A history of lighting in Raleigh (fire -> LED)
Ant fiction! Exciting!
Staring at the sun.
Hope those in the eastern US managed to enjoy the snowy weather. I got snowed in and pretty much loved it, since it forced me to take some time and pause.
1.31.2010
1.28.2010
last post of the day
...unless something rather groundbreaking is announced. Saw this a while back, but now NPR's picked it up:
Crayon nerdery. (I'm especially fond of the term "crayon sluts.")
Crayon nerdery. (I'm especially fond of the term "crayon sluts.")
rustic hotels
They look cool, but I'm reminded of the book That was Then, This is Now:
Besides, it was hard to tell a Soc from a greaser. Now the greasers wore their hair down on their foreheads instead of combed back-this went for Mark and Me too-and the Socs were trying to look poor. They wore old jeans and shirts with the shirt tails out, just like greasers always had cause they couldn’t afford anything else. I’ll tell you one thing though: what with fringed leather vests and Levi’s with classy store labels in them, those kids were spending as much money to look poor as they used to to look rich. It was crazy.
- credits to S.E. Hinton
judicial neutrality (or, how I learned to stop faking it and openly accuse the president of lying)
Well, for all the awful things that one can say about the state of judicial neutrality these days (especially among the SCOTUS), at least one of the completely neutral, wholly impartial, non-activist judges just up and outed himself. And, of course, was lionized by GOP pundits and lambasted by Dems.
I'm not sure which I find more disturbing: the downward spiral of the judicial branch over the past couple of decades, or the fact that Fox News is the most trusted news source in the US (link via the always amazing Ian). I suppose there's some comfort in the following:
I suppose it makes sense that people trust a news source that agrees with them more than a one which falsely purports neutrality (though there is that issue of "fair and balanced"), but it still gives me the shivers.
Maybe if we can get Prop 8 overturned I'll keep the faith.*
*(I'm not holding my breath.)
[UPDATE: Mere moments after posting this, I received this relatively auspicious link on DADT from Amazing Ian. Maybe there's hope for Prop 8 as well?]
I'm not sure which I find more disturbing: the downward spiral of the judicial branch over the past couple of decades, or the fact that Fox News is the most trusted news source in the US (link via the always amazing Ian). I suppose there's some comfort in the following:
Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.
I suppose it makes sense that people trust a news source that agrees with them more than a one which falsely purports neutrality (though there is that issue of "fair and balanced"), but it still gives me the shivers.
Maybe if we can get Prop 8 overturned I'll keep the faith.*
*(I'm not holding my breath.)
[UPDATE: Mere moments after posting this, I received this relatively auspicious link on DADT from Amazing Ian. Maybe there's hope for Prop 8 as well?]
man vs. wild
NPR has an interesting article on a study that suggests we're better off running barefoot.
I've heard this debate before, and it seems possibly a bit wrongheaded. I mean, yes: we should learn to run in ways that are less harmful to our bodies and better absorb shock naturally. Heel-first landing is unequivocally more stressful to our bones and joints. If you look at professional athletes, however, you'll see that they don't actually land heel-first, but rather closer to the balls of their feet, which the article states is less stressful. That point is obvious. But what I find a bit chancy is the assumption that this means we're better off running barefoot.
This nature vs. technology theme recurs in studies every so often (are eggs/margarine/artificial sweeteners good or bad for me this week? I can never remember.), but why does it cast doubt on the role of the shoe? Sure, cheap shoes are designed for heel-first footfall; that ought to be rectified through better design. But really, nobody ever explains to folks growing up the proper way to run (unless you're on a track team), and besides, you shouldn't be running in cheap shoes anyway. They're not supportive or well designed. I won't argue with that.
This shouldn't automatically mean we ought to have at it podiatrically au naturel, though. To put it bluntly, ancient humans used to live to be 30, and they ran barefoot. Modern humans--despite excess creature comforts and far less exercise--live double that. I'm going to go on a limb and say that (tens of?) thousands of scientists research the proper design for shoes. Are you really suggesting that all these scientists are so incredibly wrong?
I've heard this debate before, and it seems possibly a bit wrongheaded. I mean, yes: we should learn to run in ways that are less harmful to our bodies and better absorb shock naturally. Heel-first landing is unequivocally more stressful to our bones and joints. If you look at professional athletes, however, you'll see that they don't actually land heel-first, but rather closer to the balls of their feet, which the article states is less stressful. That point is obvious. But what I find a bit chancy is the assumption that this means we're better off running barefoot.
This nature vs. technology theme recurs in studies every so often (are eggs/margarine/artificial sweeteners good or bad for me this week? I can never remember.), but why does it cast doubt on the role of the shoe? Sure, cheap shoes are designed for heel-first footfall; that ought to be rectified through better design. But really, nobody ever explains to folks growing up the proper way to run (unless you're on a track team), and besides, you shouldn't be running in cheap shoes anyway. They're not supportive or well designed. I won't argue with that.
This shouldn't automatically mean we ought to have at it podiatrically au naturel, though. To put it bluntly, ancient humans used to live to be 30, and they ran barefoot. Modern humans--despite excess creature comforts and far less exercise--live double that. I'm going to go on a limb and say that (tens of?) thousands of scientists research the proper design for shoes. Are you really suggesting that all these scientists are so incredibly wrong?
on taxes and wasted money
Two from my bank today that I wanted to share:
Why your taxes just got more complicated -- basic rules of thumb for whether recession relief porgrams should prompt you to consult a professional for filing taxes this year
Don't waste your gift cards -- fees and expirations are shady, but they exist. Make sure you get the most out of your gift cards, even if it means giving them away.
Useful things I've learned from these two articles:
1. You can donate gift cards to charity.
2. I'm broke, but not broke enough to be helped (or else too broke), apparently.
Why your taxes just got more complicated -- basic rules of thumb for whether recession relief porgrams should prompt you to consult a professional for filing taxes this year
Don't waste your gift cards -- fees and expirations are shady, but they exist. Make sure you get the most out of your gift cards, even if it means giving them away.
Useful things I've learned from these two articles:
1. You can donate gift cards to charity.
2. I'm broke, but not broke enough to be helped (or else too broke), apparently.
1.26.2010
on screwing things up
MAKE Magazine's blog pointed me to the somewhat amazing Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results.
I'm particularly fond of this idea because, along with danger (see my previous post and the Gever Tulley TED talk), we tend to discourage our younger generation from creative screw-ups in favor of encouraging flawless mediocrity.
My friend TJ and I were discussing just today this snippet from the Duke University "What we look for" page:
Assuming this is actually what they're looking for, I'm strongly in favor of this attitude. I wonder, however, whether this attitude is sincere or an appeal for students who may not have had four-ohs or better to apply, since private school applications have been trending downward. (cha-ching!)
I'm particularly fond of this idea because, along with danger (see my previous post and the Gever Tulley TED talk), we tend to discourage our younger generation from creative screw-ups in favor of encouraging flawless mediocrity.
My friend TJ and I were discussing just today this snippet from the Duke University "What we look for" page:
We like students who make intelligent and interesting mistakes, students who understand that only in risking failure do we become stronger, better, and smarter.
Assuming this is actually what they're looking for, I'm strongly in favor of this attitude. I wonder, however, whether this attitude is sincere or an appeal for students who may not have had four-ohs or better to apply, since private school applications have been trending downward. (cha-ching!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)