On a bit of a whim, I just found out if you do a search in Google for humenguins, which is a made up word that I used in one of my blogs, it actually shows you my blog. Somewhere in a computer index is the word humenguin linked directly to my blog. I don't know if that's the greatest thing ever, the scariest thing ever, or just so random I can't really even fathom it. Probably the latter.
Regardless, it seems like quite a waste of space, even if the space is just a long number consisting of 1s and 0s and my part of the machine doesnt' take up more physical space than a penny.
2007/08/05
Raising a robot
I just found out one of my best friends from college is quoted in a recent New York Times magazine on artificial intelligence. The article is long but can be viewed here, and it's quite interesting. My friend is Lijin Aryananda, and I've never really had someone I know quoted so extensively in anything important like the New York Times. Word on the alumni grapevine is she was angry with her portrayal and felt she was misquoted, but that's fame for you.
I point this out because I think one of the more paradigm shifts I have ever heard about is articulated in this article. Basically, when I typically think of a robot I think of a fully formed, thinking machine that does things, has superhuman strength, and will ultimately turn on humanity. It's just basic science that that is what will happen. As Jurassic Park showed (much better in the book than the movie), we can't possibly control all possibilities and ultimately, something will slip through that shouldn't have. Sort of like our president.
In this classic artificial intelligence (AI) scenario, we program robots everything through codes sequences that must be very long and complex, and we give robots certain rules they cannot break. Isaac Asimov had a list of 3 laws of robotics I think, including a robot cannot through action or inaction allow a human to be injured and some other theoretically good protection for us. This type of logic, built into an infinite number of coded sequences, should keep us safe and robots useful. As we all know from movies, short stories, and general reality, that won't work. In jurassic park, it had something to do with chaos theory. In other books, there are other ways the robots "reprogram" themselves. What to do? What to do?
If you look at life, fully functioning minds are generally dangerous, because if they desire, they remove obstacles and push their lives upon others. See most world leaders and other powerful people for signs of this. They aren't smarter, there is just a part of their brain that clicks with removing obstacles, even if they don't what to do once the obstacles are removed (although falling into paranoiac realms seems to be a common next step unfortunately). H0wever, children are generally harmless, and usually well raised children grow up to be normal, well adjusted, adults. The paradigm shift in AI that is so interesting was this, to develop child-like robots and see if they could learn. Basically, instead of programming a brain with so many sequential codes and rules for all sorts of situations, develop code for some basic situations and see if the robot can learn. This is how our mind develops. Can we recreate our own minds? And as importantly, if I had a robot child to raise, would it play well with my humenguin?
Well, it seems to be pretty early in the technology but so far we cannot recreate our own minds. We will at some point. Just like I believe we will at some point code full thinking robots for war and whatnot that will eventually either destroy us or live entirely separately from us, maybe on the moon because they won't need to breath and they can run and jump high and frolic on the moon, which might make an enemy robot race happy who knows.
I don't know enough to really comment on the facts around the article, but I wanted to say kudos to the clever paradigm shift and good luck developing cute child robots that learn. I figure developing an adaptable brain is much more interesting than a lot of code, which will be buggy anyway and probably require me to shake my human looking robot slave like an etch a sketch once a day to "refresh" it.
So for now, I say read the article and think about your own brain. Think about how complex and powerful our bodies actually are, and how amazing it is we work. Then think about recreating that! It's incredible! I say, "Good luck to the leaders of science!" and may the force be with you all.
I point this out because I think one of the more paradigm shifts I have ever heard about is articulated in this article. Basically, when I typically think of a robot I think of a fully formed, thinking machine that does things, has superhuman strength, and will ultimately turn on humanity. It's just basic science that that is what will happen. As Jurassic Park showed (much better in the book than the movie), we can't possibly control all possibilities and ultimately, something will slip through that shouldn't have. Sort of like our president.
In this classic artificial intelligence (AI) scenario, we program robots everything through codes sequences that must be very long and complex, and we give robots certain rules they cannot break. Isaac Asimov had a list of 3 laws of robotics I think, including a robot cannot through action or inaction allow a human to be injured and some other theoretically good protection for us. This type of logic, built into an infinite number of coded sequences, should keep us safe and robots useful. As we all know from movies, short stories, and general reality, that won't work. In jurassic park, it had something to do with chaos theory. In other books, there are other ways the robots "reprogram" themselves. What to do? What to do?
If you look at life, fully functioning minds are generally dangerous, because if they desire, they remove obstacles and push their lives upon others. See most world leaders and other powerful people for signs of this. They aren't smarter, there is just a part of their brain that clicks with removing obstacles, even if they don't what to do once the obstacles are removed (although falling into paranoiac realms seems to be a common next step unfortunately). H0wever, children are generally harmless, and usually well raised children grow up to be normal, well adjusted, adults. The paradigm shift in AI that is so interesting was this, to develop child-like robots and see if they could learn. Basically, instead of programming a brain with so many sequential codes and rules for all sorts of situations, develop code for some basic situations and see if the robot can learn. This is how our mind develops. Can we recreate our own minds? And as importantly, if I had a robot child to raise, would it play well with my humenguin?
Well, it seems to be pretty early in the technology but so far we cannot recreate our own minds. We will at some point. Just like I believe we will at some point code full thinking robots for war and whatnot that will eventually either destroy us or live entirely separately from us, maybe on the moon because they won't need to breath and they can run and jump high and frolic on the moon, which might make an enemy robot race happy who knows.
I don't know enough to really comment on the facts around the article, but I wanted to say kudos to the clever paradigm shift and good luck developing cute child robots that learn. I figure developing an adaptable brain is much more interesting than a lot of code, which will be buggy anyway and probably require me to shake my human looking robot slave like an etch a sketch once a day to "refresh" it.
So for now, I say read the article and think about your own brain. Think about how complex and powerful our bodies actually are, and how amazing it is we work. Then think about recreating that! It's incredible! I say, "Good luck to the leaders of science!" and may the force be with you all.
2007/08/04
Avoiding decisions
After spending most of last night debating whether or not to go to san fran or wait and maybe go to London, I took some time today to just blow off some steam. I watched a movie, finished my book, and surfed the internet. One mildly interesting thing I found somewhere talked about directors using the same actors in their most recent films, about the bond they shared. One of the people was Scorcese and DiCaprio. Then I thought about how earlier in their careers, Scorcese made a few movies with DeNiro. I would argue two of these, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, are classics and a third, Mean Streets, is very good. Anyway, then I got to thinking about other Scorcese movies and The Last Temptation of Christ popped into my head. I never saw this movie, so I'll be referring to the book.
