Today's random thought is prompted by passing through the living room and seeing a discovery channel program on the Loch Ness Monster and how basically you'll see whatever you want to see; if you believe in the monster, you'll see it even if what you're really seeing is a block of wood. The brief part I saw showed a bunch of tourists on a bus and the tour guide at the front asks how many people believe in the Loch Ness Monster. About 7 people raised their hands (8 if you count me raising my hand in the living room but that is a separate issue).
And that got me thinking about tour guides in general -- I think there must be a standard policy about tour guides and what I'll lump as "supernatural things". Because I saw this clip and I thought, I'd like to ask (and I'll bet somebody probably did) whether the tour guide himself believed in the monster. And then it struck me that I didn't need to ask because I knew what the response would be.
Pause for a moment, think to yourself what you think the answer would be, and then tell me if it meshes with what I'm about to say.
Along the lines of,
"Well, I don't know whether I believe or not. I've seen/heard some strange thigns I can't explain, though [may at this point regale you with said story]. I try to keep an open mind."
I was trying to think because it seems really odd that when I think about it pretty much any time I've gone on a tour of something like that it seems like that's ALWAYS the answer, or something really similar to it anyway. I think it's a standard pat answer so you can play both sides of the believe/disbelieve fence and not subtly antagonise anyone in your tour group who may have the other view. If I went to scotland and my tour guide was all "there is no loch ness monster it's a load of crap", or to roswell and got "it was a weather balloon, people, no matter what a bunch of crazies will tell you" or whatnot, I'd be turned off of the guide personally. Because I'd feel like he'd just quashed me without reason (because you can't really prove these things one way or the other, IMO). And if I didn't believe in a roswell UFO crash I would be highly annoyed if some lunatic tour guide kept talking about a government conspiracy.
So this way they keep everyone on the tour group nice and mellow.
Which raises into question what the tour guide *actually* believes. I'd ask one, if they didn't already have a pat response for it.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Bakery Market Research
So I made a few batches of scones saturday night and took them to move-in at Redstone. Left them out for people to eat, with the request that they fill out a little 3-question survey I had left. Most did so, though a few did not. Mainly I was wondering about prices, what people would pay.
La, results:
Chocolate Chip Scones:
$2
$2.50
3 people didn't respond
2 scones left over
(5/7 eaten, 71%)
Blueberry Scones:
$2
$4.50
$1.75
$2
6 were left
(4/10 eaten, 40%)
Cream Scones:
$1.95-2.50
$5
$2
2 people didn't respond
2 scones were left
(5/7 eaten, 71%)
Now it's impossible to judge what effect word of mouth had because there were so many small, disparate groups of people moving in who wouldn't necessarily turn to the complete stranger moving in next door and say "the cream scone was really good you should try that". So eating percentages may be irrelevant.
On the other hand if you look just at the straight numbers it's about even across. *shrug*. I didn't much care for this blueberry recipe, despite it using both fresh blueberries AND buttermilk. I liked the streusel one I used a few weeks ago for Blueberganza much better.
So discounting the likely-over-exuberant enthusiasm of the two loons who said 4.50 and 5, looks like about 2$. So the next question is...how much would it cost me to make? I'll need to work that out...
And yes, I know it's a small sampling and therefore likely statistically insignificant. Shaddup ;-)
Oh and generally, people were very supportive of the idea of me opening a bakery. Of course the ones who were being informed were my friends anyway so...eh. Useful as moral support but I am not so foolish as to take that as realistic evidence of my chances.
La, results:
Chocolate Chip Scones:
$2
$2.50
3 people didn't respond
2 scones left over
(5/7 eaten, 71%)
Blueberry Scones:
$2
$4.50
$1.75
$2
6 were left
(4/10 eaten, 40%)
Cream Scones:
$1.95-2.50
$5
$2
2 people didn't respond
2 scones were left
(5/7 eaten, 71%)
Now it's impossible to judge what effect word of mouth had because there were so many small, disparate groups of people moving in who wouldn't necessarily turn to the complete stranger moving in next door and say "the cream scone was really good you should try that". So eating percentages may be irrelevant.
