Judging by the enormous number of misuses I've seen of late, I'd estimate we are no more than a half dozen years away from completely losing the distinction between 'effect' and 'affect'.
If Stimulus II: This Time We'll Call It Jobs Because We've Already Tainted The Word 'Stimulus' With Our Ineptitude goes through, I would consider supporting it if some significant amount of money were spent on distributing copies of Strunk & White to everyone who claims to be literate.
As is often the case, XKCD is there to give me hope.
Showing posts with label Annoypid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Annoypid. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Truth of the Day
Fascinating article in the NY Times about an expensive piece of bomb-detecting equipment that the Iraqi government is quite enamored of which has the sole drawback of being comically useless:
This is a big part of the reason that I feel civilization rests on such infirm footing, despite seemingly irrefutable evidence to the contrary. The glorious achievements of our civilization were not natural or inevitable, nor is the maintenance of the modes of thought needed for their further existence. Indeed, most of humanity would gladly embrace the pleasantly irrational, civilization be damned, than do the hard work of maintaining rationality. For an example from the very heights of the "rational West", just look at the anti-vaccine movement.
To detect materials, the operator puts an array of plastic-coated cardboard cards with bar codes into a holder connected to the wand by a cable. “It would be laughable,” Colonel Bidlack said, “except someone down the street from you is counting on this to keep bombs off the streets.”This heartfelt statement from the head of the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior’s General Directorate for Combating Explosives betrays the truth I referred to in the post's title:
Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator, who they say must be rested, with a steady pulse and body temperature, before using the device.
Then the operator must walk in place a few moments to “charge” the device, since it has no battery or other power source, and walk with the wand at right angles to the body. If there are explosives or drugs to the operator’s left, the wand is supposed to swivel to the operator’s left and point at them.
“Whether it’s magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,” said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-JabiriThough this fellow might be written off as a backwards yokel from a backwards region of the world, this is how most of humanity thinks, even today, even in the West where science seems to reign supreme. Rational thought is very alien to humanity. Scientific thought is an even more unnatural subset of rational thought. It's a rare person who is able to fully embrace it and takes real will for most people to even follow the logic of it, even in the face of literal centuries of evidence of its benefits.
This is a big part of the reason that I feel civilization rests on such infirm footing, despite seemingly irrefutable evidence to the contrary. The glorious achievements of our civilization were not natural or inevitable, nor is the maintenance of the modes of thought needed for their further existence. Indeed, most of humanity would gladly embrace the pleasantly irrational, civilization be damned, than do the hard work of maintaining rationality. For an example from the very heights of the "rational West", just look at the anti-vaccine movement.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Texting while driving part II: this time it's nuanced...
Perhaps I was too rash in my post about the texting-while-driving regulation.
This article is frightening in suggesting how much of this goes on, drawing particular attention to blue-collar folk tethered to a dashboard-mounted dispatch computer while driving massive trucks. This seems like an amazingly bad idea for a whole host of reasons and one that even I would concede might benefit from some regulation. (Though the cynic in me notes that in that last article, about the executive order, there were already complications raised about extending the ban to interstate drivers because of "industry concerns" aka: I paid good money to install that computer to tell my jackass drivers where to go, don't you dare say they can't use it!)
I standby my determination that texting (or emailing or watching youtube or reading dispatches or whatever) while driving is so self-evidently stupid as leave me mind-boggled that it happens at all.
The reasons I underestimated the extent of the problem are probably twofold:
a) I cannot conceive of caring so much about my job (or, he adds quickly lest you think he doesn't care about his job, any job, for that matter) that I would endanger my life or the lives of others(fn1) for it.
b) I represent an extreme case of the one-track mindedness the article notes:
fn1: Well, I say not the lives of others. Maybe I wouldn't mind endangering the lives of others so long as I got to choose the others. I kid! I kid! I kid b/c I have a warped and disturbing sense of humor.
This article is frightening in suggesting how much of this goes on, drawing particular attention to blue-collar folk tethered to a dashboard-mounted dispatch computer while driving massive trucks. This seems like an amazingly bad idea for a whole host of reasons and one that even I would concede might benefit from some regulation. (Though the cynic in me notes that in that last article, about the executive order, there were already complications raised about extending the ban to interstate drivers because of "industry concerns" aka: I paid good money to install that computer to tell my jackass drivers where to go, don't you dare say they can't use it!)
I standby my determination that texting (or emailing or watching youtube or reading dispatches or whatever) while driving is so self-evidently stupid as leave me mind-boggled that it happens at all.
The reasons I underestimated the extent of the problem are probably twofold:
a) I cannot conceive of caring so much about my job (or, he adds quickly lest you think he doesn't care about his job, any job, for that matter) that I would endanger my life or the lives of others(fn1) for it.
b) I represent an extreme case of the one-track mindedness the article notes:
The reason, researchers say, is that the brain can effectively perform only one difficult task at a time.I find it almost literally impossible to focus on more than one thing at a time, even if neither thing is particularly engaging or important. If I'm reading a book or watching television or doing whatever I get so focused that it is near impossible for me to even maintain conversation, a fact noted on numerous occasions by both my girlfriend and my mother.
fn1: Well, I say not the lives of others. Maybe I wouldn't mind endangering the lives of others so long as I got to choose the others. I kid! I kid! I kid b/c I have a warped and disturbing sense of humor.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Art of Not Lying**
President Obama addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations yesterday and gave what I found to be a fairly appalling speech -- though, to be sure, not significantly more appalling than his usual obviously deceptive, overly obstreperous, often inane and surprisingly incoherent speeches.
Perhaps the most baldly prevaricative statements came towards the end:
"And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal."
"There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny."
Were the obviously fraudulent Iranian elections that led to weeks of protest in the street, --protest met by that evil regime with murder and intimidation and by our own lofty President Obama with delay and dissembling before weak condemnation -- so long ago that he thinks we have forgotten?
