I don't use a hairdryer every day because on normal days my hair is dry by the time I need to leave. However, on days when I'm running really late, sometimes my hair is still wet when I need to leave. The problem is that I'm running really late, so I don't have time to stand there blowdrying. I need to put on my makeup and get dressed and sort out all the stuff that needs to be in my purse and brush my teeth and maybe chug a quick cup of coffee.
So I was thinking they should invent a handsfree blowdryer, but then I remembered they already have those. Problem is they're attached to chairs, like in old-fashioned beauty parlours. When I'm running late, I don't have time to sit around.
So what we really need is a flying/hovering star wars type droid. It follows you around and flies around your head blowdrying your hair. Your hands are free, you can walk around as needed because it will follow you, it's the perfect invention and everyone will buy one just as soon as we've perfected that pesky autonomous flying droid technology.
If I ever write science fiction, I am absolutely working this thing in.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
To do next time I encounter abortion protesters
A couple of years ago, I encountered an abortion protest (my first as a pedestrian) where they had giant pictures of dismembered babies. I used this opportunity to fulfill a longstanding if childish goal of acting like they gave me the idea of getting an abortion.
But now that I think about it, the dismembered fetuses on their posters were really neatly dismembered. They were like broken dolls - arms detached at the shoulders and legs detached at the hips. I think their heads were even still attached.
If the procedure does cause the fetus to be dismembered (and I have no idea whether it does or not), you'd think it wouldn't be as neat. Maybe the foot would come off at the ankle or part of the arm would come off at the elbow. Maybe its head would come off. Maybe its brain would explode or its eyeballs would come out.
Also, they were really neat and clean for having just passed through the birth canal and been dismembered. I know a miscarriage looks like a big messy menstruation. I know newborn babies are born covered in gunk. So you'd think an aborted fetus would look like one or the other or some average between the two. If I remember correctly, this one was sort of generally wet, but it wasn't covered in any bodily fluids of any sort. They weren't bleeding where the arms had come off
So I think if I ever encounter these people again, I'll ask them about the pictures. What method of abortion was used? How far along was fetus and how big was it? Why did it dismember? Why did it dismember so neatly? Why didn't it explode? Why is it so clean? Where did all the uterine lining and placenta and amniotic fluid and whatever else is in the uterus go? Under what circumstances was it possible to photograph the fetus?
If anyone should ever have this opportunity before me, I'd appreciate a report.
But now that I think about it, the dismembered fetuses on their posters were really neatly dismembered. They were like broken dolls - arms detached at the shoulders and legs detached at the hips. I think their heads were even still attached.
If the procedure does cause the fetus to be dismembered (and I have no idea whether it does or not), you'd think it wouldn't be as neat. Maybe the foot would come off at the ankle or part of the arm would come off at the elbow. Maybe its head would come off. Maybe its brain would explode or its eyeballs would come out.
Also, they were really neat and clean for having just passed through the birth canal and been dismembered. I know a miscarriage looks like a big messy menstruation. I know newborn babies are born covered in gunk. So you'd think an aborted fetus would look like one or the other or some average between the two. If I remember correctly, this one was sort of generally wet, but it wasn't covered in any bodily fluids of any sort. They weren't bleeding where the arms had come off
So I think if I ever encounter these people again, I'll ask them about the pictures. What method of abortion was used? How far along was fetus and how big was it? Why did it dismember? Why did it dismember so neatly? Why didn't it explode? Why is it so clean? Where did all the uterine lining and placenta and amniotic fluid and whatever else is in the uterus go? Under what circumstances was it possible to photograph the fetus?
If anyone should ever have this opportunity before me, I'd appreciate a report.
The problem with the constantly-evolving English language
I'm in a pet store looking at an adorable pile of puppies playing. They're an adorable pile of puppies and they're playing, so a small crowd has gathered. At one point, one of the puppies decides to lick his brother's genitals, to the general disgust of the audience. "OMG, that's sick!" I blurt out without thinking.
Some kids next to me look at me strange.
I look back at them, not understanding why they're looking at me.
They keep looking at me strange.
Then I realize what they're thinking. "Ew, no! I meant that in the Gen X sense of the word!"
Some kids next to me look at me strange.
I look back at them, not understanding why they're looking at me.
They keep looking at me strange.
Then I realize what they're thinking. "Ew, no! I meant that in the Gen X sense of the word!"
I guess I didn't exude enough estrogen
Apparently fathers' politics shift further to the left the more daughters they have.
If that's the case, I hate to see what my father would be like if he had any sons!
If that's the case, I hate to see what my father would be like if he had any sons!
What's up with today's Foxtrot?
Warp factor 11???
Surely both Bill Amend and Jason Fox know that the warp scale only goes up to 10.
(Yes, I am that kind of nerd. We already know that. My point is that so is Jason Fox.)
Surely both Bill Amend and Jason Fox know that the warp scale only goes up to 10.
(Yes, I am that kind of nerd. We already know that. My point is that so is Jason Fox.)
Twitter is bringing back the good old days
In the olden days of the internet, it was kind of socially acceptable to email someone just because you saw their posting somewhere and had something to say. There weren't that many people on the internet, so the fact that you were both on the internet was very nearly a suitable pretense for initiating contact. As Miss Manners puts it, the (virtual) roof was an introduction.
Then, of course, the internet got bigger and that became unworkable. Now you have to sort of establish a relationship in some online community before you can start talking to someone one-on-one.
But I think Twitter is bringing back this "roof is an introduction" idea. You can totally tweet at someone just on the basis that they're on Twitter. The low-commitment aspects of Twitter, the very things people say makes it rude - the fact that it's only 140 characters, the fact that Twitter etiquette makes following and replying purely optional - are what makes this possible. If everyone emailed everyone on a whim with no basis for introduction, we'd quickly be overwhelmed. But 140-character messages that it's acceptable to ignore make it once again manageable.
For example, Wil Wheaton recently tweeted a question at the Twitter spam team. I was interested in this question too, so I replied asking him to retweet their answer if they send him one. That's totally allowed and not particularly presumptuous. Wil didn't reply to me, which is also totally allowed and not the least bit rude. Wil Wheaton also happens to be my first adolescent celebrity crush. But because we're working within a 140 character limit, because there's no requirement to introduce oneself (i.e. no "Um, hi, sorry to bother you, but I loved you in Star Trek and I read your blog all the time...") there was no room for fangirl awkwardness. It's simply sharing information with another internet user, like back in 1994.
Then, of course, the internet got bigger and that became unworkable. Now you have to sort of establish a relationship in some online community before you can start talking to someone one-on-one.
But I think Twitter is bringing back this "roof is an introduction" idea. You can totally tweet at someone just on the basis that they're on Twitter. The low-commitment aspects of Twitter, the very things people say makes it rude - the fact that it's only 140 characters, the fact that Twitter etiquette makes following and replying purely optional - are what makes this possible. If everyone emailed everyone on a whim with no basis for introduction, we'd quickly be overwhelmed. But 140-character messages that it's acceptable to ignore make it once again manageable.
For example, Wil Wheaton recently tweeted a question at the Twitter spam team. I was interested in this question too, so I replied asking him to retweet their answer if they send him one. That's totally allowed and not particularly presumptuous. Wil didn't reply to me, which is also totally allowed and not the least bit rude. Wil Wheaton also happens to be my first adolescent celebrity crush. But because we're working within a 140 character limit, because there's no requirement to introduce oneself (i.e. no "Um, hi, sorry to bother you, but I loved you in Star Trek and I read your blog all the time...") there was no room for fangirl awkwardness. It's simply sharing information with another internet user, like back in 1994.
Comparative stylistics
Writing that last post reminded me of something that my 2nd year French prof said. She said "French expresses abstract ideas better than English."
This is not true.
French tends to express ideas more abstractly, and English tends to express ideas more concretely. But we can't say that either way is "better", because it's always coloured by our mother tongue.
I find that when truly abstract ideas are expressed in the already-abstract academic register of French (especially French from France), they're practically meaningless to me. When reading them I glaze over, and when attempting to translate them I'm tearing out my hair because I need to truly grok what is being said - my standard technique of doing a close translation of the French and editing the English turns out pseudo-intellectual bullshit that is very nearly meaningless even to an Anglophone subject-matter expert. I find the more concrete English is better for expressing abstract ideas because it requires retaining a certain grip on reality.
This is totally because I'm Anglophone. Francophones might find an abstract expression of abstract ideas easier to understand, and a concrete expression might make their brain hurt for reasons I can't possibly conceive of but readily accept might exist.
And that's the point. Neither language is objectively better for expressing certain ideas. We simply understand ideas more easily when they're presented in the concept system we're most familiar with.
This is not true.
French tends to express ideas more abstractly, and English tends to express ideas more concretely. But we can't say that either way is "better", because it's always coloured by our mother tongue.
I find that when truly abstract ideas are expressed in the already-abstract academic register of French (especially French from France), they're practically meaningless to me. When reading them I glaze over, and when attempting to translate them I'm tearing out my hair because I need to truly grok what is being said - my standard technique of doing a close translation of the French and editing the English turns out pseudo-intellectual bullshit that is very nearly meaningless even to an Anglophone subject-matter expert. I find the more concrete English is better for expressing abstract ideas because it requires retaining a certain grip on reality.
This is totally because I'm Anglophone. Francophones might find an abstract expression of abstract ideas easier to understand, and a concrete expression might make their brain hurt for reasons I can't possibly conceive of but readily accept might exist.
And that's the point. Neither language is objectively better for expressing certain ideas. We simply understand ideas more easily when they're presented in the concept system we're most familiar with.
Traduire la lutte
A couple of times I've had to translate incident reports that contain, literally, blow-by-blow accounts of altercations.
As with many things, English tends to require more specific verbs. We need to say punch or hit or slap or kick or poke where French, for example, would simply say donner un coup.
So as a result, I found myself thinking about how exactly you would deliver a blow to someone on a particular body part. It seems to be quite specific to the target body part. If it's the stomach, you're going to punch. If it's the balls, you're probably going to knee or kick depending on the choreography. You wouldn't slap someone on the stomach or poke them in the balls - that would be silly.
We think the reasons for this are anatomical. But what if they're really cultural and we don't realize it? It's not going to apply within my wimpy little collection of European languages obviously, but what if in some obscure and uncolonized pocket of the world there's a culture where it's normal to slap your opponent in the stomach or poke them in the balls? Or what if hitting them in the stomach is a really weird and last-resort sort of thing to do, and a much more normal thing to do during an altercation would be, I don't know, to stick a stick in their ear or something?
What we consider to be normal is always more cultural than we think it is. It would be so cool if this applied to fighting as well.
As with many things, English tends to require more specific verbs. We need to say punch or hit or slap or kick or poke where French, for example, would simply say donner un coup.
So as a result, I found myself thinking about how exactly you would deliver a blow to someone on a particular body part. It seems to be quite specific to the target body part. If it's the stomach, you're going to punch. If it's the balls, you're probably going to knee or kick depending on the choreography. You wouldn't slap someone on the stomach or poke them in the balls - that would be silly.
We think the reasons for this are anatomical. But what if they're really cultural and we don't realize it? It's not going to apply within my wimpy little collection of European languages obviously, but what if in some obscure and uncolonized pocket of the world there's a culture where it's normal to slap your opponent in the stomach or poke them in the balls? Or what if hitting them in the stomach is a really weird and last-resort sort of thing to do, and a much more normal thing to do during an altercation would be, I don't know, to stick a stick in their ear or something?
What we consider to be normal is always more cultural than we think it is. It would be so cool if this applied to fighting as well.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Anyone know the nitty gritty details of sterilization?
With both Essure and tubal ligation, the Fallopian tubes are made impassable, so the ova can't get from the ovaries to the uterus.
But these procedures do nothing to prevent the ovaries from releasing ova. So where do the ova go?
But these procedures do nothing to prevent the ovaries from releasing ova. So where do the ova go?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Things I want to blog about but am currently too tired
- Why current electoral boundaries are a disservice to the highrise-dwelling residents of Yonge & Eg.
- Joe Fiorito's latest column on the Nunavut seal hunt
- A post that should be interestingly theoretical and philosophical but I can't get to stop sounding whiny.
- An oversight in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act that is forcing long-term tenants into a lower quality of life.
- The translation problems of violence
- Why parents need to model benefit of the doubt
- Things the Toronto cycling lobby should do
Make a request, and I'll blog that one first.
- Joe Fiorito's latest column on the Nunavut seal hunt
- A post that should be interestingly theoretical and philosophical but I can't get to stop sounding whiny.
- An oversight in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act that is forcing long-term tenants into a lower quality of life.
- The translation problems of violence
- Why parents need to model benefit of the doubt
- Things the Toronto cycling lobby should do
Make a request, and I'll blog that one first.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Can dogs read humans?
The other day, a puppy who didn't know better tried to use me as a chew toy. I didn't particularly mind because he was adorable and fixed all my blood pressure problems, but nevertheless I withdrew whenever his teeth got me because it wouldn't do to give him the idea that biting people is acceptable.
Later it occurred to me that it might be helpful for training if humans acted like they're in pain every time the puppy gets them with his teeth. (It wasn't actually painful IRL, it was just...teeth.) That might help teach him that biting isn't good.
But could a puppy read humans enough to tell that they're in pain and this is bad? And would he care that they're in pain and interpret it as bad that they're in pain?
Or, conversely, could a puppy read humans so well that he could tell that we're exaggerating the pain and think "What a bunch of drama queens!"
Later it occurred to me that it might be helpful for training if humans acted like they're in pain every time the puppy gets them with his teeth. (It wasn't actually painful IRL, it was just...teeth.) That might help teach him that biting isn't good.
But could a puppy read humans enough to tell that they're in pain and this is bad? And would he care that they're in pain and interpret it as bad that they're in pain?
Or, conversely, could a puppy read humans so well that he could tell that we're exaggerating the pain and think "What a bunch of drama queens!"
Either I don't have an original thought in my head, or I should be a political advisor
1. Last fall, I analyzed Stéphane Dion's CTV interview. Yesterday, the CBSC came to the same conclusions as I did. For obvious reasons, mine's more focused on linguistics and theirs is more focused on broadcast standards, but it's the same thesis.
2. In March, I came up with the idea of including the harmonized sales tax in the sticker price. Today it was reported that the Ontario government is pondering whether to do just that. (I'm not sure why the article is framing it so negatively - as a consumer, I'd certainly find it more convenient.)
3. Yesterday I came up with a conspiracy theory. The Globe and Mail's Andrew Steele came up with the same thing. (Thank you anonymous commenter.)
2. In March, I came up with the idea of including the harmonized sales tax in the sticker price. Today it was reported that the Ontario government is pondering whether to do just that. (I'm not sure why the article is framing it so negatively - as a consumer, I'd certainly find it more convenient.)
3. Yesterday I came up with a conspiracy theory. The Globe and Mail's Andrew Steele came up with the same thing. (Thank you anonymous commenter.)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Conspiracy theory, anyone?
Because it's fun to make conspiracy theories:
What if the federal gov't recently announced that the deficit is going to be higher than predicted to create for themselves an excuse to cut social programs?
What if the federal gov't recently announced that the deficit is going to be higher than predicted to create for themselves an excuse to cut social programs?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Acting
The first couple of times I see something on TV, I don't normally notice the acting because I'm following the story. But then when I revist something much later, I notice acting that I wasn't appreciating before.
For example, Hugh Laurie (i.e. the tall one) here:
And OMG Brent Spiner! This scene is a bit cringy out of necessity, but he's playing the role of an emotionless android trying to figure out courtship rituals. Okay, yeah, whatever. But it's so much more amazing once you consciously think that the actor inside this android is a real person with a sense of humour!
For example, Hugh Laurie (i.e. the tall one) here:
And OMG Brent Spiner! This scene is a bit cringy out of necessity, but he's playing the role of an emotionless android trying to figure out courtship rituals. Okay, yeah, whatever. But it's so much more amazing once you consciously think that the actor inside this android is a real person with a sense of humour!
Tarted up and kicking ass
Train of thought originating from a post on Broadsheet where a guy was surprised when a girl who was dressed fashionably knew stuff about finance.
I found that weird, because while not all the fashion people I know are into finance, all the finance people I know are into fashion. They're the ones with the money, so they're the ones with the most kick-ass shoe collection.
But this reminds me of something I've been mulling over recently. I really enjoy being all girled up and being highly competent at the same time. Like the total enjoyment I get is greater than the sum of the enjoyment of being girled up and the enjoyment of being competent. Lugging stuff around in killer heels, or translating technical specifications in while wielding cleavage, or dissecting a computer with manicured hands - it all makes me feel slightly more kick-ass and accomplished than is really deserved.
Thinking about this article, I think I've figured out why: because it's surprising to the very type of people who would be surprised by it. It makes anyone who would underestimate me realize that they're underestimating me, all without saying a word.
I found that weird, because while not all the fashion people I know are into finance, all the finance people I know are into fashion. They're the ones with the money, so they're the ones with the most kick-ass shoe collection.
But this reminds me of something I've been mulling over recently. I really enjoy being all girled up and being highly competent at the same time. Like the total enjoyment I get is greater than the sum of the enjoyment of being girled up and the enjoyment of being competent. Lugging stuff around in killer heels, or translating technical specifications in while wielding cleavage, or dissecting a computer with manicured hands - it all makes me feel slightly more kick-ass and accomplished than is really deserved.
Thinking about this article, I think I've figured out why: because it's surprising to the very type of people who would be surprised by it. It makes anyone who would underestimate me realize that they're underestimating me, all without saying a word.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Things They Should Study: queue strategy
At the grocery store, suppose at one register there's one person with 10 items, and at another register there's two people 5 five items each. Obviously the register with only one person in line will be faster because they only have to go through the paying dance once.
But what if the choice is one person with 12 items vs. two people with 5 items each? What if there's two people with 5 each vs. three people with 1 each? What about one with 12 vs. three with 2 each?
In calculating which line is moving fastest, each person who has to pay must create a delay equal to a certain number of items. Someone should do a study and work this out so we can all have efficient queue strategy.
But what if the choice is one person with 12 items vs. two people with 5 items each? What if there's two people with 5 each vs. three people with 1 each? What about one with 12 vs. three with 2 each?
In calculating which line is moving fastest, each person who has to pay must create a delay equal to a certain number of items. Someone should do a study and work this out so we can all have efficient queue strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)