On the other hand if you look just at the straight numbers it's about even across. *shrug*. I didn't much care for this blueberry recipe, despite it using both fresh blueberries AND buttermilk. I liked the streusel one I used a few weeks ago for Blueberganza much better.
So discounting the likely-over-exuberant enthusiasm of the two loons who said 4.50 and 5, looks like about 2$. So the next question is...how much would it cost me to make? I'll need to work that out...
And yes, I know it's a small sampling and therefore likely statistically insignificant. Shaddup ;-)
Oh and generally, people were very supportive of the idea of me opening a bakery. Of course the ones who were being informed were my friends anyway so...eh. Useful as moral support but I am not so foolish as to take that as realistic evidence of my chances.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Bakery Post!
So, input on this slapped-together idea for a bakery masthead (for lack of a better term). Particularly the input from the artsy-crafty side of the family is desired and encouraged. Not that I don't love the techy-mathy side of the family too, especially as it's the half I'm on, and I think it's funny how symmetric our fam is about that...but since Kevo's going in for digital media and Kerry already HAS a degree in graphic design... :-)
I'd like to put it on business cards, stickers holding the plastic wrap around goods together, etc.
Obviously it'll be updated with a phone number and a web address once I can get a web presence, before you snidely comment on its uselessness without that information ;-)
Monday, August 20, 2007
Karl Rove: Why Do We Care?
Today's should-have-been Friday, SHB Saturday, SHB Sunday, post is on the subject of our late and mostly unlamented "presidential advisor" Karl Rove. For the record I was originally going to blog about highway design but I couldn't really think of a clever way to make that into a lengthy enough post to be worthwhile. And I couldn't really think of anything about Rove either, though I've been wanting to comment on that for a while, until a bit of a brainstorm this morning.
I should like to go on record as stating, against the long- and firmly-held belief of probably 85% of my friends and relations, that I do not think Karl Rove is a bad man, overall. Accusations on that whole Valerie Plame thing, I'll give you those are not good, if true. And, need I remind everyone, we live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom, not the media. Besides which, she's still alive, and so is her husband, so regardless of the criminality of the event it didn't kill anyone (though it *was* life-threatening, possibly, as I understand it) and so I am prepared to pass it off as the usual corruption. I do not approve of corruption; however it is ridiculous to assume that this sort of stuff doesn't go on all the time. I think it has pretty much gotten to the point in this country where when we prosecute corrupt politicians it's because we're annoyed with ourselves for voting for someone stupid enough to get caught, not because of the actual offence.
But I digress.
Mainly people don't like Karl Rove because of his status, real or supposed, as Bush's "evil genius". A lot of the partisanship comes because the Democrats are jealous that they can't seem to find an evil genius of their own. I mean, IMHO, Howard Dean's tenure as DNC chairman helped bring the party back to grassroots organising and that was a key factor in winning the 06 elections (and possibly 08, the way things are currently looking). That was a smart, clear-eyed move. Yet nobody decries Dean as an evil genius for doing smart things that got his party elected and put in legislative control. Debates on the supposed liberality of the media, I will not entertain here in this context. But generally, my point is that Democrats do whatever they can to put the balance their direction and get elected as well -- Rove's just had a rough time of it because he was better at it for many, many years and for a long time the headless Democrats couldn't get to his smartness level so the only tactic left was to pull him down to theirs. And that's worked surprisingly well for them.
I have a theory, and that theory is this: People respect the presidency, to some degree. I know, radical concept. Generally, historians agree that there's a "credibility gap" starting with Nixon that has made people pretty much not respect the presidency any more, on a downward slide that Reagan did nothing to arrest with Iran-Contra, that Clinton certainly didn't help with his canoodling (though I think many, many politicians do this -- even Hyde from Utah had a problem in this area), and Bush Jr. hasn't helped with a good number of things he's engaged in while President. Still, there exists some degree of respect, I think, for the office if not necessarily the person holding it. And so we would rather assume that, yes, Americans are smart (we like to pat ourselves on the back), and we wouldn't really have elected an evil, twisted, manipulative man to the presidency. We prefer to think that he's a simple, good-hearted man who has been led astray by evil councillors. That way it's not really our fault (because who elected Rove? or Rumsfeld? or Wolfowitz? Nobody did).
