« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »
October 29, 2004
You Want Fries With That? I'll Need to See Some ID
I have been noticing a frightening trend across America lately. It is increasingly the case that you have to prove your identity to do more and more simple things.
A while ago, I wrote about the need to show your papers to board an airplane. Since then, the California Highway Patrol set up "sobriety checkpoints" -- places along the road where you are stopped and asked for a driver's license. The most recent use of this highly illegal tactic occurred on Labor Day.
I doubt that there was any mischief intended by the CHP, they merely wanted to attempt to decrease the number of highway deaths on the deadliest day of the year (at least, deadliest as far as driving is concerned).
CONSTANT VIGILANCE -- this is the price that must be paid to insure our freedom. We must not allow our freedoms to be spent lightly for increased "safety" and "security."
But today I learned of an even more obscene request for identification...
My brother attends the local public high school. It is a reasonably good school. It has phenomenal athletic programs, and the academics, while not quite top-notch, are satisfactory...
Today my brother received a letter informing him that beginning next week, if a student wishes to purchase any food item from the cafeteria, a valid current student ID must be presented. Even if the payment method is cash.
Worse, if the student refuses to identify himself, not only is he forbidden to buy food, but he will be subject to a four-hour detention!
It is only a matter of time before the rest of the world mocks us, just as we mocked the Russians, when they demanded that law-abiding citizens to "show their papers".
How do I know this time will come? Not because of a slippery-slope theory, but because we have allowed two consecutive generations to grow up not expecting to be free, not caring about freedom, indeed not even noticing when government steps in and takes a few more freedoms... this is just business as usual and nothing to be overly concerned about. That attitude will be the death of American freedom yet.
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 10:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Be Nice... Or They'll Cast a Spell On You
On October 21st, ABC News ran an article about a Washington state school district that has banned Hallowe'en celebrations.(source: ABC News).
Apparently, the district's superintendant found three different problems with having Hallowe'en parties at school, and has therefore decided to ban the practice. This is a shame, I seem to recall finding the half-hour parties grand fun when I was in elementary school -- it was so cool to be at school, but not having to do school stuff... and the candy or whatever was a nice bonus too!
What could be wrong with a little Hallowe'en party? What indeed...
Mr. Superintendant has three problems with such a party:
- Parties, celebrations, parades... these things waste "valuable class time" that could be spent torturing children with more homework.
- Hallowe'en parties involve dressing up in costumes. Costumes cost money, and therefore poor children will feel left out.
- Dressing up like a witch might offend "real witches" -- that is followers of the Wiccan religion.
In my personal opinion the number one most important thing that children learn in elementary school is how to socially interact with others. Let me rephrase: It is more important that school children learn how to interact in elementary school than anything else the teachers can provide. In my opinion, the second most important lesson is how to survive in a structured environment. What about reading, writing, and 'rithmatic? I am 100% convinced that good parents will teach their children these things without the school, and that even gloriously good schooling will not be enough -- especially in the early stages... anyway, back to the point.
Since learning to interact well is an important part of education, I see no reason why on the few holidays recognized by schools, little parties can't be held.
On to the second reason. Not all costumes must be store-bought. It is entirely possible to cheaply construct an adequate costume. Besides, it is a plain and simple fact that there are wealthy people and poor people, and we must all learn to live together. It is good for the children from wealthier families to see what poverty is, and it is definitely good for everybody to learn that not everybody is the same and that having less [or more] money does not make you a worse [or better], dumber [or smarter] person. It simple defines how much stuff you can have.
The third reason. Do I really need to say anything here? This is sick, it's disgusting. I can't believe for a second that anybody would be offended by children dressing up in the traditional witch costume. I don't care if there is a religion based around it. I'm Jewish, if someone decided to dress up as a Jew, and decided that the costume should look, oh, like this, for example, I might be offended, I might find it hilarious, and either way, I'd have absolutely not right to stop you!.
On a side note, here is a collection of Hallowe'en costumes in moderately poor taste that I found amusing.
</RANT>
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 07:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 28, 2004
Is It Really Better To Give Than To Receive?
Today's demystification is directed to blogger Chris Westley over at mises.org, who is attempting to find the value and meaning in a little book called The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein. Chris is trying to figure out why married couples so frequently receive multiple copies of this book as wedding presents, and is analyzing it for meaning. He seems unable to come up with anything he likes. The Ludwig von Mises Institute Blog features his treatise, you can read what he has to say. (source: The Ludwig von Mises Institute Blog).