"Always stand"? "Never waver"? It was less than 4 months ago that he himself didn't stand and did waver on precisely those principles! I wonder if he honestly believes his own bullshit or thinks that everyone else is so stupid that he can say whatever he wants, however contradicted by reality his words might be, and get away with it.
He does this kind of thing all the time, on matters great and small. Last Sunday, George Stephanopoulos(fn1) asked him how fining people who don't buy health insurance -- as Obama has said he would do -- is not a tax? Obama said it's just not. Only a liar would say it was. Stephanopoulos cited the Webster's dictionary definition of "tax" in support of his question, to which Obama replied "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now." I see, so when Obama denies that a word means what it means, he is right, not the dictionary. Nor, apparently, is the bill he was defending, which calls the charge a tax, correct. Whatever Obama says at the moment is right. Reality bends to his needs.
Or, later during that same Sunday morning media blitz, when Obama suggested that he is holding off on committing more troops to Afghanistan -- troops that were requested in a strategy document sent to him a month ago by his own chosen general -- because we are "lacking a strategy", he seems to want to imply that Bush screwed up Afghanistan, left us without a goal or a strategy and that Obama must fix that problem before moving on to questions of resources. He must think we are so stupid that we have forgotten his speech of last March (6 months ago!) "announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan". A strategy that marked "the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office." Clearly, he was either lying then about having carefully developed a strategy or he is lying now about not having one. Or, perhaps most likely, both.
I honestly cannot understand how our supposedly bright punditocracy continues to gush over his enormously similar speeches. Yes, he gives a good speech. His cadence and pronunciation, his gestures and pauses: he is a master, no doubt. But given that he gives every speech pretty much the same way, you would think at some point our professional political observers would start paying attention to the actual content of these wonderfully delivered speeches and discover that they are at best full of deception, often contradict previous statements and are usually in conflict with plain reality. Sometimes all at the same time.
** I've had something of a ground-swell of late asking for new posts -- well, as much of a 'ground-swell' as a blog whose highest readership number was barely in the double digits can generate, anyway. So here you go. I've been considering taking up the blog again but am leery. I've got some potential ideas but a lot of other stuff on my plate of late so don't go getting your hopes up. With any luck, this angry rant will turn my few beleaguered readers off to the point that I can retire in peace...
fn1: Can I just note how appalled I am to find "Stephanopoulos" in the spell-check? I hope they have it wrong.
Perhaps the most baldly prevaricative statements came towards the end:
"And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal."
"There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny."
Were the obviously fraudulent Iranian elections that led to weeks of protest in the street, --protest met by that evil regime with murder and intimidation and by our own lofty President Obama with delay and dissembling before weak condemnation -- so long ago that he thinks we have forgotten?
"Always stand"? "Never waver"? It was less than 4 months ago that he himself didn't stand and did waver on precisely those principles! I wonder if he honestly believes his own bullshit or thinks that everyone else is so stupid that he can say whatever he wants, however contradicted by reality his words might be, and get away with it.
He does this kind of thing all the time, on matters great and small. Last Sunday, George Stephanopoulos(fn1) asked him how fining people who don't buy health insurance -- as Obama has said he would do -- is not a tax? Obama said it's just not. Only a liar would say it was. Stephanopoulos cited the Webster's dictionary definition of "tax" in support of his question, to which Obama replied "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now." I see, so when Obama denies that a word means what it means, he is right, not the dictionary. Nor, apparently, is the bill he was defending, which calls the charge a tax, correct. Whatever Obama says at the moment is right. Reality bends to his needs.
Or, later during that same Sunday morning media blitz, when Obama suggested that he is holding off on committing more troops to Afghanistan -- troops that were requested in a strategy document sent to him a month ago by his own chosen general -- because we are "lacking a strategy", he seems to want to imply that Bush screwed up Afghanistan, left us without a goal or a strategy and that Obama must fix that problem before moving on to questions of resources. He must think we are so stupid that we have forgotten his speech of last March (6 months ago!) "announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan". A strategy that marked "the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office." Clearly, he was either lying then about having carefully developed a strategy or he is lying now about not having one. Or, perhaps most likely, both.
I honestly cannot understand how our supposedly bright punditocracy continues to gush over his enormously similar speeches. Yes, he gives a good speech. His cadence and pronunciation, his gestures and pauses: he is a master, no doubt. But given that he gives every speech pretty much the same way, you would think at some point our professional political observers would start paying attention to the actual content of these wonderfully delivered speeches and discover that they are at best full of deception, often contradict previous statements and are usually in conflict with plain reality. Sometimes all at the same time.
** I've had something of a ground-swell of late asking for new posts -- well, as much of a 'ground-swell' as a blog whose highest readership number was barely in the double digits can generate, anyway. So here you go. I've been considering taking up the blog again but am leery. I've got some potential ideas but a lot of other stuff on my plate of late so don't go getting your hopes up. With any luck, this angry rant will turn my few beleaguered readers off to the point that I can retire in peace...
fn1: Can I just note how appalled I am to find "Stephanopoulos" in the spell-check? I hope they have it wrong.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Greed apparently not always good
Oliver Stone is looking to make a Wall Street sequel.
As long as we're going with bad ideas, why not follow in the footsteps of the ultimate bad-idea man, George Lucas, and have an entire awful trilogy to crap all over the magnificent creation of your youth?
Wall Street: The Phantom Prosperity
Wall Street: Attack of the CDO's
Wall Street: Revenge of the Socialists
Best part? Shia Labeouf is up for it. You know, I'm a nice guy. I don't wish harm on anyone. But it's really hard not to wish at least some harm on Shia.
And I say this as one who enjoyed the odd Even Stevens episode as a guilty pleasure.
His good movie to bad movie ratio is skewed way to the dark side. This isn't, in and of itself, a reason to wish him harm, of course. There are lots of people who don't make good movies and never have that bother me little to not at all. But his failures tend to involve the steaming wreckage of beloved childhood memories of mine. Yes, Transformers was okay. But the last Indy film was an abomination. (fn1)
Wall Street is a good movie. It encapsulated its time well. I agree that the current financial mess could serve as a good backdrop for a movie. But, Oliver, please. Let some young auteur with a fresh take and feel for the times take a crack at it. Don't try to wedge Gekko into it. Don't ruin what we had with some half-baked cash-in staring that sack of overwhelmed youngster that is Shia.