What I find intriguing is that this is not a new idea. It's a very old one, in fact. Having just finished a book on the Wars of the Roses (by Alison Weir, the second time I've read this one, also, so if you can't tell I recommend it), that's where you're going to get examples from. Henry VI was a terrible king, weak-minded, indecisive, and easily led. When Richard, Duke of York, raised the red flag of rebellion against him, take a stab at the primary cause? To reform the government and remove the greedy, arrogant, grasping favourites the king had surrounded himself with. No word, at least at the early stages of the wars, about deposing Henry (that came later) -- because there was still a great deal of respect for the *office* of the king, who had after all been sacredly anointed by God. And in fact the Yorkists were extremely moderate in their aims while rebelling; it was constantly to "reform the government"; they refrained from taking the ultimate step of declaring that Richard had a better claim to the throne for an excessively long time, and only finally settled on it when it became apparent that they had little other choice because Henry would never abandon his advisers. And later, when Richard's son Edward IV's chief supporter Richard Neville, "the kingmaker" Earl of Warrewyk (or Warwick; I prefer the spelling he himself used) defected to the other side and supported Henry VI's return to power, his ostensible reason was to remove from influence the supremely grasping family of Elizabeth Wydville, Edward's wife, who had snapped up pretty much all the offices and vacant peerages of the realm (being gentry originally, this was particularly galling do Warrewyk, whose family fought at the side of William the Conqueror). Mainly the Kingmaker's annoyance was that he was thus neatly parried from grabbing all of those things for himself, let us make no assumptions about him being a pure and upstanding man, but the reasons he put about in his propaganda are rather familiar. Understandably so, really, when you look at the target audience -- he was trying to swing the commons of England to his side, and they had a great deal of respect for the sanctity of the King's person. Therefore it's not really the king's fault...he's just being led astray, don't you see?
Ditto that with the League of the Public Weal against Louis XI, a failed rebellion to remove the king's counsellors because he had actively promoted men of low birth to positions of importance (ie the beginnings of a meritocracy instead of an aristocracy), and the failed Praguerie that Louis had previously led against his own father, Charles VII. Same ostensible causes.
But to bring this more into the present, if I may direct the reader's attention to the excellently-researched book by Joachim Fest, "Plotting Hitler's Death", it may be noted that early stages of the anti-Nazi plotting centered around eliminating Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering, or some combination thereof, while retaining Hitler as the Fuhrer. They were under the impression that Hitler himself was not a bad man; just the people he surrounded himself with were, and if only they could be removed then everything would go back to usual happy state of things.
All of this sounds ludicrous to us now, obviously, but the point I think is clear enough: this is not an idea that dies easily, historically. We are much too agreeable to blaming somebody other than ourselves for our own problems, and particularly nowadays where our leaders are elected rather than appointed by the grace of God. Because if Bush is really a bad man, how much worse are we for having fallen victim to his charming texas drawl and electing him? Much safer to believe that's the truth, and that he's being led astray into the path of evil by those around him.
And for the record also, let me say here at the end that I am equally sure that if and when a Democrat gets elected President, we'll see the same sort of thing go on amongst those who are opposed to whoever that ends up being. It's not a one-party fault in our thinking; I think everyone falls prey to it.
