|
Policing police (3)
|
Mar 15, 2010
|
A few weeks ago I was driving on a 30-mph road near the high school in my town. It was the middle of the day, and I was behind a cop. The cop was driving at or under the speed limit (bravo), and he didn't have his siren or lights on. He didn't appear to be in any rush, which is unusual but perfectly acceptable. As we approached a stop sign, I maintained a safe following distance (of course) and watched as the cop slowed down only slightly, then coasted through the stop sign without coming to a complete stop, after which he continued on his leisurely way.
In my short time on this planet, I've seen cops do many seemingly illegal things. I've seen them turn around on those dirt roads in the middle of the highway where it says not to make any turns (emergency vehicles are allowed to do this). I've seen them drive through red lights on their way to important business. I've seen them travel obviously over the speed limit in an apparent attempt to apprehend a speeding suspect. These examples are all sort of gray areas, because we as a society have collectively agreed to exempt certain people from following laws when said people are trying to enforce laws. It's kind of a catch-22, but it's generally seen as a good thing. Otherwise, for example, everyone would speed all the time and simply ignore flashing lights in their rearview, knowing that eventually the cops would be left in the dust.
But I'm pretty sure failing to stop at a stop sign when not in pursuit of a criminal or somehow otherwise enforcing the law is a black and white issue. This cop should've gotten a ticket, been forced to pay a fine, and gotten points on his license and insurance. That's what would've happened if it had been anyone else in the same situation, except an attractive young girl with a good crying reflex. So the question that comes to mind is: Who polices the police? Who makes sure the law-enforcers remain law-followers? Because if there's one group I'd sign up for in a heartbeat, it would be that one. #law
|
|
Flatland (3)
|
Mar 15, 2010
|
Flatland is a book written by a British schoolmaster in 1884 about a two-dimensional being who lives in a two-dimensional world and is visited by a three-dimensional being from a three-dimensional world. This may sound like possibly the worst topic for a book in the history of the universe, and I would agree with that premise, except that I read the book a few weeks ago and it kind of blew my mind. It was mentioned on a recent episode of the geeky TV show The Big Bang Theory, and it turned out Wendy's former boss had given her a copy several years ago inscribed with the words, "I hope you like this better than the Bible," which is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read, both because the book doesn't quite measure up in any significant way to the Bible no matter how you look at it (take, for example the fact that the average human has never even heard of Flatland), and because this was Wendy's boss. The backstory makes a little more sense as Wendy had just started working and one of the few things her boss knew about her was that she read the Bible. Regardless, thanks for the book.
Anyway, the book is essentially about perspective. It was nearly impossible for the two-dimensional being to understand the idea of a third dimension because he wasn't equipped with the ability to comprehend it. He understood "length" and "width" because that's what his two-dimensional world consisted of, but the idea of "height" simply couldn't be explained rationally from the perspective of two dimensions. It was only after visiting a one-dimensional world and having difficulty communicating the idea of two dimensions to the one-dimensional inhabitants that the two-dimensional being could fathom the possibility of a three-dimensional world.
This theme has two main implications, both of which are at least slightly ridiculous, but which I will explore nonetheless. The first is that there could conceivably be more than three spacial dimensions. And while that idea sounds fantastical, our objection to it has the exact same basis as the two-dimensional being's objection to a three-dimensional world: It doesn't fit in with our current understanding of things, therefore it can't possibly be true. And just like the two-dimensional being was proven wrong by a visit from a three-dimensional being, so could we too be proven wrong by a visit from a four-dimensional being, or a five- or six-dimensional being, whatever that even means.
Second, the human concept of "God" could be our interpretation of a visit from a four-dimensional being, which either means (a) our "God" is one of many gods, none of which are more worthy of worship than the next, or (b) we should aspire to learn about this being from another dimension so that we can expand our minds and understand our position in the grand scheme of things.
Personally, I'm sticking with option (b) because it better fits into my current system of understanding, which I fully realize is a perfect example of irony. #entertainment
|
|
Human salary cap
|
Mar 12, 2010
|
One of my work associates was ranting about the immense wealth of Warren Buffett and suggested that he step aside and let somebody else give it a try. I mentioned that Buffett is fairly good at whatever it is he does, seeing that he's consistently ranked as one of the top three richest humans on the planet. My associate suggested the idea that perhaps someone could do an even better job, but we'll never know one way or the other because successful people are rewarded with the option to continue doing what they're doing, which isn't a bad thing, but which certainly diminishes the chances that another person will get a similar opportunity. So he suggested we implement a salary cap for human beings. Say $10 million. Once you make $10 million, you're out of the game. We'll appreciate you and pat you on the back, but now it's your turn to step aside and give somebody else the reins. I think it's a pretty good idea, so you can count me in: I promise to quit doing what I'm doing once I make $10 million.