I leave you with a link to Talking Heads This must be the place, the song playing as Charlie Sheen outfits his new apartment in Wall Street. Good tune, I always smile when it comes up on my iPod.
fn1: South Park had a memorable episode in which the kids are traumatized from having seen Indy getting raped. The rape being, of course, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Which I still haven't seen. And probably won't because while it was fun to watch the Nazis' faces melt when they looked in the Ark in Raiders, I fear that something similar would happen to me upon witnessing Crystal Skull.
As long as we're going with bad ideas, why not follow in the footsteps of the ultimate bad-idea man, George Lucas, and have an entire awful trilogy to crap all over the magnificent creation of your youth?
Wall Street: The Phantom Prosperity
Wall Street: Attack of the CDO's
Wall Street: Revenge of the Socialists
Best part? Shia Labeouf is up for it. You know, I'm a nice guy. I don't wish harm on anyone. But it's really hard not to wish at least some harm on Shia.
And I say this as one who enjoyed the odd Even Stevens episode as a guilty pleasure.
His good movie to bad movie ratio is skewed way to the dark side. This isn't, in and of itself, a reason to wish him harm, of course. There are lots of people who don't make good movies and never have that bother me little to not at all. But his failures tend to involve the steaming wreckage of beloved childhood memories of mine. Yes, Transformers was okay. But the last Indy film was an abomination. (fn1)
Wall Street is a good movie. It encapsulated its time well. I agree that the current financial mess could serve as a good backdrop for a movie. But, Oliver, please. Let some young auteur with a fresh take and feel for the times take a crack at it. Don't try to wedge Gekko into it. Don't ruin what we had with some half-baked cash-in staring that sack of overwhelmed youngster that is Shia.
I leave you with a link to Talking Heads This must be the place, the song playing as Charlie Sheen outfits his new apartment in Wall Street. Good tune, I always smile when it comes up on my iPod.
fn1: South Park had a memorable episode in which the kids are traumatized from having seen Indy getting raped. The rape being, of course, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Which I still haven't seen. And probably won't because while it was fun to watch the Nazis' faces melt when they looked in the Ark in Raiders, I fear that something similar would happen to me upon witnessing Crystal Skull.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Boxing Day
I work, as some readers know, for a large corporation. (We're trying to keep this thing at least nominally anonymous so, please, those of you who know which one, don't go shouting out the answer -- or even any hints. Thx.) I work in the corporate headquarters building. As corporate headquarters are wont to have, it has corporate security. They are perfectly nice fellows, so far as I have interacted with them, but they are most definitely carrying out fairly specific rules that have been given to them. I ran into one of these rules in a rather amusing way the other day.
A few weeks back I ordered some t-shirts online. They were too small but the store has free exchanges: you print out a packing slip, rebox it and drop it at the post office. Since there is a post office that is very convenient to my office, I took the boxed t-shirts to work to drop off during a spare moment.
Now, this box. It was a brown cardboard box just the right size to hold the 4 or 5 t-shirts it contained. So, a small box. Too small to put, say, a ream of paper in. Just about the right size to put one desk phone in, maybe.
So about 3:00 I decided to pop out to the post office with my box. As I walked through the turnstiles at the main entrance, a security guy stopped me and asked about the box.
"Where are you taking that?"
"To the post office."
"The mailroom or the post office?"(fn1)
"The Post Office."
"Are you bringing it back?"
"No, I'm mailing it."
"Do you have a form for that?"
A form? What? I was befuddled. He directed me to the security desk. I got over there and the nice security man there asked me about the box. It's my box, I said, with some shirts that I'm returning. He explained that no one may remove "anything" from the office without filling out a form saying what it is, why you are removing it, who approved the removal, and your supervisor's name. He gave me the form and told me to put my name down as "removing" and also as "authorizing" and whatever.
I asked him, "If I remove 'anything'? Because I brought this box in this morning, what if I brought in a gym bag, would I need a form to take it back out?"
"Yes, anything."
So as I finished filling out the form, as luck would have it, a lady was leaving the office and had come through the turnstiles behind us. She was carrying a large purse-like bag and also a large Duane Reade bag. And was, of course, just walking out, hassle free. Each of the two bags could hold maybe 3 boxes of my box's size. So I pointed her out and asked the guy, "See her? Why doesn't she have to fill out a form to remove those bags?"
"Those are her personal bags."
"So, to be clear, if I had put this box into a Duane Reade bag I would not have to fill out a form and we would not be having this conversation?"
"We don't search personal bags, you have a box."
"It's my personal box."
"It's not a bag."
"Again, I just want to understand, if I put this in a bag, you don't care. It's only because it's in a box."
The guy was confused so his supervisor who had returned to the desk as we were talking came over to see what was what. I asked him about the box-bag distinction.
"That's right," he said,"it sounds stupid, I know, but that's the rule."
"I think it sounds stupid because it is stupid," I said, "But now I know: take things out in bags, not boxes. Good to know."
fn1: Our headquarters is large enough to have its own mail system but we are not supposed to use it for anything but official correspondence and I am nothing if not a fastidious follower of corporate rule-making.
A few weeks back I ordered some t-shirts online. They were too small but the store has free exchanges: you print out a packing slip, rebox it and drop it at the post office. Since there is a post office that is very convenient to my office, I took the boxed t-shirts to work to drop off during a spare moment.
Now, this box. It was a brown cardboard box just the right size to hold the 4 or 5 t-shirts it contained. So, a small box. Too small to put, say, a ream of paper in. Just about the right size to put one desk phone in, maybe.
So about 3:00 I decided to pop out to the post office with my box. As I walked through the turnstiles at the main entrance, a security guy stopped me and asked about the box.
"Where are you taking that?"
"To the post office."
"The mailroom or the post office?"(fn1)
"The Post Office."
"Are you bringing it back?"