I should like to go on record as stating, against the long- and firmly-held belief of probably 85% of my friends and relations, that I do not think Karl Rove is a bad man, overall. Accusations on that whole Valerie Plame thing, I'll give you those are not good, if true. And, need I remind everyone, we live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom, not the media. Besides which, she's still alive, and so is her husband, so regardless of the criminality of the event it didn't kill anyone (though it *was* life-threatening, possibly, as I understand it) and so I am prepared to pass it off as the usual corruption. I do not approve of corruption; however it is ridiculous to assume that this sort of stuff doesn't go on all the time. I think it has pretty much gotten to the point in this country where when we prosecute corrupt politicians it's because we're annoyed with ourselves for voting for someone stupid enough to get caught, not because of the actual offence.
But I digress.
Mainly people don't like Karl Rove because of his status, real or supposed, as Bush's "evil genius". A lot of the partisanship comes because the Democrats are jealous that they can't seem to find an evil genius of their own. I mean, IMHO, Howard Dean's tenure as DNC chairman helped bring the party back to grassroots organising and that was a key factor in winning the 06 elections (and possibly 08, the way things are currently looking). That was a smart, clear-eyed move. Yet nobody decries Dean as an evil genius for doing smart things that got his party elected and put in legislative control. Debates on the supposed liberality of the media, I will not entertain here in this context. But generally, my point is that Democrats do whatever they can to put the balance their direction and get elected as well -- Rove's just had a rough time of it because he was better at it for many, many years and for a long time the headless Democrats couldn't get to his smartness level so the only tactic left was to pull him down to theirs. And that's worked surprisingly well for them.
I have a theory, and that theory is this: People respect the presidency, to some degree. I know, radical concept. Generally, historians agree that there's a "credibility gap" starting with Nixon that has made people pretty much not respect the presidency any more, on a downward slide that Reagan did nothing to arrest with Iran-Contra, that Clinton certainly didn't help with his canoodling (though I think many, many politicians do this -- even Hyde from Utah had a problem in this area), and Bush Jr. hasn't helped with a good number of things he's engaged in while President. Still, there exists some degree of respect, I think, for the office if not necessarily the person holding it. And so we would rather assume that, yes, Americans are smart (we like to pat ourselves on the back), and we wouldn't really have elected an evil, twisted, manipulative man to the presidency. We prefer to think that he's a simple, good-hearted man who has been led astray by evil councillors. That way it's not really our fault (because who elected Rove? or Rumsfeld? or Wolfowitz? Nobody did).
What I find intriguing is that this is not a new idea. It's a very old one, in fact. Having just finished a book on the Wars of the Roses (by Alison Weir, the second time I've read this one, also, so if you can't tell I recommend it), that's where you're going to get examples from. Henry VI was a terrible king, weak-minded, indecisive, and easily led. When Richard, Duke of York, raised the red flag of rebellion against him, take a stab at the primary cause? To reform the government and remove the greedy, arrogant, grasping favourites the king had surrounded himself with. No word, at least at the early stages of the wars, about deposing Henry (that came later) -- because there was still a great deal of respect for the *office* of the king, who had after all been sacredly anointed by God. And in fact the Yorkists were extremely moderate in their aims while rebelling; it was constantly to "reform the government"; they refrained from taking the ultimate step of declaring that Richard had a better claim to the throne for an excessively long time, and only finally settled on it when it became apparent that they had little other choice because Henry would never abandon his advisers. And later, when Richard's son Edward IV's chief supporter Richard Neville, "the kingmaker" Earl of Warrewyk (or Warwick; I prefer the spelling he himself used) defected to the other side and supported Henry VI's return to power, his ostensible reason was to remove from influence the supremely grasping family of Elizabeth Wydville, Edward's wife, who had snapped up pretty much all the offices and vacant peerages of the realm (being gentry originally, this was particularly galling do Warrewyk, whose family fought at the side of William the Conqueror). Mainly the Kingmaker's annoyance was that he was thus neatly parried from grabbing all of those things for himself, let us make no assumptions about him being a pure and upstanding man, but the reasons he put about in his propaganda are rather familiar. Understandably so, really, when you look at the target audience -- he was trying to swing the commons of England to his side, and they had a great deal of respect for the sanctity of the King's person. Therefore it's not really the king's fault...he's just being led astray, don't you see?
