Here's something I find hilarious:
The setup: Go to the gym and really work on one muscle group. For example, I'll go to the gym for a short workout Monday night and do only bench presses and tricep-related exercises. Since all bench press exercises work out your triceps a bit too, it's usually a good idea to just do the two muscle groups (chest and triceps) together. On these muscle-group-specific days, I try to really wear myself out for maximum benefits and usually, I do. I know I've done a good day when quotidian activities start to become difficult.
What's harder to do when you have almost no tricep strength? Pulling a t-shirt off over your head (almost impossible without wiggling). Standing up from a chair by supporting your upper body with your arms first. Operating the manual transmission (if the shifter is a hefty one) of a sports car.
But here's the really funny one, at least to me. Try to do a push up.
Predictably, when I try, I get about 1/10 of the way down and then I just collapse onto the floor. For some reason, I'm always laughing out loud to myself throughout this entire process. It's just an odd sensation to have the muscles be there, to know that the muscles are working, but then not be able to get them to work beyond a very minimal level. No matter how much I make my brain send signals to the arms to use more strength, it doesn't happen. It's an weirdly funny sensation. I suggest everyone try it at least once!
Monday, October 31, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
The Irrelevance of Irrelevance
The traditional analysis of knolwedge goes something like this:
Let S be a an agent, for example a person.
Let P be a an proposition, for example "Shaq is taller than I am".
S knows that P if and only if:
A Gettier belief is one which cirucmvents the traditional analysis of knowledge. The classic example: imagine you jutifiably believe A and B and make a deduction C. Little do you know, A is false. However, by pure coincidence, C turns out to be true anyway. So C is a justified true belief (which would imply knowledge) but most people wouldn't classify that as knowledge since one of the premises, A is false. It's correctness by luck.
Somebody in class today brought up the fact that A and B are not necessarily relevant. The example used was that in competing for a job, Shaq believes that Kobe will get the job and that Kobe has 10 coins in his pockets. A student brought up the fact that Kobe having 10 coins is irrelevant to Kob getting a job. It doesn't matter what belief Shaq has for Kobe, the end result (in a Gettier belief) is that the man who gets the job has ten coins in his pockets. This turns out to be correct because it turns out that Shaq gets the job after all (it's all a big hoax). So it doesn't matter what the second belief is: coins, potatos, the color blue. Irrelevance, in this case, is precisely irrelevant.
Let S be a an agent, for example a person.
Let P be a an proposition, for example "Shaq is taller than I am".
S knows that P if and only if:
- P is true
- S believes that P
- S is justified in believing that P
A Gettier belief is one which cirucmvents the traditional analysis of knowledge. The classic example: imagine you jutifiably believe A and B and make a deduction C. Little do you know, A is false. However, by pure coincidence, C turns out to be true anyway. So C is a justified true belief (which would imply knowledge) but most people wouldn't classify that as knowledge since one of the premises, A is false. It's correctness by luck.
Somebody in class today brought up the fact that A and B are not necessarily relevant. The example used was that in competing for a job, Shaq believes that Kobe will get the job and that Kobe has 10 coins in his pockets. A student brought up the fact that Kobe having 10 coins is irrelevant to Kob getting a job. It doesn't matter what belief Shaq has for Kobe, the end result (in a Gettier belief) is that the man who gets the job has ten coins in his pockets. This turns out to be correct because it turns out that Shaq gets the job after all (it's all a big hoax). So it doesn't matter what the second belief is: coins, potatos, the color blue. Irrelevance, in this case, is precisely irrelevant.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Truth About Cars
There's a sort of "auto blog" I visit frequently called The Truth About Cars. It is a compilation of reviews of new cars and editorials about the consumer-level automobile industry. The writing (mostly by founder Robert Farago) is fun and well constructed. In some ways, I prefer Robert's review style over Jeremy Clarkson's florid and highly British reviews which, entertaining and astute as they are, are sometimes too editorial. (Here's a sample: "...we [Europe] have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they [America] have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema." This in a post about the new Ford Mustang GT, which isn't even mentioned until page 2.)
What I really love about The Truth About Cars is that Farago isn't afraid to dish out The Truth. If the Subaru B9 Tribeca looks like it's got a flying vagina on its front fascia, then Farago is one person who wouldn't be afraid to point that out. That very review, in fact, got Farago canceled from the SF Chronicle, which is a shame. For reviews to be worth something, they really have to be reviews, not advertisements. A threat from Subaru should have not affected the review in anyway, lest journalistic integrity be compromised. And who compromises journalistic integrity these days? Psssh, I mean come on, right?