This seems like a job for The Shelanman, so here's my $0.02 on The Giving Tree. Chris Westley talks about the stupid tree who gives and gives and gives to the selfish man until he has nothing left, in a manner that leaves them both "impoverished." I hate to say it, but he has missed the point...
There are several important themes in this fable. Like many fables, myths, and other stories, the important character traits are exaggerated for emphasis. I may be wrong, but I suspect that Shel Silverstein would not want everybody to give of themselves to the point that they no longer could be anything but a stump. Instead, I feel, the point is to emphasize the value of friendship, and the great lengths a true friend should go to preserve such a deep friendship as the one between the tree and the boy.
Before you go running off repeating Chris' statements, remember I said that the important trait (in this case, friendship) is exaggerated.
One other important point. The tree-boy relationship was much healthier than the later tree-man relationship; another message in this tale is the cost involved in abandoning a friend. After all, the boy grew into a man, and he abandoned his tree-friend. This led them both down a path where the man became old, lonely and tired, and the tree became a stump; hardly a happy ending.
In my opinion, however, the reason this book is given at weddings (is it really a wedding gift? That might explain how I came to read the book when I was about 4... my parents might have had the book since their wedding, who knows) has more to do with this simple message: When both partners truly share everything with each other, they can have a deep happiness together that erodes rapidly when they become distant.
Chris? That help any? Hopefully I have demystified yet another confused author.
Either way Chris Westley, your blog entry on The Giving Tree was interesting, and got me to think about this book, one that I haven't so much as seen in at least a decade... Feel free to comment with your own thoughts.
— The Shelanman
P.S. If you've never read the book, or if you need to pick up a wedding gift for someone, here's the trusty amazon link:
The Giving Tree
Posted by andrew at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It Has Arrived
Yesterday I received a little postcard in the mail, informing me that my diploma had arrived! So, this morning I went and picked it up. You can see it here.
I was going to write something really spiffy talking about the trip to the campus -- my first in months, and all that... but I can't think of anything interesting to say about it, other than I GRADUATED! FOR REAL THIS TIME!
Posted by andrew at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 22, 2004
The Purpose and Usefulness of Science
With increasing frequency "Religion Vs Science" debates go on -- people well versed in science squealing that anybody who could believe in X is silly, and people with strong religious beliefs shouting that anybody that doesn't believe X is going to hell.
I don't pretend to have the Ultimate Answer to this question (other than the obligatory 42). Instead, I have to offer up what I think is the most insightful comments about the role science can play in our understanding of the nature of the world that I have encountered in a long, long time.
808140 a Slashdot member, recently discussed science's fundamental inability to grant [some of] the answers we desire. Writes 808140:
You see, science (especially in popular consciousness) is seen as the discipline which endeavors to answer the question "why?" with respect to various observable phenomena. These questions have been at the center of human thought for well, ever. We created religion in its various forms to answer this very class of questions.
I think the post is an interesting read. Find the rest here . (source: Slashdot)
-- The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 08:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 21, 2004
Nanoscale Silicon Grass
Source: Computerworld Vol 38 No 41, October 11, 2004 Quicklink: 49480
Recently Computerworld ran a story called Grazing the Nanograss which described a fascinating new nanomaterial being developed at Bell Labs. According to the article, nanograss is a surface with "upright silicon posts a thousand times thinner than a human hair."
Apparently Bell Labs and its partners have come up with many novel uses for this high-surface-area ultra-low-friction material...
One such use is the creation of liquid lenses. Indeed, the sample piece of material showed a bead of water moving gracefully across the silicon surface without "wetting" it. The immediate use would be to put a super-high-quality water-droplett-sized lens in the camera of your cellular phone.
Another novel use: new computer heatsinks. After all, with these nanoscale silicon posts, you have dramatically increased surface area. Additionally, it seems there are some fascinating electrical properties, which would enable the heatsink to be adapted to different cooling needs.
A third use is to create batteries that have longer shelf-lives. A battery could be made that keeps electrodes and electrolytes separated until the battery is installed in a device, allowing it to sit without any loss of life, on shelves for years or even decades. Additionally, there are plans to develop batteries with up to 3-4 times the power-to-weight ratio of current standard AA batteries. Another boon for the cellular telephone universe.