"No, I'm mailing it."
"Do you have a form for that?"
A form? What? I was befuddled. He directed me to the security desk. I got over there and the nice security man there asked me about the box. It's my box, I said, with some shirts that I'm returning. He explained that no one may remove "anything" from the office without filling out a form saying what it is, why you are removing it, who approved the removal, and your supervisor's name. He gave me the form and told me to put my name down as "removing" and also as "authorizing" and whatever.
I asked him, "If I remove 'anything'? Because I brought this box in this morning, what if I brought in a gym bag, would I need a form to take it back out?"
"Yes, anything."
So as I finished filling out the form, as luck would have it, a lady was leaving the office and had come through the turnstiles behind us. She was carrying a large purse-like bag and also a large Duane Reade bag. And was, of course, just walking out, hassle free. Each of the two bags could hold maybe 3 boxes of my box's size. So I pointed her out and asked the guy, "See her? Why doesn't she have to fill out a form to remove those bags?"
"Those are her personal bags."
"So, to be clear, if I had put this box into a Duane Reade bag I would not have to fill out a form and we would not be having this conversation?"
"We don't search personal bags, you have a box."
"It's my personal box."
"It's not a bag."
"Again, I just want to understand, if I put this in a bag, you don't care. It's only because it's in a box."
The guy was confused so his supervisor who had returned to the desk as we were talking came over to see what was what. I asked him about the box-bag distinction.
"That's right," he said,"it sounds stupid, I know, but that's the rule."
"I think it sounds stupid because it is stupid," I said, "But now I know: take things out in bags, not boxes. Good to know."
fn1: Our headquarters is large enough to have its own mail system but we are not supposed to use it for anything but official correspondence and I am nothing if not a fastidious follower of corporate rule-making.
Quick Question
Does anyone ever actually use the "Overwrite" feature in Windows where typing overwrites the text ahead of your cursor instead of inserting it or is it just there to annoy me whenever I accidentally brush the "Insert" key when reaching for its next-door-neighbor the "Home" key?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
When Analogies Attack
I was reading the "preview" of this week's NY Times Magazine article on Freeman Dyson and why he is crazy b/c he's not joining up with the global warming scare-team when I came across this:
The Beagle was the ship Darwin travelled on that provided him the time and opportunity to catalog the observations that led to his theory of evolution and book laying out said theory "On the Origin of Species".
So the NY Times Review of Books is akin to a ship that gravitas sails on? Or it's the tool that allows gravitas to create new insights?
Am I missing something or is this gibberish?
I think what happened is the writer decided to forget that words actually mean something b/c it was just so nice to be able to shoehorn in a reference to another famously controversial-for-his-time scientist while reminding the reader of the "gravitas" of the NY Review of Books. It flowed so well the actual meaning (or lack thereof) of what he'd written seemed unimportant by comparison.
...The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin...What can it possibly mean? The NY Review of Books is to gravitas as the Beagle was to Darwin?
The Beagle was the ship Darwin travelled on that provided him the time and opportunity to catalog the observations that led to his theory of evolution and book laying out said theory "On the Origin of Species".
So the NY Times Review of Books is akin to a ship that gravitas sails on? Or it's the tool that allows gravitas to create new insights?
Am I missing something or is this gibberish?
I think what happened is the writer decided to forget that words actually mean something b/c it was just so nice to be able to shoehorn in a reference to another famously controversial-for-his-time scientist while reminding the reader of the "gravitas" of the NY Review of Books. It flowed so well the actual meaning (or lack thereof) of what he'd written seemed unimportant by comparison.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Historic
"So that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth..." - Abraham Lincoln
"So that poorly made cars assembled by overpaid labor to be sold at redundant dealerships shall not perish from the Earth..."(fn1) George W. Bush
A blogger I read had the humorous observation recently that the plan for the Big 3 seems to be that we bail them out so that we can force them to make green vehicles. This is, he points out, prob. the first time in history that the rationale has been "we have to save them so we can destroy them" rather than the other way around.
fn1: Note that I may be paraphrasing his actual remarks.
"So that poorly made cars assembled by overpaid labor to be sold at redundant dealerships shall not perish from the Earth..."(fn1) George W. Bush
A blogger I read had the humorous observation recently that the plan for the Big 3 seems to be that we bail them out so that we can force them to make green vehicles. This is, he points out, prob. the first time in history that the rationale has been "we have to save them so we can destroy them" rather than the other way around.
fn1: Note that I may be paraphrasing his actual remarks.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Unspoken Transgressions
So about a month or so ago when I was down home-ways for T-giving, I went over to a good friend's house for some traditional night-before-Thanksgiving, homemade pizza. The food was delicious, the company was wonderful, a great time was had by all.
While there, the guests had a fascinating discussion on sharing a bathroom with your superiors at the office: the awkwardness, the oddity, etc.
I should note here that I did not introduce this topic of conversation and am somewhat offended that you would leap to that conclusion. Shame on you.
That said, I did relay an awkward experience of my own. Please feel free to stop reading if you're not interested in proper urinal etiquette.
The mens room in my office features six urinals arranged in a row as such:
UUUUUU
Now, as any man will tell you, there is a correct order to the use of these urinals. The first fellow should take one end, the second the other, the third one of the middle ones and -- since there are an even number -- the fourth fellow might be better off using a stall or perhaps a sink rather than sidle up right next to someone who's already there. (fn1)
A few days before thanksgiving I happened to enter the bathroom immediately behind a coworker. And there was already one man at the urinals.
The first problem was that the current... occupant (I guess?) had already committed a small violation of etiquette, he had not gone to one end but rather was one urinal in from the end (fn2):
UUUUUU
o o o o 1 o
(I'm using "o" to indicate empty as the Blogger software seems to not like spaces used as spacing.)
But this can be regarded as a strip of 5 urinals and there are two fellows entering, so easy solution, right:
UUUUUU
2 o 3 o 1 o
This is what any sane person would do: go to the end, esp. realizing that the person who just walked through the door behind you is headed for the urinals as well.
But no.
This guy, in what was the most appalling disregard for the unspoken rules of life I think I have ever witnessed, instead went for the urinal one in from the other end:
UUUUUU
o 2 o o 1 o
Yeah. So now I was left in the unenviable position of having to choose one of the fellows to buddy up with or else, perhaps, wave off and hit a stall or pretend to wash my hands or something.
But you know what? This guy, number 2 in our example, had set me up for this. And so I figured: screw him. I went right next to him. I was tempted to have bad aim and leave him with a wet leg but decided not to take it that far this time:
UUUUUU
o 2 3 o 1 o
So that was then. It was a bizarre break with what I would have expected were the accepted norms in, at the very least, American mens room behaviour but there it is.
So today I happen to be headed into the bathroom to wash my hands (for real, actually, it was lunch time and I like to eat with clean hands) and a coworker walks in behind me and hits the completely unoccupied urinals. And chooses as such:
UUUUUU
o o 1 o o o
What the hell? Am I living in bizarro world? Is this guy some kind of alpha-A-hole (he doesn't seem the type and, really, most actuaries don't...) who is expressing his dominance by trying to take over the whole "watering hole" (so to speak...)?
Unfortunately my ability to remember my younger male coworker's names and faces is such that I don't know if this was the same jackass from my previous encounter but it could be. Either way, it's unacceptable.
fn1: These rules obv. do not apply in crowding situations such as at a ballgame or other heavily attended event. These are for your ordinary bathroom uses, which is to say largely empty ones.
fn2: At the dinner-party discussion of these events the point was raised that the fellow who was in there first might have had good reason for choosing his spot based on the use of the other urinals when he entered. I am willing to acknowledge that it is not impossible but find it highly unlikely. The only acceptable scenario would be every single other urinal was taken and that was almost certainly not the case.
While there, the guests had a fascinating discussion on sharing a bathroom with your superiors at the office: the awkwardness, the oddity, etc.
I should note here that I did not introduce this topic of conversation and am somewhat offended that you would leap to that conclusion. Shame on you.
That said, I did relay an awkward experience of my own. Please feel free to stop reading if you're not interested in proper urinal etiquette.
The mens room in my office features six urinals arranged in a row as such:
UUUUUU
Now, as any man will tell you, there is a correct order to the use of these urinals. The first fellow should take one end, the second the other, the third one of the middle ones and -- since there are an even number -- the fourth fellow might be better off using a stall or perhaps a sink rather than sidle up right next to someone who's already there. (fn1)
A few days before thanksgiving I happened to enter the bathroom immediately behind a coworker. And there was already one man at the urinals.
The first problem was that the current... occupant (I guess?) had already committed a small violation of etiquette, he had not gone to one end but rather was one urinal in from the end (fn2):
UUUUUU
o o o o 1 o
(I'm using "o" to indicate empty as the Blogger software seems to not like spaces used as spacing.)
But this can be regarded as a strip of 5 urinals and there are two fellows entering, so easy solution, right:
UUUUUU
2 o 3 o 1 o
This is what any sane person would do: go to the end, esp. realizing that the person who just walked through the door behind you is headed for the urinals as well.
But no.
This guy, in what was the most appalling disregard for the unspoken rules of life I think I have ever witnessed, instead went for the urinal one in from the other end:
UUUUUU
o 2 o o 1 o
Yeah. So now I was left in the unenviable position of having to choose one of the fellows to buddy up with or else, perhaps, wave off and hit a stall or pretend to wash my hands or something.
But you know what? This guy, number 2 in our example, had set me up for this. And so I figured: screw him. I went right next to him. I was tempted to have bad aim and leave him with a wet leg but decided not to take it that far this time:
UUUUUU
o 2 3 o 1 o
So that was then. It was a bizarre break with what I would have expected were the accepted norms in, at the very least, American mens room behaviour but there it is.
So today I happen to be headed into the bathroom to wash my hands (for real, actually, it was lunch time and I like to eat with clean hands) and a coworker walks in behind me and hits the completely unoccupied urinals. And chooses as such:
UUUUUU
o o 1 o o o
What the hell? Am I living in bizarro world? Is this guy some kind of alpha-A-hole (he doesn't seem the type and, really, most actuaries don't...) who is expressing his dominance by trying to take over the whole "watering hole" (so to speak...)?
Unfortunately my ability to remember my younger male coworker's names and faces is such that I don't know if this was the same jackass from my previous encounter but it could be. Either way, it's unacceptable.
fn1: These rules obv. do not apply in crowding situations such as at a ballgame or other heavily attended event. These are for your ordinary bathroom uses, which is to say largely empty ones.
fn2: At the dinner-party discussion of these events the point was raised that the fellow who was in there first might have had good reason for choosing his spot based on the use of the other urinals when he entered. I am willing to acknowledge that it is not impossible but find it highly unlikely. The only acceptable scenario would be every single other urinal was taken and that was almost certainly not the case.
Friday, December 5, 2008
It's stuff like this that makes people like me
Call me a wild-eyed libertarian but stories like this one rankle.
In a nutshell, a church's Christmas tree lot was shut down because it violated the Montgomery County law that prohibits sales of Christmas trees prior to Dec. 5.
You can count me in the group who is appalled at how early the commercial sector starts milking the holiday season each year but, honestly, a law?
Here's the best part: "officials could not determine why the law was enacted or even when, only that it was sometime in the late 1960s or early '70s".
Fantastic. Nobody knows why it's a law or even how long it's been a law.
This is why I sometimes think it would be much better if all laws had expiration dates and had to be renewed or cease being laws. You see, legislatures have to justify their existence, same as everybody else. They justify it by passing lots of laws. And those laws stack up. Until nobody knows or even can know them all. And that's when the law can become arbitrary in ways that are antithetical to the rule of law.
And that's not smiles times.
If they all had expiration dates then legislatures could busy themselves by re-authorizing the necessary ones and they wouldn't have to create busy work for themselves by crafting laws to deal with silly things like Christmas tree sales times.
In a nutshell, a church's Christmas tree lot was shut down because it violated the Montgomery County law that prohibits sales of Christmas trees prior to Dec. 5.
You can count me in the group who is appalled at how early the commercial sector starts milking the holiday season each year but, honestly, a law?
Here's the best part: "officials could not determine why the law was enacted or even when, only that it was sometime in the late 1960s or early '70s".
Fantastic. Nobody knows why it's a law or even how long it's been a law.
This is why I sometimes think it would be much better if all laws had expiration dates and had to be renewed or cease being laws. You see, legislatures have to justify their existence, same as everybody else. They justify it by passing lots of laws. And those laws stack up. Until nobody knows or even can know them all. And that's when the law can become arbitrary in ways that are antithetical to the rule of law.
And that's not smiles times.
If they all had expiration dates then legislatures could busy themselves by re-authorizing the necessary ones and they wouldn't have to create busy work for themselves by crafting laws to deal with silly things like Christmas tree sales times.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Stupid is as stupid does?
I got my lunch today, as I often do, from Lenny's, an NYC chain of sandwich shops. They make your basic made-to-order sandwiches and do a good job. I like Lenny's.
The one downtown, which is to say the one I frequent when at work, is a mob-scene during the lunch rush, from about 11:30 to 1:30, as are most food places around here. The ones that are not mobbed are not long for this world.
As most of the successful places have, Lenny's has got their ordering system down to something of a science to deal with the crush. You order at one place, take your slip, grab your drink, chips, fruit salad or whatever, and head to the register to pay. The cashier gives you the number to listen for when your sandwich is ready and then you stand milling around with the others waiting for your number and, if you're like me, grumbling when numbers after yours get called before you.
Today I got wrapped up in some stuff and didn't actually head over until about 2:00. When I hit Lenny's it was empty, though the full lunch staff was still working, so you had two cashiers and a multitude of sandwich makers. Having established a routine, of course, they stick to it, so I went through the usual steps: ordered, got slip, grabbed lemonade and chips, paid, got number.
But, again, I was the only customer in the place. Just me and the staff.
So when my sandwich was ready and I was over perusing the selection of ready-made pastas thinking they might be good for a future lunch do you think the lady calling out the number took note that there was only one person in the place?
Of course not.
No, she called it and then paused for approximately 3 seconds -- and did not use those 3 seconds to realize there was not a crowd in front of her, but rather an empty store with one person over by the refrigerated section -- and then called it again and then, pausing for 3 seconds again, read the order. As if someone might have forgotten their number but would recognize their order.
As it happens I had not forgotten my number but it took me longer than 6 seconds to traverse the store. I must say, though, that the level of lack of awareness was somewhat startling.
I think of these kinds of encounters when people make the argument that we need to get dramatically higher percentages of our population through higher education. That this would somehow benefit our economy or our population.
This lady would not benefit in the slightest from college, though I am sure she would enjoy the parties. And she is not alone. In point of fact, I'd say we're already a good bit past the point of diminishing returns in terms of who goes through higher education today. Many of today's "students" would benefit far more from an apprenticeship or other on-the-job training. They have no capacity or use for abstract thought and forcing it on them is much like teaching a pig to dance: ultimately futile and annoying to the pig.
The way people fall into this thinking is, I believe, a classic sort of false logic. They see that people who graduate from college are more productive than people who don't and then make the inference that college must have made the difference. But this is selection bias: smart people are more productive and more likely to go to college, but they would be smart and thus more productive even without the input of college.
There's also a bit of selection bias in that the kind of people who think about these kinds of issues are smart themselves. Smart people tend to cluster, so odds are most of their friends and acquaintances are likewise smart. So, unless they are particularly observant (as is your humble blogger), they have limited encounters with people who would not benefit from college. Combining that with the noble impulse to believe, contrary to all evidence, that everyone is roughly equally capable, you have people who almost literally cannot conceive of stupid people. They just zone them out.
Of course, if there were no stupid people then more college would be great. But that is not reality.
Larry Sechrest, an economist who died recently, wrote a fun little essay on the subject called "A Strange Little Town in Texas". He made his home in a little college in rural Texas where he believe the entire college -- professors, students and all -- functioned roughly at the level of a decent high-school.
The one downtown, which is to say the one I frequent when at work, is a mob-scene during the lunch rush, from about 11:30 to 1:30, as are most food places around here. The ones that are not mobbed are not long for this world.
As most of the successful places have, Lenny's has got their ordering system down to something of a science to deal with the crush. You order at one place, take your slip, grab your drink, chips, fruit salad or whatever, and head to the register to pay. The cashier gives you the number to listen for when your sandwich is ready and then you stand milling around with the others waiting for your number and, if you're like me, grumbling when numbers after yours get called before you.
Today I got wrapped up in some stuff and didn't actually head over until about 2:00. When I hit Lenny's it was empty, though the full lunch staff was still working, so you had two cashiers and a multitude of sandwich makers. Having established a routine, of course, they stick to it, so I went through the usual steps: ordered, got slip, grabbed lemonade and chips, paid, got number.
But, again, I was the only customer in the place. Just me and the staff.
So when my sandwich was ready and I was over perusing the selection of ready-made pastas thinking they might be good for a future lunch do you think the lady calling out the number took note that there was only one person in the place?
Of course not.
No, she called it and then paused for approximately 3 seconds -- and did not use those 3 seconds to realize there was not a crowd in front of her, but rather an empty store with one person over by the refrigerated section -- and then called it again and then, pausing for 3 seconds again, read the order. As if someone might have forgotten their number but would recognize their order.
As it happens I had not forgotten my number but it took me longer than 6 seconds to traverse the store. I must say, though, that the level of lack of awareness was somewhat startling.
I think of these kinds of encounters when people make the argument that we need to get dramatically higher percentages of our population through higher education. That this would somehow benefit our economy or our population.