Ditto that with the League of the Public Weal against Louis XI, a failed rebellion to remove the king's counsellors because he had actively promoted men of low birth to positions of importance (ie the beginnings of a meritocracy instead of an aristocracy), and the failed Praguerie that Louis had previously led against his own father, Charles VII. Same ostensible causes.
But to bring this more into the present, if I may direct the reader's attention to the excellently-researched book by Joachim Fest, "Plotting Hitler's Death", it may be noted that early stages of the anti-Nazi plotting centered around eliminating Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering, or some combination thereof, while retaining Hitler as the Fuhrer. They were under the impression that Hitler himself was not a bad man; just the people he surrounded himself with were, and if only they could be removed then everything would go back to usual happy state of things.
All of this sounds ludicrous to us now, obviously, but the point I think is clear enough: this is not an idea that dies easily, historically. We are much too agreeable to blaming somebody other than ourselves for our own problems, and particularly nowadays where our leaders are elected rather than appointed by the grace of God. Because if Bush is really a bad man, how much worse are we for having fallen victim to his charming texas drawl and electing him? Much safer to believe that's the truth, and that he's being led astray into the path of evil by those around him.
And for the record also, let me say here at the end that I am equally sure that if and when a Democrat gets elected President, we'll see the same sort of thing go on amongst those who are opposed to whoever that ends up being. It's not a one-party fault in our thinking; I think everyone falls prey to it.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Nazis
Today's "should have been yesterday on Friday but I forgot so it's today" commentary is on Nazis. Specifically, on whether or not they have the money to buy an atomic bomb and blow us all up, as depicted in the movie The Sum of all Fears. I personally am of the opinion that they are not, and that this movie would have been much, much better if they had stuck to the book wherein it's Islamic terrorists who buy the bomb and blow up Denver (also inexplicably changed, to Baltimore. Guess the pro-Denver lobby is pretty strong about stopping people from blowing up their city on film). This makes sense because Islamic terrorists are headed by people like Bin Laden who are pretty much capable of self-funding an entire network of terrorists because they sell us oil. Every time you fill up at the pump you're supporting terrorists. But that's a side note. I mean think about it: there's always these poorly-shot movies recruiting followers for al-Qaeda. You never see them saying "You can also help the glorious cause by sending us money, if you prefer not to blow yourself up". That's because they don't need it (though they wouldn't turn you away if you tried to send them money, I'm guessing.)
Anyway Nazis don't really have that kind of financing. These are people who as I understand it basically make their money selling Mein Kampf. And that really sells only to other Nazis. Also I remember one of the big Nazi groups in America (the National Alliance, I think) that splintered a few years ago had as their major moneymaker selling hate music. Again this is the type of thing that pretty much only appeals to other Nazis. And when I say "major moneymaker" I mean of course, relative to everything else that they do. The problem with Mein Kampf, I think, lies in the fact that major book chains carry it. So anyone looking to buy the book for a legitimate reason, in which I lump anything that's not spawned by an actual belief in what the book espouses, would certainly go there rather than have their good name tarnished by supporting Nazism.
The major presence of Nazism today online is at Stormfront.org -- one of the useful things about the internet is that it brings crazy people together. Now this website has a couple of hundred members, at last recollection. And if you survey the boards, which on the few occasions I have done so I have done with considerable distaste, you will find that they are mostly (hold the shock) angry and disgruntled teenagers. Raise your hand if when you think of moneyed people, the first people you think of are teenagers. Now slap yourself in the face with that hand.
And here's the other major thing about Nazis: they're ultranationalists. America's the best country on Earth. Or Germany is. Or France is. Whatever country you live in. Which by extension means that all other countries are the poop of the world. So Nazis from different countries don't exactly get along. And the idea that they would all get together like in the movie is kind of ridiculous. As opposed to say Muslim fundamentalism which has a cross-border attraction, besides the fact that many, many people who don't support terrorism as a means, have sympathy for the end goal of an Islamic state. I'm not going to get into the Islamic/Islamist debate here though ;-). I mean, Nazis in this country hate each other. Do you have any idea how many different Klan groups we have here? Splintering is the national hobby of these people, after killing black people and burning crosses. There's so much hate in these groups that the idea of working harmoniously together with other people, even people who hate the same people you do, is completely alien. Or that's my theory, anyway.
And as the trump point, let me tell you one of my favorite stories about Nazism: The founder of the National Alliance, William Pierce, died of cancer in 2002. Cries of mourning. Oh wait. Anyway so he died at his compound in West Virginia. And get this: his body wasn't discovered for three days. Yep, this is an organisation that has the planning, discipline, and dedicated following necessary to bring off a nuclear bomb.
Anyway Nazis don't really have that kind of financing. These are people who as I understand it basically make their money selling Mein Kampf. And that really sells only to other Nazis. Also I remember one of the big Nazi groups in America (the National Alliance, I think) that splintered a few years ago had as their major moneymaker selling hate music. Again this is the type of thing that pretty much only appeals to other Nazis. And when I say "major moneymaker" I mean of course, relative to everything else that they do. The problem with Mein Kampf, I think, lies in the fact that major book chains carry it. So anyone looking to buy the book for a legitimate reason, in which I lump anything that's not spawned by an actual belief in what the book espouses, would certainly go there rather than have their good name tarnished by supporting Nazism.
The major presence of Nazism today online is at Stormfront.org -- one of the useful things about the internet is that it brings crazy people together. Now this website has a couple of hundred members, at last recollection. And if you survey the boards, which on the few occasions I have done so I have done with considerable distaste, you will find that they are mostly (hold the shock) angry and disgruntled teenagers. Raise your hand if when you think of moneyed people, the first people you think of are teenagers. Now slap yourself in the face with that hand.
And here's the other major thing about Nazis: they're ultranationalists. America's the best country on Earth. Or Germany is. Or France is. Whatever country you live in. Which by extension means that all other countries are the poop of the world. So Nazis from different countries don't exactly get along. And the idea that they would all get together like in the movie is kind of ridiculous. As opposed to say Muslim fundamentalism which has a cross-border attraction, besides the fact that many, many people who don't support terrorism as a means, have sympathy for the end goal of an Islamic state. I'm not going to get into the Islamic/Islamist debate here though ;-). I mean, Nazis in this country hate each other. Do you have any idea how many different Klan groups we have here? Splintering is the national hobby of these people, after killing black people and burning crosses. There's so much hate in these groups that the idea of working harmoniously together with other people, even people who hate the same people you do, is completely alien. Or that's my theory, anyway.
And as the trump point, let me tell you one of my favorite stories about Nazism: The founder of the National Alliance, William Pierce, died of cancer in 2002. Cries of mourning. Oh wait. Anyway so he died at his compound in West Virginia. And get this: his body wasn't discovered for three days. Yep, this is an organisation that has the planning, discipline, and dedicated following necessary to bring off a nuclear bomb.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Talking Heads
So this is your Weekly Friday Social Commentary for today
Thoughts on the Minnesota bridge wackiness:
First of all, I'm just about completely uninformed on this subject. My knowledge comes from having Anderson Cooper 360 on when I go to bed, that and being a licensed EIT (sounds good to say that, woot!).
I heard Cooper reading from some report that had come out back in 2001 saying the bridge had some problems or something, but no further word on whether that had been fixed or not. I heard on the radio yesterday I think that it had been rated as structurally deficient back in 05 as well, and that a bunch of other bridges also got this rating. Now here's the weird part: he's reading from this technical report, rambling on about how it's a determinate truss geometry and planes of failure and it was like a warm suffusive glow -- I actually knew what this guy was talking about. Everything made sense! Thank you, UVM, it seems having an engineering degree (well almost) actually did teach me something. That something mainly being that I should not build bridges because I did really badly in my structural analysis classes. And this is evidently God sending me another little message not to do that: "Remember Ryan, if you screw up then the bridge will collapse and kill a bunch of people." Which is ok, because I really hadn't changed my mind on staying away from structural engineering, so an unneeded divine nagging there.