Farago's editorials (of which there are many) are also insightful. His thoughts on the impending doom of GM has constituted an entire series of editorials (called, appropriately, GM Deathwatch) which are all worthy reading material, even if you don't know what's going on right now with cars in America. They're examples of well thought out and constructed viewpoints articulated in a clear and engaging manner. They are worth a read even if you don't care about cars.
But what am I thinking. Who doesn't like cars?
What I really love about The Truth About Cars is that Farago isn't afraid to dish out The Truth. If the Subaru B9 Tribeca looks like it's got a flying vagina on its front fascia, then Farago is one person who wouldn't be afraid to point that out. That very review, in fact, got Farago canceled from the SF Chronicle, which is a shame. For reviews to be worth something, they really have to be reviews, not advertisements. A threat from Subaru should have not affected the review in anyway, lest journalistic integrity be compromised. And who compromises journalistic integrity these days? Psssh, I mean come on, right?
Farago's editorials (of which there are many) are also insightful. His thoughts on the impending doom of GM has constituted an entire series of editorials (called, appropriately, GM Deathwatch) which are all worthy reading material, even if you don't know what's going on right now with cars in America. They're examples of well thought out and constructed viewpoints articulated in a clear and engaging manner. They are worth a read even if you don't care about cars.
But what am I thinking. Who doesn't like cars?
Monday, October 10, 2005
Immediacy
Too often in academia, students and aspiring scholars lose sight of the bigger picture. In music, a harmonic analysis of a Beethoven is great and all but what's the point? The ultimate goal of a harmonic analysis isn't itself but the support of some greater musical point. Seen as such, the study of analysis per se is not a particularly worthy endeavour unless you are doing studying meta-theory or the historiography of analysis. But then the subject isn't music but rather the analysis of music.
On the other hand, encouraging students to grapple with broader issues sometimes sacrifices technical precision. Let's say somebody threw a Stravinsky piece for you to look at. As is often with Stravinsky pieces, an aural sampling of the music yields, from the perspective of traditional (common-practice and romantic) harmonic and rhythmic practices, a level of discomfort. Much of Stravinsky's music pointedly sets up and then destroys expectations. One point a student might make as a first-level analysis is that despite the static nature of the surface (static because expectations are continually disrupted) belies meticulous planning or perhaps some sense of a goal.
That point could be a good one but it needs some kind of evidence to support it. One can not just opine that there's a feeling, out there somewhere in the ether, that underneath the disruptive rhythmic figures a deeper teleology exists. The buzzwords are there but the more precise analystical back up isn't. One can't sacrifice one for the other. A less musical parallel would be to opine that there's some relationship between the American intellectual atmosphere post World War II and immigration patterns during and after the War. Surely there is a correlation and a honors thesis in there somewhere but the opinion can't stop there. It's a matter of scope and ruthless academic consistency and it is a never ending struggle for the scholar.
On the other hand, encouraging students to grapple with broader issues sometimes sacrifices technical precision. Let's say somebody threw a Stravinsky piece for you to look at. As is often with Stravinsky pieces, an aural sampling of the music yields, from the perspective of traditional (common-practice and romantic) harmonic and rhythmic practices, a level of discomfort. Much of Stravinsky's music pointedly sets up and then destroys expectations. One point a student might make as a first-level analysis is that despite the static nature of the surface (static because expectations are continually disrupted) belies meticulous planning or perhaps some sense of a goal.
That point could be a good one but it needs some kind of evidence to support it. One can not just opine that there's a feeling, out there somewhere in the ether, that underneath the disruptive rhythmic figures a deeper teleology exists. The buzzwords are there but the more precise analystical back up isn't. One can't sacrifice one for the other. A less musical parallel would be to opine that there's some relationship between the American intellectual atmosphere post World War II and immigration patterns during and after the War. Surely there is a correlation and a honors thesis in there somewhere but the opinion can't stop there. It's a matter of scope and ruthless academic consistency and it is a never ending struggle for the scholar.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Don't Ask Your Boss to be a Reference
A pretty obvious (in hindsight) lesson learned:
I am in school now, studying a fairly obscure academic subject, pursuing a PhD in it, and generally being a great big nerd. But that's not nerdy enough for me, no no no no NO! I am also working in a tech company. Geek^2. It does help pay the bills though and it is a fun job. I really enjoy it and adore my manager so I can't complain. In fact, I realize that I'm damn lucky.
But along comes cool tech company #2 (CTC2, as opposed to CTC1) to solicit me for a job with them. CTC2 would be a dream company to explore but I have history with CTC1 and they can offer me much more financial stability than CTC2 can. So I'm mulling this cash vs cool problem over and CTC2 says I can at least send in my resume and see if they will actually offer me a position. "Sure," I think, "that can't hurt."
So, I start updating my resume. I get to the references section and see one name. Better add some others. I add a professor with whom I have worked and then I add my current boss. I call the professor to ask for permission and she says OK. Great. One more to go. I call up my current boss and explain the situation and he says "No, I don't think that's a good idea." At this point I am thinking that maybe I offended him with even considering CTC2 or something but no, it's much simpler.
Scenario 1: My boss hates me. Why would I want him to be a reference? He would just say nasty things and I'll never get any job.
Scenario 2: My boss likes me. He would like to keep me as an employee. Why should he help me leave him? He probably won't like but he probably won't volunteer any information about me that might make me more appealing to CTC2 or any other CTC.
So either way, my boss isn't going to say great things about me to a propspective employer. Ergo I should not use him as a reference. Thankfully, the situation is closer to #2. In retrospect, it was a pretty simple. Also, in retorspect, I was a complete dumbass for not realizing this until my boss laid it out for me. My hindsight is 20/20 but my vision looking forward is apparently legally blind.
I am in school now, studying a fairly obscure academic subject, pursuing a PhD in it, and generally being a great big nerd. But that's not nerdy enough for me, no no no no NO! I am also working in a tech company. Geek^2. It does help pay the bills though and it is a fun job. I really enjoy it and adore my manager so I can't complain. In fact, I realize that I'm damn lucky.
But along comes cool tech company #2 (CTC2, as opposed to CTC1) to solicit me for a job with them. CTC2 would be a dream company to explore but I have history with CTC1 and they can offer me much more financial stability than CTC2 can. So I'm mulling this cash vs cool problem over and CTC2 says I can at least send in my resume and see if they will actually offer me a position. "Sure," I think, "that can't hurt."
So, I start updating my resume. I get to the references section and see one name. Better add some others. I add a professor with whom I have worked and then I add my current boss. I call the professor to ask for permission and she says OK. Great. One more to go. I call up my current boss and explain the situation and he says "No, I don't think that's a good idea." At this point I am thinking that maybe I offended him with even considering CTC2 or something but no, it's much simpler.
Scenario 1: My boss hates me. Why would I want him to be a reference? He would just say nasty things and I'll never get any job.
Scenario 2: My boss likes me. He would like to keep me as an employee. Why should he help me leave him? He probably won't like but he probably won't volunteer any information about me that might make me more appealing to CTC2 or any other CTC.
So either way, my boss isn't going to say great things about me to a propspective employer. Ergo I should not use him as a reference. Thankfully, the situation is closer to #2. In retrospect, it was a pretty simple. Also, in retorspect, I was a complete dumbass for not realizing this until my boss laid it out for me. My hindsight is 20/20 but my vision looking forward is apparently legally blind.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
STOP YELLING
I have another theory. Bear with me here.
The internet is an anonymous medium so people are very lax about looking at horse porn, spouting their own retarded opinions that are wrong, and generally typing horifically. You've all seen it. Ppl who type lik dis an use craaaazy abrev. lol ttyle wtf? But there is something even worse than AIM-speak. Something more annoying, more basic, and which infringes upon the most fundamental of netiquette rules.
IT GOES A LITTLE SOMETHING LIKE THIS. NOTICE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS PARAGRAPH? ARE YOU READING IT OUT LOUD IN YOUR MIND? LIKE, REALLY REALLY LOUD! HOW ABOUT IF I WRITE "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"
My theory is that there are two types of people who type like that: those who are aware that they are doing that, and those who aren't. For those who are aware, well, it's their choice to be ostracized by all the internet and remain a pariah in the real and virtual worlds. Losers! But for those who aren't aware, I think perhaps that at some point they hit the Caps Lock key and then could never figure out how to turn it back off. One day they're typing along happily and all of a sudDEN OOPS! NO MORE SPEAKING QUIETLY! TIME TO WAKE UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD!
The internet is an anonymous medium so people are very lax about looking at horse porn, spouting their own retarded opinions that are wrong, and generally typing horifically. You've all seen it. Ppl who type lik dis an use craaaazy abrev. lol ttyle wtf? But there is something even worse than AIM-speak. Something more annoying, more basic, and which infringes upon the most fundamental of netiquette rules.
IT GOES A LITTLE SOMETHING LIKE THIS. NOTICE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS PARAGRAPH? ARE YOU READING IT OUT LOUD IN YOUR MIND? LIKE, REALLY REALLY LOUD! HOW ABOUT IF I WRITE "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!"
My theory is that there are two types of people who type like that: those who are aware that they are doing that, and those who aren't. For those who are aware, well, it's their choice to be ostracized by all the internet and remain a pariah in the real and virtual worlds. Losers! But for those who aren't aware, I think perhaps that at some point they hit the Caps Lock key and then could never figure out how to turn it back off. One day they're typing along happily and all of a sudDEN OOPS! NO MORE SPEAKING QUIETLY! TIME TO WAKE UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD!
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
To Sneeze or To Orgasm?
One day, I'm hanging up curtains in my dining area. No, there aren't any windows in the dining areas but curtains are being hung anyway. I know, wild huh? But it's an interior decoration experiment at the suggestion of a trusted friend so I thought might as well try it. (The finished product looks alright actually.) I'm hanging these curtains on an afternoon amidst a busy schedule. Homework to do, a recruitment call from a coveted technology company coming in soon, and there I am standing on top of my dining table putting anchors into my drywall. Incorrectly at first too, I later realized.
But anyway, the rails on which the curtains hang are secured through two hook-like anchors at either end. These hooks are themselves secured to the drywall by two screws. When you don't want to precisely measure the distances the two hooks should be apart, how far from the ceiling the holes should be drilled, etc., you secure one hook at a decent place and then use the rail and the second hook to judge. In essence, hold the full assembly in one hand and do the drilling, anchoring, and screwing (ahem!) with the other hand.
So I'm there with the hook and the rail in one hand, drill in the other, and I feel a big sneeze coming. One of those ones that will rattle the heavens and shake the earth though at that moment, more important than any meterological or geographical consequences, I was thinking about how my hands would move. I'm on the verge of an unstoppable sneeze. I'm on the ahh...ahhhhh...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH part when suddenly I lose my grip on the drill and think it's going to fall.
Oh shiSaved!
I make the catch in time and there's adrenaline rushing through my blood tunnels, pulsating in time with the beat of my blood pumper. And a second later, I make a wonderful realization: I don't have to sneeze anymore!
So, the moral of the story is: sneezing is a an impulse that is trumped by the sympathetic nervous system being activated. The sympathetic nervous system is also responsible for the "fight-or-flight" response, as well as having an orgasm. So logically, if you're about to sneeze, one way to stop it would be to be threatened by an attacker. Another way is to have an orgasm right then and there. Both hard to produce but hey, you don't want to drop that drill on to your dining room table. Nasty dent that would make.
But anyway, the rails on which the curtains hang are secured through two hook-like anchors at either end. These hooks are themselves secured to the drywall by two screws. When you don't want to precisely measure the distances the two hooks should be apart, how far from the ceiling the holes should be drilled, etc., you secure one hook at a decent place and then use the rail and the second hook to judge. In essence, hold the full assembly in one hand and do the drilling, anchoring, and screwing (ahem!) with the other hand.
So I'm there with the hook and the rail in one hand, drill in the other, and I feel a big sneeze coming. One of those ones that will rattle the heavens and shake the earth though at that moment, more important than any meterological or geographical consequences, I was thinking about how my hands would move. I'm on the verge of an unstoppable sneeze. I'm on the ahh...ahhhhh...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH part when suddenly I lose my grip on the drill and think it's going to fall.
Oh shiSaved!
I make the catch in time and there's adrenaline rushing through my blood tunnels, pulsating in time with the beat of my blood pumper. And a second later, I make a wonderful realization: I don't have to sneeze anymore!
So, the moral of the story is: sneezing is a an impulse that is trumped by the sympathetic nervous system being activated. The sympathetic nervous system is also responsible for the "fight-or-flight" response, as well as having an orgasm. So logically, if you're about to sneeze, one way to stop it would be to be threatened by an attacker. Another way is to have an orgasm right then and there. Both hard to produce but hey, you don't want to drop that drill on to your dining room table. Nasty dent that would make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)