, put down your CDs, and pay attention to what you're doing.
* No injuries were reported in connection with this accident
* The driver of the wrecked car and the company he rented it from are being held liable for the damage to the train and tracks, plus lost revenue and other expenses which are expected to total hundreds of thousands of dollars
* NTSB's database of railroad accidents
Reports were unclear as to whether the man didn't realize that there was a railroad crossing at that location, or whether he thought he had safely passed through it when he made the turn onto the tracks, but I don't know that that matters. Photos of the wreck site show that the crossing is marked on each side with traditional cross bucks, wig-wags (the flashing red lights) and gates that lower over the roadway. A round "RAILROAD" sign appears before the crossing. To not realize that there was a railroad crossing he'd have to ignore the first set of signs and gates; to think he was through the crossing, he'd have to ignore the second set (those turned toward the traffic coming the other way - he wouldn't be able to read the signs, but those cross-bucks and the gate are unmistakable from either side). Admittedly, this all occurred after sundown, and the red lights at the crossing wouldn't have been flashing (time passed between his getting stuck and the arrival of the train), but a railroad-crossing cross buck is pretty obvious for what it is, and I have to assume that he had his headlights on.
I can therefor only guess that the driver wasn't paying attention. He surrendered his own judgment to the GPS unit, and when he heard it, or thought he heard it tell him to turn right, he complied without considering the advisability of doing so. And I'm not terribly surprised that he did, because we surrender a lot of our judgment to signs and traffic signals when we drive. The traffic light is green, and I proceed without stopping or even slowing to look for cross traffic. And this is the right thing to do, if we wish to use our roadways with anything approaching efficiency, but we have to be careful not to surrender too much, as this man clearly did.
It is probably our faith in signs and signals that leads us to believe that we can multi-task as we drive - we eat, drink coffee, fiddle with our CDs as we drive down the road. We talk on our cell phones, either using a hands-free unit or not. We shave. We put on makeup. Usually we get away with it, but incidents like this one remind us that we won't, always, so hang-up your cell phone, put down your CDs, and pay attention to what you're doing.
* No injuries were reported in connection with this accident
* The driver of the wrecked car and the company he rented it from are being held liable for the damage to the train and tracks, plus lost revenue and other expenses which are expected to total hundreds of thousands of dollars
* NTSB's database of railroad accidents
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
When and why did headlights become so difficult to change?
I've probably done more maintenance, service, and installation work than most car owners. Along with headlights, brake lights, and battery, I replaced the fuel filter and the serpentine belt on my previous car. I also installed flashing lights, running the wires from the battery, though the firewall and up through the dashboard to a switch panel that I installed, then back through the firewall to the flasher, and from the switch panel, through the passenger compartment, into the trunk, and to another flasher. All of the wires were hidden, except where they came out of the dashboard behind the switch panel and ran into the panel's back. So when the headlight blew on my current car, I figured it would be easy to replace.
I was wrong. The driver's side headlight on a 2001 Saturn L-series sedan is beneath the fan control unit, and replacing the headlight requires that unit's removal. This was extra-complicated in my case because the bracket holding the fan control unit was warped. You then have to hire a six-year-old child to reach into the small space you have revealed, grasp the headlight, push it into its socket, and turn it a quarter turn. Then the lamp can be carefully be removed from its socket.
Unplugging the lamp, which can only be done once it's removed from the socket, requires finding and squeezing an unmarked, non-obvious button, and pulling firmly.
Installation is the reverse of removal, with the added difficulty that you can't touch the glass bulb with your fingers (or the bulb will eventually shatter). Also, the bulb looks like it fits in the socket at least two ways, but it only fits in one way.
Ironically, just last Friday my barber was telling me how he only changes the headlight on one side of his car - the other one he sends to the mechanic, because it's so difficult to do. Maybe I'll do that the next time the driver's side headlight blows.
Who designs these things?
I was wrong. The driver's side headlight on a 2001 Saturn L-series sedan is beneath the fan control unit, and replacing the headlight requires that unit's removal. This was extra-complicated in my case because the bracket holding the fan control unit was warped. You then have to hire a six-year-old child to reach into the small space you have revealed, grasp the headlight, push it into its socket, and turn it a quarter turn. Then the lamp can be carefully be removed from its socket.
Unplugging the lamp, which can only be done once it's removed from the socket, requires finding and squeezing an unmarked, non-obvious button, and pulling firmly.
Installation is the reverse of removal, with the added difficulty that you can't touch the glass bulb with your fingers (or the bulb will eventually shatter). Also, the bulb looks like it fits in the socket at least two ways, but it only fits in one way.
Ironically, just last Friday my barber was telling me how he only changes the headlight on one side of his car - the other one he sends to the mechanic, because it's so difficult to do. Maybe I'll do that the next time the driver's side headlight blows.
Who designs these things?
I have over a stone of cat
Scruffy went to the vet today to receive his microchip, and though Shadow already has one, I took her along for the opportunity to weigh her on their scale. Scruffy weighed in at 7.5 pounds; Shadow at 8.2. If a stone is fourteen pounds, I have 1 and 1/10 stone of cat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