-- The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 07:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 13, 2004
How to Lose a Sale in 24 Seconds
Some people can sell practically anything to practically anybody. These people are masters of emotion and logic -- able to convince people, through arguments along both of these lines, that they just can't live without (and can afford to live with) whatever it is they are selling. Good salespeople are sometimes amazing to watch.
Even more amazing (and downright shocking at times) is just how bad some people are at selling things. While some have the sales pitch reduced to a science, others can only watch the great masters, having nothing to contribute themselves. The Shelanman had an encouter with one of these people recently, at a place I didn't expect to find a sales pitch at all: The Gym.
On October 5th, I went to the 24 Hour Fitness facility nearest my office in Irvine, California. I recently started a serious diet program, and had a thought something along the lines of this: "If the gym is near the office, I can go every day on my way home... if it's really easy, maybe I'll really go." Alas, but things are never so easy...
I entered the gym, and encountered a rack of T-shirts, gym shorts, protein bars, and even CDs for sale. I approach the desk and announce: "I would like to join your gym. How much does this cost?" I didn't care too much about touring the facility, I was expecting a mediocre gym with a decent selection of equipment, but all I really needed was a reasonable workout environment near work.
I should have been an easy sale -- I was convinced already that this particular gym was the absolute best on the planet (for my needs) solely based on its location. I was seriously interested in joining, and was prepared to do so on the spot, that day, if only the price were right.
The salesman, Jason, I believe his name was, gave me a truly pathetic tour of the gym. He knew what to show me, but not what to say about it (in his defense, it was his 1st week working at the gym, but still). Then he drags me over to a desk with a computer whose monitor faces away from me, and drags out the price book. He asks if I care whether or not my membership is good at all 24 Hour Fitness locations, or just the one I was in. I didn't care, so he showed me the "plans" for 1 gym only.
As an aside, I wish to spend a few words saying that I think it is pathetic that something like a gym membership needs to be as grossly overcomplicated as a cellular telephone plan. Do I need different plans and packages for a gym? I just want to pay X dollars a month, and be able to use the gym whenever (and however) I choose.
Anyway, back to the pitch. The short version is that I had 2 choices: Pay $178 to join, plus $31.99 a month for all eternity, or pay "Only" $98 to join, and $41.99 a month. Incidentally, its only $22.98 a month to join all the 24 Hour Fitness gyms, but that costs approximatley $600 to start! Upon hearing these obscene prices, I left.
Five days later I returned, figuring that I could try and negotiate a better deal for myself. I met an excellent salesman. He tried to convince me that the $600 to start plan was a good deal, and then when he saw I wasn't interested, showed me the $799 to start, no dues for 3 years plan. He let the personal trainer spend a half hour talking to me (the $799 plan included 4 1-hour training sessions). Ultimately, we negotiated a deal that was satisfactory. $79 to start, $31.99 a month (but only if I "signed up today").
I agreed, and handed over my credit card. As the salesman was typing my credit card number into his computer the manager comes over and informs me that I can't have the deal. Instead, I can pay an extra $50 to start, or an extra $7 per month. I told the manager that he was halfway done losing his sale. He replied "This isn't a sale! I don't sell anything! This is about getting in shape." Uh-huh, right... if this isn't a sale, why are you selling so hard? Mr. Manager then informs me that if I don't take his deal the poor salesman who I've been working with is likely to get punished.
Finally he asks me why I can't cough up an extra $50. I tell him in very simple terms: I'm handing over $80 in "processing fees" plus 2 months dues ($64, making the total $144), and all he has to do is punch my name into the system and give me a pass or whatever they use... hardly a fair trade as it is. His response was truly special: "Well... I... I can appreciate that.... that line of thinking... But... you know... I have a wife and 3 kids to feed... so I can't appreciate-" He didn't get to finish the sentence -- I was gone.
It is hardly my problem if 24-Hour doesn't give him enough money to live off of, and either way, $80 to start plus $31.99 a month for all eternity (nobody ever cancells these things) is a whole heck of a lot better than the $0 he ended up with... To make a long story short, I am now a member of L.A. Fitness, I got a better deal, they seem like better clubs, and I can go to any one in California, and I get 1 free hour of personal training, and I was the recipient of a superb sales pitch. No pressure, no guilt, just a reasonably good deal from a cheerful person who seemed genuinely pleased to be asking for my money, instead of angry that I wasn't just dishing out the cash.