Twenty minutes later, the guy comes back and says, "Better play it safe and make it $100 million." #money
|
|
Product placement
|
Mar 12, 2010
|
|
I get annoyed by product placement ads on TV shows. I'm fine with the Coke cups on the judges table on American Idol. I understand that's a form of advertising, but it's unobtrusive enough to not even realize it's there. The Jay Leno Show, or whatever that stupid hour-long commercial is called these days, is a little different. And I'm not the only one who noticed. The one episode I watched had a segment that consisted of the celebrity guest driving a car around a little outdoor track to try to get the fastest time. The car was some new electric Ford sedan, and I couldn't help but notice that this was a really long commercial not even cleverly disguised as a segment of a TV show. I mean, if you're gonna try to sell me crap I don't want, at least cut to commercial first so I know when to press the fast-forward button on my DVR. #entertainment
|
|
Ignorance is good
|
Mar 11, 2010
|
|
Ignorance, or simply being unaware, is a good thing sometimes (you might even call it bliss). But only if you're ignorant. When you're ignorant, you don't know things, and you don't even know that you don't know them. And as they say, what you don't know can't hurt you. But as soon as you find out, you're no longer ignorant; you're aware. And once you're aware of your ignorance, you can't go back. You can't un-know something. So really, we should be celebrating and protecting our ignorance, instead of constantly doing things to destroy it. Things like learning and reading and such. #psychology
|
|
iPod complaints
|
Mar 11, 2010
|
The iPod is a wonderful piece of machinery. I was a late adopter, but I'm a full convert now. I've used some other mp3 and video players, and nothing is quite as sexy as the iPod. My only complaints are the following: - Navigation. The clickwheel was a novel concept, and it's good for moving quickly through long lists of albums and songs. But it doesn't have fine-tuned control, and that's a problem. Pretty much every time I try to navigate to a specific item in a list, I accidentally overshoot it by one, then I overshoot it again on the way back. A solution would be to give the user some tactile feedback so he/she could "feel" each item in a list, kind of like the volume dials on many car radios.
- Scratches. The screen gets scratched easily, but oh well. The more easily-fixable scratchable surface is the beautiful stainless steel on the back of the device. I realize a scratched back surface doesn't affect the functionality of the iPod, but it's the thought that counts. One solution would be to use titanium, or some other light, hard metal. I would say tungsten, but it's heavy (unless that's what you're going for).
- Podcast sorting. Podcasts are essentially recorded radio programs, and they're broadcast in chronological order. So why would I want to listen to the newest one first? That's how the iPod does things, and I would at least like the option to do things my way.
That's really it. Otherwise it's the best device ever invented, besides the Xlerator. #technology
|
|
Pop culture illiteracy (1)
|
Mar 11, 2010
|
|
I watched a little bit of the Oscars the other night, and I felt like I was from another planet. I have no clue what movies they're talking about or who the presenters are. You see, I don't watch many new movies. Especially ones that win awards or have the tendency to do so. It's the same with new music. I don't know who Lady Gaga is, or T-Pain, or whatever else the young kids are playing through their fancy mp3-doohickeys. I've pretty successfully removed myself from pop culture, and I don't really see that as a bad thing. #entertainment
|
|
Content overload
|
Mar 10, 2010
|
|
I recently traveled for work for a week and didn't have much access to a computer. When I got back, I was overloaded with things to read and catch up on. Nothing important, of course. Just entertainment and time-wasters like Not Always Right and IMMD. But I think I finally reached the point of content over-consumption. It's no longer even enjoyable. I just do it to do it. So I went through and unsubscribed from about 15 things in my feed reader. Here's to less content overload! #technology
|
|
Rules grammar change
|
Mar 10, 2010
|
This just in from the Onion Radio News: Rules grammar change: English traditional replaced be new syntax. The Onion Radio News it's, Redland Doyle I'm. The US Grammar Secretary that no more will rules English follow announced today. The changes verbs, verb clauses, and adjectives placing involved frequent with random shuffling or elimination conjunctions and prepositions of. Grammar Secretary to according: "Is new structure loosely on obscure 800-year-old pre-medieval Anglo-Saxon syntax based." This week beginning American across all dictionaries, highway signs, and other books or objects writing upon revised to fit new syntax will be. This is one of my favorite Onion things ever. It's almost identical to a story they published over a decade (!) ago. #language
|
|