It reminds me of this joke I once read on engineers and why they stress out so much (or something like that). It ran along the lines of: rewards for success: a little plaque in your office. results of failure: catastrophic destabilization and the probable deaths of hundreds of people. People remember the Hindenburg and the Titanic, not the Sears Tower or the Space Needle. I feel strongly that this needs to be redressed so as to be more in balance. Successful engineers should be rewarded with tons of money, fast cars, mansions, and beautiful women. Or woman, if you're the monogamous type like me. The only thing we come remotely close on is money, and even then we only get "lots", not "tons". So we're falling a little short rewarding engineers in our society for building schools that don't collapse and kill fifty kindergardeners. I'm sure Dan would agree with me that society really needs to step up to the plate on this one.
The other thing I got out of this is that talking heads don't really know what they're talking about. They just talk. Like, being someone who knew what AC was talking about, I could tell that *he* didn't know what he was talking about. I don't really know how to explain it, except to make a vague and overly simplified analogy about how you can sometimes tell non-native English speakers because they stress the wrong words in a sentence. Everything they're saying is technically right...but you know it's not their first language. Same kind of gut feeling. It was like he was reading the lines and they made him sound all know-it-ally and like he was totally in control. An average viewer might even fall for it. But as an engineer I saw RIGHT THROUGH HIM.
And that got me thinking, what about everything else? Do teachers feel that way when he talks about education spending? Do doctors feel this way when he talks about malpractice insurance? Maybe talking heads really know nothing about ANYTHING.
From now on I'm only going to have confidence in reporters when they talk about corruption and how hard it is to be a reporter. Oh and I'll listen to CNN discussing the ins and outs of the democratic presidential race, and to Fox News on how hard it is to be the President.
Thoughts on the Minnesota bridge wackiness:
First of all, I'm just about completely uninformed on this subject. My knowledge comes from having Anderson Cooper 360 on when I go to bed, that and being a licensed EIT (sounds good to say that, woot!).
I heard Cooper reading from some report that had come out back in 2001 saying the bridge had some problems or something, but no further word on whether that had been fixed or not. I heard on the radio yesterday I think that it had been rated as structurally deficient back in 05 as well, and that a bunch of other bridges also got this rating. Now here's the weird part: he's reading from this technical report, rambling on about how it's a determinate truss geometry and planes of failure and it was like a warm suffusive glow -- I actually knew what this guy was talking about. Everything made sense! Thank you, UVM, it seems having an engineering degree (well almost) actually did teach me something. That something mainly being that I should not build bridges because I did really badly in my structural analysis classes. And this is evidently God sending me another little message not to do that: "Remember Ryan, if you screw up then the bridge will collapse and kill a bunch of people." Which is ok, because I really hadn't changed my mind on staying away from structural engineering, so an unneeded divine nagging there.
It reminds me of this joke I once read on engineers and why they stress out so much (or something like that). It ran along the lines of: rewards for success: a little plaque in your office. results of failure: catastrophic destabilization and the probable deaths of hundreds of people. People remember the Hindenburg and the Titanic, not the Sears Tower or the Space Needle. I feel strongly that this needs to be redressed so as to be more in balance. Successful engineers should be rewarded with tons of money, fast cars, mansions, and beautiful women. Or woman, if you're the monogamous type like me. The only thing we come remotely close on is money, and even then we only get "lots", not "tons". So we're falling a little short rewarding engineers in our society for building schools that don't collapse and kill fifty kindergardeners. I'm sure Dan would agree with me that society really needs to step up to the plate on this one.
The other thing I got out of this is that talking heads don't really know what they're talking about. They just talk. Like, being someone who knew what AC was talking about, I could tell that *he* didn't know what he was talking about. I don't really know how to explain it, except to make a vague and overly simplified analogy about how you can sometimes tell non-native English speakers because they stress the wrong words in a sentence. Everything they're saying is technically right...but you know it's not their first language. Same kind of gut feeling. It was like he was reading the lines and they made him sound all know-it-ally and like he was totally in control. An average viewer might even fall for it. But as an engineer I saw RIGHT THROUGH HIM.