-- The Shelanman
Soon to be The Skinny Shelanman!
Posted by andrew at 04:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Pump it in, Pump it out
Once again, its The Shelanman here with a timely report. On Monday October 4th the L.A. Times Health section ran an article entitled "Heal the heart, hurt the mind?" about a possible side-effect of open-heart surgery that I thought was both bizarre and interesting. (source: L.A. Times. 10/4/2004. Foreman, Judy. (no link, subscription required))
Apparently some doctors have noticed that after a patient spends time on a heart-lung machine (used during bypass surgery, among others according to the article), they have a decrease in their "mental sharpness." Apparently in many cases, this condition wears off over a couple of days, but is sometimes permanent. The article does not cite any specific studies, but there is a widespread (unproven) opinion within the medical community that this effect does actually exist...
As the article points out, it is difficult to know how common this effect is. After all, IQ tests are not part of a pre-cardiac-surgery checkup, and for that matter, there is healthy debate as to the accuracy of those tests.
I seem to have forgotten the amusing angle of this otherwise-serious seeming story. This condition, which may or may not exist, and may or may not come from a heart-lung machine, has a name: pump-head. That's right, those doctors that usually come up with lovely scientific and completely unemotional names somehow decided to call this pump-head.
It is believed that pump-head occurs due to air-bubbles or blood clots that enter the brain and may become temporarily or permanently londged there while the patient is on the pump.
What's the moral of this story? Well, that's two-fold:
- Doctors should be encouraged to come up with such creative and humorous names for serious conditions more frequently
- Perhaps you should think twice before volunteering to have a second big pump attached to yourself.
-- The Shelanman
Purveyor of the bizarre-but-true
Posted by andrew at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 12, 2004
What Are You Looking At?
Today, as part of my work, I was reading Guy Kawasaki's The ART of the START, when I came across something infinitely amusing, that I just had to share. Somewhere in chapter 2, Guy discusses company naming, and how the name of a company should fit with what it does in a slightly clever, and highly memorable way.
He gives several examples of things with good names, such as individual Pokemon which look somewhat like their names. Out of the blue he mentions a small advertising company that he encountered one day in an airport restroom. Seems this company buys ad space in public restrooms across the nation; Naturally they are called Flush Media. In the words (or, actually, just word) of Mr. Kawasaki, "Brilliant!"
A review of this book is forthcoming (I have to read it first), but so far, interesting enough. In the meanwhile, Flush Media's website is "temporarily under construction" at http://www.flushmedia.com
Posted by andrew at 04:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 07, 2004
Sales are Down, Profits are Looking Up!
It seems to me that in the United States today there are two* major kinds of businesses that survive.
- Those companies that provide a valuable product or service at a price that potential customers can and are willing to pay.
- Those companies that have no particularly valuable products of their own, but that turn litigation into a big profit center, suing the life out of productive companies
* Actually, there is a third, a sort of degenerate company which started out as a 1 and is fast becoming a 2.
In fact, there are many companies in that third situation. A while back the SCO group realized that they had no new business coming in, and embarked on a completely bogus multi-billion dollar lawsuit against IBM and then threatened to sue everybody who uses the Linux operating system.
The latest entrant into this pathetic category is Kodak. A couple of days ago there were articles all over the web, including This one from Computerworld talking about the latest lawsuit...
It seems that Kodak filed for a patent on software that agrees with other software on a method of communication. Sound a little vague? Well, as the computerworld article points out, practically every piece of software written since 1960 would be covered by this patent. Seems the Patent Office is in need of some serious house-cleaning!
Well, as soon as Kodak got their absurd patend back from the patent office, they filed suit against Sun Microsystems, asking for half of the profit they obtained from the sale of products and services related to Java. Java is an object-oriented programming language. This means that different parts of a Java program have an agreed-upon method of communication... and Kodak invented the idea of computer communication while they were designing film for their cameras, right?