This lady would not benefit in the slightest from college, though I am sure she would enjoy the parties. And she is not alone. In point of fact, I'd say we're already a good bit past the point of diminishing returns in terms of who goes through higher education today. Many of today's "students" would benefit far more from an apprenticeship or other on-the-job training. They have no capacity or use for abstract thought and forcing it on them is much like teaching a pig to dance: ultimately futile and annoying to the pig.
The way people fall into this thinking is, I believe, a classic sort of false logic. They see that people who graduate from college are more productive than people who don't and then make the inference that college must have made the difference. But this is selection bias: smart people are more productive and more likely to go to college, but they would be smart and thus more productive even without the input of college.
There's also a bit of selection bias in that the kind of people who think about these kinds of issues are smart themselves. Smart people tend to cluster, so odds are most of their friends and acquaintances are likewise smart. So, unless they are particularly observant (as is your humble blogger), they have limited encounters with people who would not benefit from college. Combining that with the noble impulse to believe, contrary to all evidence, that everyone is roughly equally capable, you have people who almost literally cannot conceive of stupid people. They just zone them out.
Of course, if there were no stupid people then more college would be great. But that is not reality.
Larry Sechrest, an economist who died recently, wrote a fun little essay on the subject called "A Strange Little Town in Texas". He made his home in a little college in rural Texas where he believe the entire college -- professors, students and all -- functioned roughly at the level of a decent high-school.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
New Guns for Criminals Program
Caught a story on NY1 last night about the expansion to Manhattan of a gun buyback program that has apparently been running in Brooklyn for a little while.
I'd just like to point out that gun buyback programs are indisputably stupid. They are a classic example of having good intentions and designing a government program that seems to straightforwardly advance those intentions but actually works precisely to undermine them.
When you buy guns you are enlarging the demand for guns. This increases the value of guns. This will increase the amount of guns supplied. Period.
Imagine it for any other non-gun thing and you will immediately see that it's true. In this excellent post an economist makes exactly this point using sneakers as the example. If the government decided to buy back sneakers, would we expect to see fewer people wearing sneakers afterwards? Or would we expect people to take the chance to sell their old, crappy sneakers and use the money to buy new, nice sneakers?
Why would we expect the same program targeting guns to have any different result?
The best part is that the success of this lunacy is judged based on how many guns they manage to buy. Awesome. You are tallying up the number of people who like to buy guns to whom you have given money to upgrade their gun. Well done.
I'd just like to point out that gun buyback programs are indisputably stupid. They are a classic example of having good intentions and designing a government program that seems to straightforwardly advance those intentions but actually works precisely to undermine them.
When you buy guns you are enlarging the demand for guns. This increases the value of guns. This will increase the amount of guns supplied. Period.
Imagine it for any other non-gun thing and you will immediately see that it's true. In this excellent post an economist makes exactly this point using sneakers as the example. If the government decided to buy back sneakers, would we expect to see fewer people wearing sneakers afterwards? Or would we expect people to take the chance to sell their old, crappy sneakers and use the money to buy new, nice sneakers?
Why would we expect the same program targeting guns to have any different result?
The best part is that the success of this lunacy is judged based on how many guns they manage to buy. Awesome. You are tallying up the number of people who like to buy guns to whom you have given money to upgrade their gun. Well done.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Ah city life... (updated)
So this morning at about 4:30 my next door neighbor (the apparent prostitute) had a knock-down, drag-out fight with her boyfriend. I'm talking screamed obscenities, thrown stuff, slammed doors, the works.
For like an hour. Then all was quiet for an hour or so and then the fight resumed with all of its original intensity and ended when she stormed out. She came back half an hour or so later banging on the door demanding her phone.
From what I could gather, the fight was about him cheating on her. Why a prostitute would be upset by her boyfriend cheating on her I do not know.(See update below...) I'd also love to know what the intermission in the fight was all about.
Regardless, living next door to people who are regularly up and active during the 4 am. hour during the week is growing very tiresome. Literally.
Happily, we're gone by the end of Nov. come hell or high water. Started looking at rentals yesterday. Saw some possibilities.
Update: So after conversing with my girl and comparing notes, we've decided that the girl who was arguing with her boyfriend was not, in fact, the prostitute. Rather, the boyfriend is apparently holed up at the prostitute's place and this girl found him there and was understandably upset about it. This explains her repeated screams of "what are you even doing here!?!?!?" as well as why she would not have access to the keys to retrieve her phone.
Ah, prostitutes.
For like an hour. Then all was quiet for an hour or so and then the fight resumed with all of its original intensity and ended when she stormed out. She came back half an hour or so later banging on the door demanding her phone.
From what I could gather, the fight was about him cheating on her. Why a prostitute would be upset by her boyfriend cheating on her I do not know.(See update below...) I'd also love to know what the intermission in the fight was all about.
Regardless, living next door to people who are regularly up and active during the 4 am. hour during the week is growing very tiresome. Literally.
Happily, we're gone by the end of Nov. come hell or high water. Started looking at rentals yesterday. Saw some possibilities.
Update: So after conversing with my girl and comparing notes, we've decided that the girl who was arguing with her boyfriend was not, in fact, the prostitute. Rather, the boyfriend is apparently holed up at the prostitute's place and this girl found him there and was understandably upset about it. This explains her repeated screams of "what are you even doing here!?!?!?" as well as why she would not have access to the keys to retrieve her phone.
Ah, prostitutes.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Article on "hidden majorities" of women and minorities
Here's an article on "hidden majorities" of women and minorities that brings up the constitution's 3/5's compromise. The author here doesn't explicitly get the point of the compromise wrong but the way she brings it up kind of hints to me that she's the type who would get it wrong. And since it's a huge pet peeve of mine, I'm going to explain it here.
So often people bring up the 3/5's compromise as a sign of how awful our founding fathers were. "Look," these types of people say, "they were such racists that they codified into law that black people were only worth 3/5's of a white man!"
This gets the point of the compromise precisely backwards. Setting aside the fact that the constitution quite purposefully never mentions race, the argument was about how much slaves would count when apportioning representation. That is, the constitution establishes that we will have a census and that our representatives in the House of Representatives will be apportioned among the states based on their share of population.
(At least that's how it is now. Originally, of course, the plan was to just add more Reps for new population, keeping the ratio of people-to-Rep constant at around 30,000. Now, the number of Reps is fixed at 435 and only the apportionment between states is adjusted to match population shifts.)
So given that you were going to be doling out Representatives based on population, you are naturally going to have more power going to states with higher populations. So how should slaves count? Under the deluded "How racist it is not to count them as full people!" argument, you would count them as one each. But given that they are owned by other people, all you are doing is increasing the power of the slave-holders. If you count them as less than one per slave, you are decreasing that power.
This is why it was the anti-slave Northern states that were arguing for not counting slaves at all -- not because they thought slaves weren't people but because they didn't want to give all that power to the slaveholders that they opposed. On the other side, you had the slave-holding states arguing that slaves should count as full people -- not because they thought of slaves as their equals but because they wanted more power. Thus the 3/5's compromise. The reason they were counted as less than a full person was due to the anti-slavery side.
God how I wish people would get this straight. Getting it wrong betrays not only an utter lack of knowledge about the constitutional creation process but also a pretty shaky grasp of the logic of political representation.
After bringing up the 3/5's compromise, the author goes on to say this:
Women were counted as zero-fifths -- at least symbolically -- unable to vote nationwide until 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment, behind Australia
and Canada and lots of other countries.
This is just plain idiotic. Slaves weren't allowed to vote either so by this logic the 3/5's compromise was really a 0/5's compromise! Yeah! Oh wait, no. This is just the author trying to be a little more clever than she is apparently capable of being.
I also don't particularly like the snide naming of a couple of countries and the "lots of other countries" that beat us to women's suffrage. Why not point out that "lots of other countries" still don't allow women to vote? Or have other basic rights? Or you could point out that Canada is currently engaged in a debate over whether they should have the right to free speech, a right that, if you lack it, makes voting largely irrelevant.
Yes we were slower to the punch on women's suffrage than some and eons ahead of most of the globe on that and so many other issues. It's a shame we weren't born perfect but then nobody is.
Monday, July 28, 2008
good, good
A brief note to the creators, whoever you are, of the most annoying currently airing ad: the Wendy's ad for their warm chicken salad. The ad's main copy is as follows:
"If warm chicken tastes good... and cold, crunchy veggies taste good... wouldn't a warm chicken, cold, crunchy salad taste good good?"
The answer, in case anyone is so completely illiterate as to not know, is "Of course not, you blithering idiot." Adjectives in English are not increased in intensity by repetition. In fact, this is exactly the kind of linguistic habit that parents try to break small children of.
Thanks so much for simultaneously striking a blow against good grammar while polluting my favorite television shows with more vapid adverts for empty calories. The fact that you're advertising a salad does not make up for the assault on our language.
I sometimes wish I believed in hell so I could have the satisfaction of wishing it on the sorts of people who create these kinds of things. Alas, alas.
"If warm chicken tastes good... and cold, crunchy veggies taste good... wouldn't a warm chicken, cold, crunchy salad taste good good?"
The answer, in case anyone is so completely illiterate as to not know, is "Of course not, you blithering idiot." Adjectives in English are not increased in intensity by repetition. In fact, this is exactly the kind of linguistic habit that parents try to break small children of.
Thanks so much for simultaneously striking a blow against good grammar while polluting my favorite television shows with more vapid adverts for empty calories. The fact that you're advertising a salad does not make up for the assault on our language.
I sometimes wish I believed in hell so I could have the satisfaction of wishing it on the sorts of people who create these kinds of things. Alas, alas.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Public Notice
Please be advised that the recent film "The Dark Knight" was very good and just plain fantastic for a super-hero film. If you are going to express contrary opinions, please consider the effect this will have on any listener's opinion of your intelligence and taste and preferably only express them in the solitude of your closet, at night, alone.
Please do not express them at work, in the cube next to mine.
Good grief, these are different chuckleheads than the cultural illiterates I heard bad-mouthing "There Will Be Blood" but, honestly, what kind of people do I work with here?
Please do not express them at work, in the cube next to mine.
Good grief, these are different chuckleheads than the cultural illiterates I heard bad-mouthing "There Will Be Blood" but, honestly, what kind of people do I work with here?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Public Notice
There Will Be Blood is an excellent, excellent movie.
People who do not share this opinion should take care not to air it in public for fear someone whose taste in movies is not abominable will overhear.
Don't say you weren't warned when you lose the respect of your betters over your horrid taste in movies.
People who do not share this opinion should take care not to air it in public for fear someone whose taste in movies is not abominable will overhear.
Don't say you weren't warned when you lose the respect of your betters over your horrid taste in movies.
An open letter to the girl in the next cube
Please, please, please learn to do whatever it is you do without muttering what you're reading under your breath. It's almost as annoying as the horse-like sound you make when you eat those pretzel sticks every afternoon for four hours.
In fairness, your sing-songy multi-hour long gossip phone conversations during which you alternate between desk phone and cell phone, occasionally using both at once, is still by far your most annoying habit.
By contrast, I've almost learned to ignore the loud clomping noise your shoes make whenever you take more than a single step and sometimes even then.
But please. The muttering-under-your-breath-as-you-read thing is a bridge too far. There have to be limits.
PS. None of the above should be construed in any way as a suggestion that you should begin once more to listen to crappy Chinese pop music on your computer's speakers. Everyone in earshot of you is glad that you finally stopped after the four-dozenth complaint. -b
In fairness, your sing-songy multi-hour long gossip phone conversations during which you alternate between desk phone and cell phone, occasionally using both at once, is still by far your most annoying habit.
By contrast, I've almost learned to ignore the loud clomping noise your shoes make whenever you take more than a single step and sometimes even then.
But please. The muttering-under-your-breath-as-you-read thing is a bridge too far. There have to be limits.
PS. None of the above should be construed in any way as a suggestion that you should begin once more to listen to crappy Chinese pop music on your computer's speakers. Everyone in earshot of you is glad that you finally stopped after the four-dozenth complaint. -b
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