Anyway, I remember a whole lot of negative press about the movie when it was released because it has an unorthodox view of the Christ mythology. Basically, Judas is often vilified for having sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver (quick aside, but I never got the purpose of 30 pieces of silver. There were 40 days in the flood, 12 disciples, some number of generations between I think abraham and Jesus, etc - 30 never comes up. It's like in science when a weird number arises, and it doesn't mean anything but sometimes you see a formula and it equates to 0, infinite, pi, or something else and you just believe it has to be correct, that the order of the universe is defined. I always believed the number 30 was made up in the Bible. I base that on nothing really, it just feels like it doesn't fit). I believe the Bible says Judas actually feels so much guilt he actually hangs himself. I asked my pastor when I was being confirmed whether Judas went to Heaven or Hell because without him, rather without Christ and the cross and dying "for us," there is no Christianity. My pastor said he chose hell. Very clean, very simple.
However, Kazantzakis, who wrote the novel Last Temptation sees it a bit differently. In the book, building up to the betrayal, Jesus and Judas are the most intimate of the disciples, the closest confidants. Jesus has chosen Judas to betray him because Judas is the strongest and most likely to actually follow through and do it. I suppose this is one of Kazantzakis major sins, although earlier in the novel Jesus was in love with Mary Magdeline but never does anything. The other major, very major, issue is that Jesus has sex in the book and bears children. That, as you might imagine, made a lot of christians very angry because without the crosswhat is catholicism? I think it's judeism. The problem is, even in the book, Jesus doesn't actually have sex or produce children.
What happens in the book is this (and this isn't a spoiler since you probably already sort of know the story. It's a great book, even though I am giving away the ending, and I highly recommend it): Jesus is on the cross, and it is hot and he passes out. This I believe happens in the bible, at least one of the gospels, because vinegar or something is placed under his nose to revive him and shortly after, he passes away. During the time he is passed out, Kazantzakis imagines another temptation. The Bible talks of a first temptation, when Jesus is alone in the desert or on a mountian and was tempted by the Devil. He resists temptations of power and such, casts off the devil, and has at that moment, for all intents and purpsoses, chosen his path. In the hallucination, he is not crucified. Instead, he saves himself. He frees himself off the burdon of the cross and our sins, ultimately living with Mary Magdelene and her sister (or cousin maybe), procreating with both of them!, and living what we would consider a fairly normal life and growing old. There is another child who always lives with them, who is an obvious representation of the devil. I would think this obvious representation of the devil (they speak of it's presence and how it never ages) and having lived with this jesus throughout his life would be sign enough that Kazantzakis doesn't think it would have been a good idea. At some point, the disciples come by where Jesus is living and they hate him. They hate him for leaving the cross and forsaking his destiny, which ultimately is their destiny and if you are so inclined, all of our destinies. Judas hates him for running away, for being the coward. Jesus, again, in this hallucination, wonders if he has done the right thing by following the devil, abondoning the cross, and living like us.
Ultimately, he is given the vinegar, wakes up on the cross and realizes he was strong enough to withstand the final temptation, and he dies. His soul goes to his father in heaven and the prophesy of the redeemer comes true. I never understood why people were so angry about the book and the movie. True, the Christ of Kazantzakis is more tortured than normal depictions of Jesus. He is unsure of what he should do, what his role is, what the world is looking for from him. Ultimately, he is portrayed as human, and doubts as we all doubt. But finally, this Jesus chooses sacrifice and condemns himself to death on the cross for us. I would think a realistic portrait of what he might have gone through to become our saviour would be powerful, relatable. But we like things clear and simple. If he was truly here as a man, why not portray him as such? Christ was the son of god, always understood what that meant, knew Judas would betray him and be punished, and now we can all live forever. That will be 15% off the top and no letting your mind drift down there unless you are married! Nature, His creation, be damned. It never made any sense to me.
Do you think people in London know the answer?
Anyway, I remember a whole lot of negative press about the movie when it was released because it has an unorthodox view of the Christ mythology. Basically, Judas is often vilified for having sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver (quick aside, but I never got the purpose of 30 pieces of silver. There were 40 days in the flood, 12 disciples, some number of generations between I think abraham and Jesus, etc - 30 never comes up. It's like in science when a weird number arises, and it doesn't mean anything but sometimes you see a formula and it equates to 0, infinite, pi, or something else and you just believe it has to be correct, that the order of the universe is defined. I always believed the number 30 was made up in the Bible. I base that on nothing really, it just feels like it doesn't fit). I believe the Bible says Judas actually feels so much guilt he actually hangs himself. I asked my pastor when I was being confirmed whether Judas went to Heaven or Hell because without him, rather without Christ and the cross and dying "for us," there is no Christianity. My pastor said he chose hell. Very clean, very simple.
However, Kazantzakis, who wrote the novel Last Temptation sees it a bit differently. In the book, building up to the betrayal, Jesus and Judas are the most intimate of the disciples, the closest confidants. Jesus has chosen Judas to betray him because Judas is the strongest and most likely to actually follow through and do it. I suppose this is one of Kazantzakis major sins, although earlier in the novel Jesus was in love with Mary Magdeline but never does anything. The other major, very major, issue is that Jesus has sex in the book and bears children. That, as you might imagine, made a lot of christians very angry because without the crosswhat is catholicism? I think it's judeism. The problem is, even in the book, Jesus doesn't actually have sex or produce children.
What happens in the book is this (and this isn't a spoiler since you probably already sort of know the story. It's a great book, even though I am giving away the ending, and I highly recommend it): Jesus is on the cross, and it is hot and he passes out. This I believe happens in the bible, at least one of the gospels, because vinegar or something is placed under his nose to revive him and shortly after, he passes away. During the time he is passed out, Kazantzakis imagines another temptation. The Bible talks of a first temptation, when Jesus is alone in the desert or on a mountian and was tempted by the Devil. He resists temptations of power and such, casts off the devil, and has at that moment, for all intents and purpsoses, chosen his path. In the hallucination, he is not crucified. Instead, he saves himself. He frees himself off the burdon of the cross and our sins, ultimately living with Mary Magdelene and her sister (or cousin maybe), procreating with both of them!, and living what we would consider a fairly normal life and growing old. There is another child who always lives with them, who is an obvious representation of the devil. I would think this obvious representation of the devil (they speak of it's presence and how it never ages) and having lived with this jesus throughout his life would be sign enough that Kazantzakis doesn't think it would have been a good idea. At some point, the disciples come by where Jesus is living and they hate him. They hate him for leaving the cross and forsaking his destiny, which ultimately is their destiny and if you are so inclined, all of our destinies. Judas hates him for running away, for being the coward. Jesus, again, in this hallucination, wonders if he has done the right thing by following the devil, abondoning the cross, and living like us.
Ultimately, he is given the vinegar, wakes up on the cross and realizes he was strong enough to withstand the final temptation, and he dies. His soul goes to his father in heaven and the prophesy of the redeemer comes true. I never understood why people were so angry about the book and the movie. True, the Christ of Kazantzakis is more tortured than normal depictions of Jesus. He is unsure of what he should do, what his role is, what the world is looking for from him. Ultimately, he is portrayed as human, and doubts as we all doubt. But finally, this Jesus chooses sacrifice and condemns himself to death on the cross for us. I would think a realistic portrait of what he might have gone through to become our saviour would be powerful, relatable. But we like things clear and simple. If he was truly here as a man, why not portray him as such? Christ was the son of god, always understood what that meant, knew Judas would betray him and be punished, and now we can all live forever. That will be 15% off the top and no letting your mind drift down there unless you are married! Nature, His creation, be damned. It never made any sense to me.
Do you think people in London know the answer?
Decisions
I have come to an intriguing point in my life, which I believe I mentioned in a recent blog. My current company, which I'm not particularly fond of, has offered to relocate me from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Although I am not truly engaged in the company, it's a good opportunity. Staying with the same company lowers my risk because I at least know the corporate issues. The move potentially gives me an opportunity to do more consulting, which they won't currently let me do for a variety of reasons. After 2 years at the company, I have not really gained much actual experience and according to my boss I am probably still 2 years away from being promoted.
However, I have another opportunity to possibly get a job offer in London. This would be a new company, a very large company, a new city, a new country, and work that I might not be particularly interested in as it is basically the same job I left 4 years ago. However, moving to London is another great opportunity, a once in a lifetime sort of thing, and I would probably manage people again, which is a career step I do not have at my current company. I would also have to wear suits to work, which I find a bit quaint and old fashioned. To pursue this job, I probably need to turn down San Francisco and if, after the interview process, I don't get a job offer I won't have anything because I already committed to leaving my company or moving to san fran at the end of September.
I'm in a bit of a pickle, and not sure where I'm going. I have been weighing the pros and cons of both, including risks, career development, corporate climates, and just interest in the jobs and lifestyles. I never had a strong desire to live in London, but I would love to be closer to Europe. However, it is farther from family and friends, even more so than San Fran I think. If not further, it is a larger trip.
I realized I have a very different view of where my current company is going than the current management team. The CEO said at a lunch the other day our director of development was doing an excellent job. Our last software was so bad sales wouldn't even demo it, and the latest release was delayed 1 month because of issues. I found out about the 1 month delay, and keep in mind it's a 50 person company which should facilitate communication, the day it was supposed to be released. That type of delay doesn't pop up, it is known. So the release came out within 4 days of the delayed timeline, and my boss sent a corporate email about how great it is and how great the team did and how great the software is. I have seen the software, it is not getting better. Anyway, I am going to ask him if I can run a project where I can blow off timelines, not communicate them, and still be congratulated and have everyone think I'm doing a great job. The problem is nobody in my company is accounatable for anything, which is odd because accountability is probably 1/4 of what we tell clients they need to build into their management framework.
Recently, I have been unloading all my projects, per my boss' orders, so I could work on our online training classes, which is a new product we are releasing. Basically, I am responsible for writing all the consulting methodology courses for the portal, even though I am not permitted to give them. We have a consulting team that is generally useless and "to busy" to be involved. I sent an email a few weeks back asking for input on a specific area beyond our 1 powerpoint. Our CEO said I could talk to him if i had questions on the presentation, 1 guys said we should brainstorm, and none of the other 4 people responded. To busy to be involved, fine. Anyway, I figured our largest client must have had to do this at some point so I called one of our contacts for advice or any information they had. It turns out they did a presentation on exactly this at our last conference, which I didn't attend because I was almost on paternity leave. All of the people I asked for advice did attend the conference, but nobody mentioned to check those presentations. Nobody mentioned anything really. I am only considering moving to San Fran because it's a lower risk option than finding a job anywhere else. Now that london could happen, San Fran is much less appealing. But it's still low risk, and appealing in that way.
The decision is open. I'll ask around on Monday and see what people say. I am scheduled to look for an apartment in sf next weekend, so this week is go-no go. Will I go? The more I consider it, the worse it seems...
However, I have another opportunity to possibly get a job offer in London. This would be a new company, a very large company, a new city, a new country, and work that I might not be particularly interested in as it is basically the same job I left 4 years ago. However, moving to London is another great opportunity, a once in a lifetime sort of thing, and I would probably manage people again, which is a career step I do not have at my current company. I would also have to wear suits to work, which I find a bit quaint and old fashioned. To pursue this job, I probably need to turn down San Francisco and if, after the interview process, I don't get a job offer I won't have anything because I already committed to leaving my company or moving to san fran at the end of September.
I'm in a bit of a pickle, and not sure where I'm going. I have been weighing the pros and cons of both, including risks, career development, corporate climates, and just interest in the jobs and lifestyles. I never had a strong desire to live in London, but I would love to be closer to Europe. However, it is farther from family and friends, even more so than San Fran I think. If not further, it is a larger trip.
I realized I have a very different view of where my current company is going than the current management team. The CEO said at a lunch the other day our director of development was doing an excellent job. Our last software was so bad sales wouldn't even demo it, and the latest release was delayed 1 month because of issues. I found out about the 1 month delay, and keep in mind it's a 50 person company which should facilitate communication, the day it was supposed to be released. That type of delay doesn't pop up, it is known. So the release came out within 4 days of the delayed timeline, and my boss sent a corporate email about how great it is and how great the team did and how great the software is. I have seen the software, it is not getting better. Anyway, I am going to ask him if I can run a project where I can blow off timelines, not communicate them, and still be congratulated and have everyone think I'm doing a great job. The problem is nobody in my company is accounatable for anything, which is odd because accountability is probably 1/4 of what we tell clients they need to build into their management framework.
Recently, I have been unloading all my projects, per my boss' orders, so I could work on our online training classes, which is a new product we are releasing. Basically, I am responsible for writing all the consulting methodology courses for the portal, even though I am not permitted to give them. We have a consulting team that is generally useless and "to busy" to be involved. I sent an email a few weeks back asking for input on a specific area beyond our 1 powerpoint. Our CEO said I could talk to him if i had questions on the presentation, 1 guys said we should brainstorm, and none of the other 4 people responded. To busy to be involved, fine. Anyway, I figured our largest client must have had to do this at some point so I called one of our contacts for advice or any information they had. It turns out they did a presentation on exactly this at our last conference, which I didn't attend because I was almost on paternity leave. All of the people I asked for advice did attend the conference, but nobody mentioned to check those presentations. Nobody mentioned anything really. I am only considering moving to San Fran because it's a lower risk option than finding a job anywhere else. Now that london could happen, San Fran is much less appealing. But it's still low risk, and appealing in that way.
The decision is open. I'll ask around on Monday and see what people say. I am scheduled to look for an apartment in sf next weekend, so this week is go-no go. Will I go? The more I consider it, the worse it seems...
2007/08/01
Random wednesday thoughts
It's a random wednesday here, and before I settle into a good book and call it a night, I figured I would update this blog with some of the things that have happened recently.
The first is I started listening to a podcast by Bill Simmons, also known as the Sports Guy on ESPN Page 2. In my opinion, he is the funniest, possibly most insightful sports commentator writing right now. Part of the reason is he writes sports editorials, so he is entirely biased to his hometown Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox. However, he writes with a love of the game, all the games, and I think he's great. Anyway, he is the kind of pal we all want, knows the sports and the stats and has interesting ideas. So I started listening to his podcast and I thought, hmm, that's not what i thought he would sound like. It's interesting. I met someone who started with our company a while back and he is a great guy but he's about 5'5" and I remember thinking to myself, hmm, he seemed taller on his resume. I don't know if those are the same mind faults, but they seem the same to me.
The best line I have heard in a while, and for the life of me I can't figure out where I read it, was something like this: Seeing the two of them together was weird. It was sort of like meeting both Dorian Gray and the picture of Dorian Gray at the same time. You have to read the story by Oscar Wilde to get that, but I thought it was clever. You would think it was clever enough to make me remember what the reference was, but it wasn't. My memory for things like that has always been terrible, but I can figure things out well enough to keep myself employed. Anyway, Dorian Grey is the only Oscar Wilde I have ever read and although it's a bit overdone at time, I liked the story. I don't know that I liked it enough to pursue more Wilde, but maybe sometime. Reading a list of his best, wittiest remarks online is quite interesting. He seems like someone I should like if I made the effort.
I have this weird love/hate relationship with the Iraq war. Obviously, I don't love it but i have this horrible sinking feeling that if this somehow works, and I can't figure out how it can, but if it does then G W goes down as a great president. It's horrifying. The man is incompetent and, quite frankly, he has surrounded himself with paranoid, incompetent, egocentric, psychos and/or liars. But what if he gets lucky? I certainly want a stable, free Iraq. What if it works? How do I feel then? Would I have to admit the ends justify the means? No, probably not. That guy is still a jerk.
I decided today after more than a month of agonizing over it to move to San Francisco in about 2 months. it was a brutal decision, and I'm going to miss a lot of great people here in Philadelphia. but it just felt like it was time for me to do something. I am notoriously bad at making decisions. I agonized about peace corps for years, I agonized about leaving peace corps for months, I don't know if San Fran will make me happy but I have to give it a try. To many ghosts in Philly, to much stagnation. It's my own fault really, I'll admit that, but I need to try to kickstart myself somehow. Catalyst for change or something like that. Anyway, I was delaying a bit to see if I could work my way into a job in London, but my friend took to long to respond and I had to give notice on my apartment etc. 2 hours after I said yes to my company, he emailed me and said his company wanted to talk to me and would consider sponsoring me to work in london. That's why i agonize over decisions. I have lousy timing. My sister told me not to be to moral and do what I want (ie go to london if I want, and she is a better person than I am), so I'm going to agonize over what I should do and end up in San Fran because I'm afraid to piss people off and do what I want. Sometimes I hate myself. But I'll like a new city. What the hell, right? Right?
Kevin Garnett was traded to the Boston Celtics and I love the move. I don't watch many sports anymore, not like I used to, but I love Garnett and hope he does well. Now, moving to the West Coast, maybe I can actually stay up late enough to watch the world series and NBA finals because they will end at 9 PM, not midnight. Go Tigers! Go Pistons! Go Lions (ahh, what's the point)...
About 1 week ago I wrote a blog about Harry Potter (I read it in about 14 hours the Saturday it came out), but I lost it. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and maybe I'll get back to that blog at some point. Anyway, I would like to first off thank J. K. Rowling for sharing her world with me. I appreciate it. Secondly, I would like to state what is a great line from the end of the book, and probably the greatest line of the entire series. Harry is in some sort of imaginary place speaking with someone (vagueness in case anyone hasn't read it, which leads me to ask - why?). Anyway, Harry and this person converse and Harry asks something like, "Is this real? Or is this all in my head?" And the other person responds, "Of course this is all in your head, but why would that mean it isn't real." Something like that, I loaned my book out. Regardless, the actual line is quite clever and a comment i wish I had written. And you should all read the book. 12 million people can't be wrong. Well, yes they can but I can't...
I saw a documentary on groucho marx the other night. He was quite a character, and quite amusing. I enjoyed it, sounds like him and his brothers had quite the strange relationships with each other, but Duck Soup is always good for a laugh. I just started watching the Wire on Netflix and I'm hooked. Love it so far. I have also watched all 3 seasons of Little Britain, a british sketch show and let me tell you, if you like mildly offensive sketch comedy, this is brilliant! Highly recommended, 5 stars, 2 thumbs, the whole thing. It's fantastic. Maybe I should go to London...
The first is I started listening to a podcast by Bill Simmons, also known as the Sports Guy on ESPN Page 2. In my opinion, he is the funniest, possibly most insightful sports commentator writing right now. Part of the reason is he writes sports editorials, so he is entirely biased to his hometown Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox. However, he writes with a love of the game, all the games, and I think he's great. Anyway, he is the kind of pal we all want, knows the sports and the stats and has interesting ideas. So I started listening to his podcast and I thought, hmm, that's not what i thought he would sound like. It's interesting. I met someone who started with our company a while back and he is a great guy but he's about 5'5" and I remember thinking to myself, hmm, he seemed taller on his resume. I don't know if those are the same mind faults, but they seem the same to me.
The best line I have heard in a while, and for the life of me I can't figure out where I read it, was something like this: Seeing the two of them together was weird. It was sort of like meeting both Dorian Gray and the picture of Dorian Gray at the same time. You have to read the story by Oscar Wilde to get that, but I thought it was clever. You would think it was clever enough to make me remember what the reference was, but it wasn't. My memory for things like that has always been terrible, but I can figure things out well enough to keep myself employed. Anyway, Dorian Grey is the only Oscar Wilde I have ever read and although it's a bit overdone at time, I liked the story. I don't know that I liked it enough to pursue more Wilde, but maybe sometime. Reading a list of his best, wittiest remarks online is quite interesting. He seems like someone I should like if I made the effort.
I have this weird love/hate relationship with the Iraq war. Obviously, I don't love it but i have this horrible sinking feeling that if this somehow works, and I can't figure out how it can, but if it does then G W goes down as a great president. It's horrifying. The man is incompetent and, quite frankly, he has surrounded himself with paranoid, incompetent, egocentric, psychos and/or liars. But what if he gets lucky? I certainly want a stable, free Iraq. What if it works? How do I feel then? Would I have to admit the ends justify the means? No, probably not. That guy is still a jerk.
I decided today after more than a month of agonizing over it to move to San Francisco in about 2 months. it was a brutal decision, and I'm going to miss a lot of great people here in Philadelphia. but it just felt like it was time for me to do something. I am notoriously bad at making decisions. I agonized about peace corps for years, I agonized about leaving peace corps for months, I don't know if San Fran will make me happy but I have to give it a try. To many ghosts in Philly, to much stagnation. It's my own fault really, I'll admit that, but I need to try to kickstart myself somehow. Catalyst for change or something like that. Anyway, I was delaying a bit to see if I could work my way into a job in London, but my friend took to long to respond and I had to give notice on my apartment etc. 2 hours after I said yes to my company, he emailed me and said his company wanted to talk to me and would consider sponsoring me to work in london. That's why i agonize over decisions. I have lousy timing. My sister told me not to be to moral and do what I want (ie go to london if I want, and she is a better person than I am), so I'm going to agonize over what I should do and end up in San Fran because I'm afraid to piss people off and do what I want. Sometimes I hate myself. But I'll like a new city. What the hell, right? Right?
Kevin Garnett was traded to the Boston Celtics and I love the move. I don't watch many sports anymore, not like I used to, but I love Garnett and hope he does well. Now, moving to the West Coast, maybe I can actually stay up late enough to watch the world series and NBA finals because they will end at 9 PM, not midnight. Go Tigers! Go Pistons! Go Lions (ahh, what's the point)...
About 1 week ago I wrote a blog about Harry Potter (I read it in about 14 hours the Saturday it came out), but I lost it. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and maybe I'll get back to that blog at some point. Anyway, I would like to first off thank J. K. Rowling for sharing her world with me. I appreciate it. Secondly, I would like to state what is a great line from the end of the book, and probably the greatest line of the entire series. Harry is in some sort of imaginary place speaking with someone (vagueness in case anyone hasn't read it, which leads me to ask - why?). Anyway, Harry and this person converse and Harry asks something like, "Is this real? Or is this all in my head?" And the other person responds, "Of course this is all in your head, but why would that mean it isn't real." Something like that, I loaned my book out. Regardless, the actual line is quite clever and a comment i wish I had written. And you should all read the book. 12 million people can't be wrong. Well, yes they can but I can't...
I saw a documentary on groucho marx the other night. He was quite a character, and quite amusing. I enjoyed it, sounds like him and his brothers had quite the strange relationships with each other, but Duck Soup is always good for a laugh. I just started watching the Wire on Netflix and I'm hooked. Love it so far. I have also watched all 3 seasons of Little Britain, a british sketch show and let me tell you, if you like mildly offensive sketch comedy, this is brilliant! Highly recommended, 5 stars, 2 thumbs, the whole thing. It's fantastic. Maybe I should go to London...
2007/07/26
Sand is infinite
A friend gave me another image of infinite: sand. Grains of sand certainly qualifies. How about the circle of life, the endless repetition that one generation passes on to another? True utopias nor distopias exist in reality, only the imaginations of the idealistic and the mad. too often, I feel people are both.
The Stranger talks about the hopeless cycle of life in that way, where we should seek only happiness because life is temporal. Maybe. Perhaps happiness is all we should seek, and if being alone in a strange city might make me happy, shouldn't I try it? the ocean is infinite, many great bodies of water are. But there is a key difference in the ocean - not only is it infinite, but it's repetitive. The waves actually add something that, to me, makes the ocean mesmerizing while the sand that supports it and awaits it coming misses. Grains of sand are infinite in scope. The ocean is infinite in magic. It contains great creatures, and rises and falls, and can be angry and attack, and it can be blue and beautiful and calm. Sometimes, it seems as lonely as you are. Other times, as full of life. The ocean is also the great mirror then as we can find in it what we look for, what we feel, maybe at some level, at a certain point in time, what we are. The ocean then represents living life, the ongoing cycle of it, and grains of sand the ultimate eternal nature of life, or death.
Does this mean the apple represents hope, or rather more accurately probably the eternal end of happiness? Does that bring us back to the struggle of the Stranger, that hopeless cycle of life, the repetitive burden of it? We can never be happy, but we should continue trying anyhow?
How else do things fit together? This isn't quite there...
The Stranger talks about the hopeless cycle of life in that way, where we should seek only happiness because life is temporal. Maybe. Perhaps happiness is all we should seek, and if being alone in a strange city might make me happy, shouldn't I try it? the ocean is infinite, many great bodies of water are. But there is a key difference in the ocean - not only is it infinite, but it's repetitive. The waves actually add something that, to me, makes the ocean mesmerizing while the sand that supports it and awaits it coming misses. Grains of sand are infinite in scope. The ocean is infinite in magic. It contains great creatures, and rises and falls, and can be angry and attack, and it can be blue and beautiful and calm. Sometimes, it seems as lonely as you are. Other times, as full of life. The ocean is also the great mirror then as we can find in it what we look for, what we feel, maybe at some level, at a certain point in time, what we are. The ocean then represents living life, the ongoing cycle of it, and grains of sand the ultimate eternal nature of life, or death.
Does this mean the apple represents hope, or rather more accurately probably the eternal end of happiness? Does that bring us back to the struggle of the Stranger, that hopeless cycle of life, the repetitive burden of it? We can never be happy, but we should continue trying anyhow?
How else do things fit together? This isn't quite there...
Border security and wall around my life
It's pretty obvious to me our political system is broken. I'm not just talking about our president, but the congress as well. Nothing can happen. Some would argue nothing should happen, because government just prevents action. There is probably something to be said for that, but I'm not going to think about it now.
Right now, I'm concerned with the unofficial costs of the war that neither side are bringing up. This includes the long term ongoing costs of health care, especially for post traumatic stress, of our veterans. However, what about the costs to countries neighboring Iraq and their need to assume thousands of refugees? Think about how angry the immigration debate here is, and consider what it should be over there? Think about the long term effects to the effected countries (Iraq losing people and the countries forced to take them in). Ask yourself what our government is doing to support them? Neither political party is truly addressing this, and even if we pulled out tomorrow, there are residual costs, monetary and political, that are incalculable.
Neither party seems much interested in addressing this. The republicans don't really seem to care, and the democrats don't seem to be strong enough to stand up to the republicans. It's broken. The country, our country, needs to start over. Adding a 3rd political party won't help. It's larger than that. It's the entire psyche of America. I actually almost cried today in my car just thinking about it, all those lives. Whenever I get depressed about my life, I just feel stupid and insignificant because so many people have so many more problems than i do. But I think it's the powerlessness that really gets to me, because I don't know what to do. Sometimes it just feels like money and power steamroll everyone, and working toward change just proves how powerless I am. I am afraid of that feeling, and sometimes I think I just keep running from it.
Does that mean our political system is broken, or I am broken? I am afraid of being poor. I have never been poor, and I've never been rich but I'm afraid of that in a way too. My high school basketball coach once said, "Don't be afraid of success." It seemed a foolish thing to say to me then. It seems very profound to me now because now I understand it. Somehow, I can't imagine being anywhere other than the middle, and I'm not sure I want to be. Living in Honduras taught me a lot about who I am and how people who are poor struggle. They still laugh, they still enjoy their lives, but there is this quiet desperation of hopelessness that you can almost smell, you can definately feel it, that I never knew how to take. Do I owe them anything? Do I owe the world anything? The world doesn't owe me anything. Is it enough to donate money and move on? I feel like it's not. Is it worthwhile throwing myself into something, living in relative poverty, to fight a battle that cannot be won?
In the next 4 days I change my life. I'm not sure how yet, but I know i need to switch jobs or location, possibly both. I have an offer from my current company to move to San Francisco, which would keep my middle class and my life relatively easy. Hopefully in SF I would volunteer more and really get involved in something. But is that enough? Does it mean anything? If I move to DC and work for some NGO for human rights or against human trafficking, would I be happier?
I decided a few years back that happiness should be paramount to a person. It's my take on darwin I suppose. I think historically happiness has been through things, family, house, field, etc. For me, it is an interesting job and some financial flexibility. I realize those are things, but I generally don't get to caught up in having the best car, TV, clothes, etc. But I realize those are my choices, you can make your own. The issue I guess I need to resolve, in the next 4 days or the next year if i go to SF, is who am I really? What do I really want? How do I get there?
If i truly believe America is broken, shouldn't I work to fix it? Even if I know it can't be fixed, not in any significant way anyway. It's to big, to many rules, to much history. A violent revolution in America is infeasible, and small scale change is impractical, slow, and doomed to fail to the violence of money and greed. I truly believe that. Politicians, like most of us, watch out for their own. It's broken. Do I care? Where do I go next?
Right now, I'm concerned with the unofficial costs of the war that neither side are bringing up. This includes the long term ongoing costs of health care, especially for post traumatic stress, of our veterans. However, what about the costs to countries neighboring Iraq and their need to assume thousands of refugees? Think about how angry the immigration debate here is, and consider what it should be over there? Think about the long term effects to the effected countries (Iraq losing people and the countries forced to take them in). Ask yourself what our government is doing to support them? Neither political party is truly addressing this, and even if we pulled out tomorrow, there are residual costs, monetary and political, that are incalculable.
Neither party seems much interested in addressing this. The republicans don't really seem to care, and the democrats don't seem to be strong enough to stand up to the republicans. It's broken. The country, our country, needs to start over. Adding a 3rd political party won't help. It's larger than that. It's the entire psyche of America. I actually almost cried today in my car just thinking about it, all those lives. Whenever I get depressed about my life, I just feel stupid and insignificant because so many people have so many more problems than i do. But I think it's the powerlessness that really gets to me, because I don't know what to do. Sometimes it just feels like money and power steamroll everyone, and working toward change just proves how powerless I am. I am afraid of that feeling, and sometimes I think I just keep running from it.
Does that mean our political system is broken, or I am broken? I am afraid of being poor. I have never been poor, and I've never been rich but I'm afraid of that in a way too. My high school basketball coach once said, "Don't be afraid of success." It seemed a foolish thing to say to me then. It seems very profound to me now because now I understand it. Somehow, I can't imagine being anywhere other than the middle, and I'm not sure I want to be. Living in Honduras taught me a lot about who I am and how people who are poor struggle. They still laugh, they still enjoy their lives, but there is this quiet desperation of hopelessness that you can almost smell, you can definately feel it, that I never knew how to take. Do I owe them anything? Do I owe the world anything? The world doesn't owe me anything. Is it enough to donate money and move on? I feel like it's not. Is it worthwhile throwing myself into something, living in relative poverty, to fight a battle that cannot be won?
In the next 4 days I change my life. I'm not sure how yet, but I know i need to switch jobs or location, possibly both. I have an offer from my current company to move to San Francisco, which would keep my middle class and my life relatively easy. Hopefully in SF I would volunteer more and really get involved in something. But is that enough? Does it mean anything? If I move to DC and work for some NGO for human rights or against human trafficking, would I be happier?
I decided a few years back that happiness should be paramount to a person. It's my take on darwin I suppose. I think historically happiness has been through things, family, house, field, etc. For me, it is an interesting job and some financial flexibility. I realize those are things, but I generally don't get to caught up in having the best car, TV, clothes, etc. But I realize those are my choices, you can make your own. The issue I guess I need to resolve, in the next 4 days or the next year if i go to SF, is who am I really? What do I really want? How do I get there?
If i truly believe America is broken, shouldn't I work to fix it? Even if I know it can't be fixed, not in any significant way anyway. It's to big, to many rules, to much history. A violent revolution in America is infeasible, and small scale change is impractical, slow, and doomed to fail to the violence of money and greed. I truly believe that. Politicians, like most of us, watch out for their own. It's broken. Do I care? Where do I go next?
2007/07/21
Infinite and pick up lines
In my opinion, it's true what they say that there is nothing sexier than a girl who understands infinite. A friend of mine sent me the following line, mentioning it was funny and something I should consider using: "you must be the square root of 2 because I feel irrational when I'm around you." That's pretty funny, so I figured you could top it by saying, "you must be pi because i want to be next to you forever" or something like that. The key to the second one is she has to be smart enough to realize I'm not talking about pie the food, but pi the number. I'm not saying let's be an apple crisp forever, that's just stupid and those aren't infinite. I'm a dork, what do you want from me.
So I was sort of giggling about these things during my commute the other day and I just started listing all the interesting things I could think of about infinite. For something that's so big, I really didn't have much but I did remember a comment I read in a story once by, I think, Borges: All animals are immortal except man, because they do not understand death. That's not exact, but it's the general idea. Anyway, I was looking for that quote in my book then online, and I found another one: There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite. This one is, according to this website, from The Avatars of the Tortoise, which I haven't read. But it's an interesting quote nonetheless.
Anyway, those are asides and not really where I was going with this, although I think an intelligent analysis of Borges comments on the infinite would be interesting. I was thinking about what other analogies or images we have of infinite. The first quote above basically says if you don't know death, you are immortal. That's very interesting, especially if you want to look into why so many cultures throughout time have had some type of religion and particularly a concept of some part of you living on in another world. Perhaps in our very nature is some desire to be connected to the infinite, and we develop that in our culture as religion. That's a complicated topic that I'm not going to get into here, but maybe another time. However, I will pose the following for you to think about, because I find it interesting. Religion, it could be argued, is some sort of ongoing collective cultural agreement so we can believe our lives will get better, even if it is another world. Let's steal from Marx so I sound smart and call this the Opium of the People argument. However, could it not also be argued that more intrinsically our brains are wired not to accept the temporal nature of our lives, and therefore cling to some connection the underlying universe which is infinite? In this argument, we all feel disconnected from each other, the world, the universe, eveything because we realize, at some, in a relatively near future, we will not be connected to it physically. We are temporal, but the energy around is not. Sure our bodies decompose into the earth and become beautiful roses or something, but that's not us, that's not our mind. Ultimately, most people do not accept that as sufficient. Is our mind seeking that connection through religion? That argument is different than the argument for a better life, it is seeking an eternal life. Those are, without doubt and without wandering to far off my path, not the same thing. I won't go into it. Like the famouse mathematician who said, I have a proof but it's too complicated for the margin so just take my word for it. In his case, we still believe his theory but we haven't actually proved it. Wish I could remember who that was, it's an intersting problem.
Babble babble babble. That's what that little aside was, pure babble babble. What I wanted to figure out, what i was thinking about that day in the car was this: what are the symbols of the infinite? Obviously, the mathematical sideways 8 is one. I think the apple is one, at least in judea-christian societies because it is the first fruit in the bible and, if you know your bible, is why we don't live forever and have knowledge, therefore, life sucks. That's the point of the bible by the way if you are to busy to read it. We ate of the tree of knowledge, we understood a few things, and now life sucks, but the new testament says we should try to be good anyway so we can get into heaven and have eternal life. Interesting. That's about it for that book. Anyway, I think the apple fits tightly into the christian concept of eternal life (because we were evicted from Eden we know life and will die, but can gain eternal life... without the apple, no death and no need for christianity. it might be interesting to note that without Judas, no crucifixion and no Jesus as saviour. they stole the same basic plot line 2 times in the same book in the same religion! and nobody cares. i can't be a christian just because of that).
Anyway, I think I have stated before the tomato is untrustworthy member of the fruit and veggie family (is it a fruit? is it a vegetable? Tomatos cannot, and I cannot state this clearly enough, be trusted with secrets!), but the infinite? I go with apple from the fruit family, without any option B. Other symbols include the ocean, the universe, death works, but then I couldn't think of anything. Star crossed lovers popped into my head, some sort of love that lasts forever, beyond death but I don't think that really works. That is a very short and depressing list for such an important issue. Thinkers, where are you?
There must be others, the concept of infinite should pass through everything we do. Hmm, I'll have to think about it again and let you know what I come up.
2007/07/14
Stealing blog ideas and tagging myself
I have been trying to write a blog about our electoral system and why I think we need major overhaul, but I can't get it to make sense so I am stealing a blog idea from a friend. She was "tagged" and, instead of tagging others, just threw out the rules and her information. I'm copying her rules, which she copied from someone else, which I'm pasting because I'm lazy. And I agree, #1 isn't a rule but it's a good way to begin. Let's begin.
- All right, here are the rules.
- We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
- Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
- People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
- At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.
- I don't like odd numbers unless they are factors of by 5. This means if I am watching TV or listening to the radio and the volume control has a number, it is on 26 or 28, but never 27. Even numbers just feel better, and don't even get me started on prime numbers. 88 feels especially nice and squishy, but it doesn't come up very often unfortunately. I don't know how anyone got married on 7/7/7 earlier this month, that number feels like a walking barefoot through a cactus patch. Then again, it is marriage...
- My favorite books are escapist (borges, marquez, tolkien), but my favorite movies are not (cool hand luke, taxi driver, casablanca). I don't know why this is, maybe because i use my imagination more with reading and enjoy the freedom, whereas with movies I don't buy into the movie unless it feels real. i don't know, I just realized this the other day and it sort of freaks me out.
- I don't believe in the american dream anymore. I don't want a house in the suburbs, I don't want to farm my land, and I don't want to compete to become richer than my neighbor. I think that competition between people and neighbors and cities and states and everything has consumed us and is destroying us. And we are pushing it on every country, and many are buying into it. It might be interesting to note and really consider how perhaps this is competitive nature is just our natural instincts coming out and it's actually darwinian, but that's too depressing for me to consider on this particular beautiful saturday afternoon. Shouldn't we be able to control that now for the good of all? I might drive across the country later this year, and my hope from that is to re-develop some sort of love of america and my fellow citizens.
- Although I strongly believe everyone has a right to their opinion, there are some opinions that I think would prevent us from being friends, and may even prevent me from acknowledging you if we passed each other on a street corner. As an example, I'm fine with your view on abortion because I think that is sufficiently complicated and gray. However, if you don't believe in legalizing gay marriage (or civil unions, I'm referring to the state recognized concept not the religious one), I don't think I could in good faith acknowledge you. If it doesn't effect you, and this doesn't doesn't, don't worry about it. I don't like the concept of 2 loud fat people sleeping together and birthing fat annoying children either, but that doesn't mean I believe I have a right to forbid it. The church is a private enterprise and has a right to forbid whatever they want in their buildings if they choose, but from a society standpoint, it should be legal. The only argument i have heard against this is basd on tradition and religion, and neither are valid. If you believe in tradition over modern reality, I guess you are amish or luddite and don't watch TV, radio, movies, and you won't read this either. That's not enough votes to stop this in an election or make a politician care. It's religious pandering on both sides who do not support this. My disgust also goes for not recognizing a clear separation of church and state. Somehow, I feel all those 3 issues are related. See number 4.
- My favorite food is mexican food, tortillas/beans/salsa/guacamole/etc, although pizza still comes in a close 2nd.
- I wish i could write like I used to, but i just don't feel it anymore. It used to be a great escape, now I generally just stare at my computer. I think that may have something to do with a larger life problem I am working through right now, and hope to have resolved in the next month.
- I'm shy and uncomfortable in big groups of people and parties, although I am generally ok in smaller groups (less than 2 people...). It took a lot of work, but I am finally fairly comfortable doing presentations and training sessions for work. I doubt I will ever get over it on a social level, though.
- If I could travel anywhere in the world right now, I would go to Machu Pichu. That place looks amazing. And I want to hike up there in a llama suit just because it would somehow feel more real. I also can't wait until the day when computers are smart enough so that the computer would know when you read llama suit in the last sentence and your computer would have made a llama sound and a llama smell would have come out of your speakers.
I don't really even know other people who blog, so I'm not tagging anyone else either. There is supposed to be some punishment for not doing that. Maybe I'll get run over by a gay marriage hating newlywed couple (who got married on July 7th of course) as they return back to their picket fence, dog, and 2.3 children in the suburbs. I'd probably deserve it too.
2007/07/01
Probably lost
I am trying to teach myself a little more about probability. I'm not sure why, maybe it's because during my last trip to Vegas, my only trip to Vegas, I got hosed by ProblyNotU, the norse god of gambling who obviously hates me. Maybe it's because i was bored and figured this book might be interesting. Most likely it's probably because it is something I feel like I should understand, but don't really.
Anyway, I bought this book as part of my birthday present to myself (is that lame? not buying yourself a birthday present, but making part of it a book on probability?). After a bit of history of probability, they get to a point where they are talking about standard distribution, which makes sense since it is the standard after all, and they mentioned something about the standard deviation. If you had asked me to define the standard deviation before I was reading this, I would have said the smaller the standard deviation, the tighter the values around the mean. One standard deviation from the mean is approximately 32% (I think) of the values, so approx. 64% of the area under the standard bell curve is within 1 std dev of the mean.
However, and this is one of those interesting facts that really makes math interesting and makes me believe the universe might generally be annoyed with me for some reason and be generally entirely random, but maybe at some point it will love me and become orderly. The fact is this: on a standard bell curve, one standard deviation is the inflection point of the graph, meaning the point where the graph goes from convex to concave (or vice versa, depending if you are travelling up or down the graph. I can't remember which is which).
Now that is interesting. I guess if I had really thought about it, I might have figured that out, or just tossed out a "wouldn't it be interesting if the standard dev was related to the inflection point...". In my 2nd semester calculus in college, and stop me if you've heard this one, our professor used to say things like, "This is pretty straight forward, and you would figure this out if you were left on a desert island but we don't have time for that..." then he would put up some 8 blackboard proof showing the sky is blue because the arc of the curve under the water bubble in the sky reflects in such a way or some other crazy thing I would frankly not have figured out on a desert island. I think if I was left on a desert island, I would be the greatest coconut shooting basketball player in history, but that's another post. Anyway, his name was Prof. Mattock (Maddick, Matok, something like that), and he was great. I don't know if he is still teaching, but he should be. He was probably the 2nd best teacher I had in college.
Anyway, since I'm telling stories, I'm not sure how i got out of the introduction probability course without learning this. I didn't understand the entirity of the class, so maybe the inflection point/standard dev issue was mentioned between Chebyshev and Poisson distributions, I don't know. Anyway, it was one of those classes that wasn't required for graduation, but was required for almost every single major so everyone in the college had taken it, almost all of us from the same professor. The professor was a quirky little guy who had taught the class for a million years and liked to say things like, "If anyone comes up to you on the street and offers you a poisson distribution with a standard devition of 90%, run away!" He had a million examples like this, and the only thing i remember is that Poisson may have something to do with the odds of rare things happening to you that you don't want to happen (lightning strikes, things like that). It could probably work the other way (rare things happening to you that you do want to happen, like love), but he never talked about that. Glass is half full kind of guy I suppose, I can appreciate that. I think my strongest memory of the class is I took it with a bunch of friends, including upper classmen and one friend who took it pass/fail because everyone else was taking it. He only came to about 3 classes. He was sitting behind one class me making fun of people walking in, which is generally how he passed his time. People were filing in, and one classic nerd looking guy walks in with the periodic table of elements on his T-shirt. My friend starts laughing and points at him just as the teacher walks in (what are the odds?). So the teacher walks in, the class quiets down just as my friend continues pointing blurts out quite loudly because it had been loud a moment ago, "Look at the geek!" as he just keeps laughing and pointing and it's dead silent except for him and those of us near him laughing or trying not to laugh. Good times.
Anyway, the professor was quirky but I'm not sure how i got out of that class without understanding even that basic relationship. He was a good teacher too, but I think he passed away a few years back, which is sad.
Anyway, in general, at times like this, I'm happy I appreciate math and science because there is always more for me to learn and understand, and it generally fascinates me. However, sometimes I'm not really sure how I ever graduated. Hmmph.
Anyway, I bought this book as part of my birthday present to myself (is that lame? not buying yourself a birthday present, but making part of it a book on probability?). After a bit of history of probability, they get to a point where they are talking about standard distribution, which makes sense since it is the standard after all, and they mentioned something about the standard deviation. If you had asked me to define the standard deviation before I was reading this, I would have said the smaller the standard deviation, the tighter the values around the mean. One standard deviation from the mean is approximately 32% (I think) of the values, so approx. 64% of the area under the standard bell curve is within 1 std dev of the mean.
However, and this is one of those interesting facts that really makes math interesting and makes me believe the universe might generally be annoyed with me for some reason and be generally entirely random, but maybe at some point it will love me and become orderly. The fact is this: on a standard bell curve, one standard deviation is the inflection point of the graph, meaning the point where the graph goes from convex to concave (or vice versa, depending if you are travelling up or down the graph. I can't remember which is which).
Now that is interesting. I guess if I had really thought about it, I might have figured that out, or just tossed out a "wouldn't it be interesting if the standard dev was related to the inflection point...". In my 2nd semester calculus in college, and stop me if you've heard this one, our professor used to say things like, "This is pretty straight forward, and you would figure this out if you were left on a desert island but we don't have time for that..." then he would put up some 8 blackboard proof showing the sky is blue because the arc of the curve under the water bubble in the sky reflects in such a way or some other crazy thing I would frankly not have figured out on a desert island. I think if I was left on a desert island, I would be the greatest coconut shooting basketball player in history, but that's another post. Anyway, his name was Prof. Mattock (Maddick, Matok, something like that), and he was great. I don't know if he is still teaching, but he should be. He was probably the 2nd best teacher I had in college.
Anyway, since I'm telling stories, I'm not sure how i got out of the introduction probability course without learning this. I didn't understand the entirity of the class, so maybe the inflection point/standard dev issue was mentioned between Chebyshev and Poisson distributions, I don't know. Anyway, it was one of those classes that wasn't required for graduation, but was required for almost every single major so everyone in the college had taken it, almost all of us from the same professor. The professor was a quirky little guy who had taught the class for a million years and liked to say things like, "If anyone comes up to you on the street and offers you a poisson distribution with a standard devition of 90%, run away!" He had a million examples like this, and the only thing i remember is that Poisson may have something to do with the odds of rare things happening to you that you don't want to happen (lightning strikes, things like that). It could probably work the other way (rare things happening to you that you do want to happen, like love), but he never talked about that. Glass is half full kind of guy I suppose, I can appreciate that. I think my strongest memory of the class is I took it with a bunch of friends, including upper classmen and one friend who took it pass/fail because everyone else was taking it. He only came to about 3 classes. He was sitting behind one class me making fun of people walking in, which is generally how he passed his time. People were filing in, and one classic nerd looking guy walks in with the periodic table of elements on his T-shirt. My friend starts laughing and points at him just as the teacher walks in (what are the odds?). So the teacher walks in, the class quiets down just as my friend continues pointing blurts out quite loudly because it had been loud a moment ago, "Look at the geek!" as he just keeps laughing and pointing and it's dead silent except for him and those of us near him laughing or trying not to laugh. Good times.
Anyway, the professor was quirky but I'm not sure how i got out of that class without understanding even that basic relationship. He was a good teacher too, but I think he passed away a few years back, which is sad.
Anyway, in general, at times like this, I'm happy I appreciate math and science because there is always more for me to learn and understand, and it generally fascinates me. However, sometimes I'm not really sure how I ever graduated. Hmmph.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)