And that got me thinking, what about everything else? Do teachers feel that way when he talks about education spending? Do doctors feel this way when he talks about malpractice insurance? Maybe talking heads really know nothing about ANYTHING.
From now on I'm only going to have confidence in reporters when they talk about corruption and how hard it is to be a reporter. Oh and I'll listen to CNN discussing the ins and outs of the democratic presidential race, and to Fox News on how hard it is to be the President.
Kings of France
So I was thinking at my count this afternoon, I'd like to write a poem on the Kings of France. Or maybe not a "poem" exactly, but some kind of easily remembered sequential. Something like
Charles the Sixth, by Henry owned.
Charles the Seventh, crowned by Joan.
Louis Eleven defeated Burgundy.
Charles the Eighth invaded Italy.
hitting the most important point of each reign. Viz,
Charles VI was defeated by Henry V at Agincourt, and had to sign a treaty recognising Henry as his heir. The frenchies later repudiated this on the rather dubious assertion that since Charles was, technically speaking, mad as a loon, nothing he signed was worth anything.
Charles VII was crowned at Rheims (the first French monarch in a very long time to have this done properly) due largely to the efforts of Joan of Arc, starting the turnaround in the Hundred Years' war.
Louis XI's main accomplishment was the final establishment of the dominance of royal power, grinding his rebellious vassals once and for all into a position of subordinance to the crown. The largest and most powerful of these was Burgundy, who by the end of Louis' reign had for all intents and purposes ceased to exist thanks to the relentless efforts of my idol.
Charles VIII...a not so good king, who took France into Italy on a rather tetchy claim to the kingship of Naples, embroiling France in Italian politics he knew next to nothing about, and starting a series of wars with Spain (who actually owned Naples at the time) that lasted for I think somewhere around 85 years and exhausted the French treasury and leading (indirectly) to the French wars of religion and the accession of Henri IV of Navarre starting the Bourbon dynasty.
Needs a great deal of work still, clearly. For one thing I think the "memorable" part is still totally absent :-)
Charles the Sixth, by Henry owned.
Charles the Seventh, crowned by Joan.
Louis Eleven defeated Burgundy.
Charles the Eighth invaded Italy.
hitting the most important point of each reign. Viz,
Charles VI was defeated by Henry V at Agincourt, and had to sign a treaty recognising Henry as his heir. The frenchies later repudiated this on the rather dubious assertion that since Charles was, technically speaking, mad as a loon, nothing he signed was worth anything.
Charles VII was crowned at Rheims (the first French monarch in a very long time to have this done properly) due largely to the efforts of Joan of Arc, starting the turnaround in the Hundred Years' war.
Louis XI's main accomplishment was the final establishment of the dominance of royal power, grinding his rebellious vassals once and for all into a position of subordinance to the crown. The largest and most powerful of these was Burgundy, who by the end of Louis' reign had for all intents and purposes ceased to exist thanks to the relentless efforts of my idol.
Charles VIII...a not so good king, who took France into Italy on a rather tetchy claim to the kingship of Naples, embroiling France in Italian politics he knew next to nothing about, and starting a series of wars with Spain (who actually owned Naples at the time) that lasted for I think somewhere around 85 years and exhausted the French treasury and leading (indirectly) to the French wars of religion and the accession of Henri IV of Navarre starting the Bourbon dynasty.
Needs a great deal of work still, clearly. For one thing I think the "memorable" part is still totally absent :-)
Yo-yo
So this is my "writing" blog...not that I'd be writing a novel here, but just to make kind of "column"-y sorts of things and...such-like.
In case y'all are wondering, the title comes from *drumroll* what I decided the name of my restaurant will be :-)
In case y'all are wondering, the title comes from *drumroll* what I decided the name of my restaurant will be :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)