What is truly disgusting is that Kodak won. That's right, Sun Microsystems has been found guilty of violating Kodak's patent, and the federal court has validated this patent. So... I hope you read this quickly, because according to one jury, at least, Kodak owns not just the Internet, but the idea of computers communicating. Goodbye Cisco and Linksys, goodbye Microsoft and IBM, Broadcomm and Intel, every company that makes software that runs on Operating Systems, Operating Systems that run software, and all computer communication equipment, such as modems and network cards...
One can only hope that Sun wins its appeals, or that the patent office gets unbroken quickly... otherwise the U.S. is going to sue itself back into the stone age. And then when someone patents stones, we'll be really screwed...
Posted by andrew at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 05, 2004
Doctor-Patient [Sexual] Relationships?
Today marks the beginning of a new category on the State of the Shelanman — "Real World, Re-mystified."
This companion to "Real World, Demystified" will contain articles discussing things that just go to show, the real world makes no sense!
Today we discuss a U.K. Study about the [un]ethicalness of Doctor Patient Sexual Relationships (source: BBC News UK).
According to the article subheadline: "Four in 10 medical students feel sex between doctors and patients can be justified, a study shows."
If you are like me, that quote should have immediately gotten a "What?!?". Well, I've read the article, and... I have half an answer, but am left with the same feeling in a different way...
Apparently, the 40% who said that such a relationship could be justified really said no such thing. In fact, as you read on you will discover that actually, they said, on a survey, that they would accept a dinner invitation with a patient.
It turns out, the qualifiers and modifiers do not end there... In fact, they were presented with a scenario. They were the only doctor capable of treating the patient's condition. In fact, they were the only doctor on a remote Scottish island.
To further complicate things, apparently the study "made it clear the patient was interested in pursuing a relationship with them."
I have a few questions of my own at this point:
- How exactly did they make it clear that someone is interested in pursuing a relationship? I doubt they came right out and said it, or the BBC article would have quoted the question.
- Isn't it just a bit dishonest to say that 40% of doctors believe that doctor-patient sexual relationships can be justified based on the fact that 40% said that, in a specific weird situation, accepting a dinner invitation was possibly acceptable? I mean, after the Clinton thing, we've all heard debates about what constitutes sex. But I seriously doubt that anybody considers accepting a dinner invitation a sexual relationship!
- What kind of sick, demented institution contrived such a bizarre study as this, and why?
So... instead of de-mystifying myself, reading the article only confused me more. But at least I can rest assured that 40% of doctors don't really believe that its ok to have sex with patients as the headline suggests...
What on Earth?!!?!
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One Man's Terrorist...
Today, Google News is running countless headlines describing a U.N. resolution that did not pass. Specifically, this resolution "demanded an end to Israel's military operations in the Gaza strip."
The U.N. Resolution was vetoed by the United States, which has veto power over all Security Council resolutions.
What is interesting in these articles is not that the U.S. did the obvious thing and vetoed this resolution. The interesting thing is how the rest of the "free world" voted...
According to a USA Today article fifteen Security Council members voted.
The U.S. voted "no". They were the only ones to do so. Britain, Romania, and Germany abstained.
The other 11 members voted to adopt the resolution, condemning Israel for launching attacks against known terrorists.
This brings me to my real problem with this issue. Nobody argues when I say that Al Quaida members are terrorists. Few people disagree with me when I say we ought to be hunting them down to the best of our ability (within the restrictions provided by the U.S. Constitution).
Why then can't I call Palestinians in the Gaza strip who freqently attach bombs to themselvesd to go blow up busloads of citizens what they are? They are Evil Terrorists.
That's right. Anybody who straps a bomb to themself and blows up a busload of people is a Terrorist. Why must we call Hamas members "militant Palestinians". They aren't members of an army, they are murderers and terrorists.
Having considered the Palestinian cause, some of their own propaganda — for instance the Palestine Chronicle" — I have determined that their plight is not so terrible as to mitigate the crimes they commit. I'm not certain that any such plight could possibly exist — but I'd know it if I saw it, and this is not it.
Thus I feel 100% justified in adding the qualifier "Evil" to the title "Terrorist".
So, I will conclude this rant by finishing the title sentence "... is another mans Evil Terrorist." — for even if there was a valid cause behind the terrorism which there is not it is still terrorism. We need to stop politically-correctifying everything. Terrorists are Terrorists, Murderers are Murderers, and The Shelanman is here to guide you aright!
Until next time:
</RANT>
— The Shelanman
Posted by andrew at 07:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack