Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Friends!

When I see someone with 300+ friends, I feel a little dimmed and unpopular.  
Damn good thing my salary is not listed.
There are many automatically suggested friends, but I don't want to befriend them for various reasons.  
Mostly because I don't really like them, or was never really friends with them.  
It feels cheap and whorish to ask to be friends with people I hardly talked to when I had a chance (high school acquaintances, mostly).
Lots of people are not very active, of those who are, many struggle to have anything interesting to say.
It is mostly very banal.
The more friends you have, however, the more likely you are to have one or two interesting posts per day.
The more the merrier.
Bigger is Better.

With regards to popularity, what key words are most searched for in the bloggersphere? 
I don't know about blogs, but Google lists these

American Thanksgiving seems to be on everyone's minds... and I hadn't heard about Tiger Woods cheating on his wife.  Wasn't she a Swedish bikini model?
Quite interesting - a perfect pop culture snapshot

1. adam lambert ama video youtube
2. walmart black friday deals
3. thanksgiving quotes inspirational
4. turkey brine recipes
5. turkey cooking times
6. cornbread dressing recipes
7. michelle obama pictures
8. state dinner photos
9. best buy black friday 2009 flyer
10. home depot black friday ad 2009
11. navy seals court martial
12. thanksgiving jokes
13. wilmington ohio
14. how long to cook a turkey per pound
15. cell phone blocker
16. nfl week 12 expert picks
17. adam sandler turkey song
18. thanksgiving wishes
19. thanksgiving trivia
20. tiger woods affair
21. toyota recall
22. butterball turkey questions
23. toyota recall gas pedal
24. happy thanksgiving
25. cara quici 
26. megan allen
27. offensive michelle obama image <-- Just talking about this kind of crap last night with Nora
28. dalia dippolito
29. googlegooglegooglegoogle
30. black friday at wal mart
31. ben maisani
32. michelle obama monkey pics
33. adam lambert early show
34. sweet potato recipes
35. kmart thanksgiving day sale
36. googlegooglegooglegooglegooglegooglegooglegooglegooglegoogle  <-- what is this all about?
37. how to thaw a turkey fast
38. tiger woods cheating on wife
39. happy thanksgiving clip art
40. thanksgiving greetings

(How to make friends on Facebook)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Health warning - Swine Flu

Jokes, complements of my Padre.

If you received an e-mail from the Department of Health telling you not
to eat canned pork because of Swine Flu, you may ignore it.

It's just Spam!

Kezmonk Gwrant email exchange

Kezmonk :

Bittersweet Destiny - like I said, is 85% of what I would write myself. I was going to go chapter by chapter (assuming that would mean something to you) but, mostly the parts that are written poorly are those that lacked data (baby brain development)...and i am still thinking about his strong argument that sex (in plants, animals) was driven or kicked off by pathogen pressure.

two things I have always been dragging around with me

female promiscuity and marriage; since humans are 85% polygamous and some bit thereafter monogamous .... I always get the feeling that the female is still treated as "passively" having sex, but usually sex ONLY within monogamous relationships. the book makes a good attempt....but still...

okay
my assumptions are for some form of life before agriculture, say ~200,000 years to then, when Homo sapiens is on the scene.

idea: females take advantage of their security in knowing which offspring is theirs and want TWO things - a strong healthy male (sexual selection causing size dimorphism) AND a provider/caretaker to share the work load (selection for mother aspects in males).  There is no reason at all to presume that females need these two to be one in the same. The strategy is still K (few mates) ... I don't also see why a female, even though she is limited to the number of offspring, would only invest in one sperm donor. The male, needs a strategy to ensure that at least some of the offspring that he has, are actually his. This is more telling that simply sperm is cheap and because of that, males want to mate with everyone. This gives are reason for the high sex drive in males. Kind of like fish. More sperm, more chance, and you need to take those chances. The female always knows.

One the flip side, if he (if he is the caretaker version) has to raise a child that is not his own, some of his own children will be born anyway. This is where marriage comes in. It is a compromise on both sides - the males' attempt to control cuckolding and the females chance at trapping a caretaker.

Humans have large penises (in view of primates, from what I learned in my anthropology course), large sperm count; indicative of the polygamous life style - but more importantly, the penis does not evolve like that without direct selection pressure in the vagina, in combating sperm with sperm in the same female at the same time.
(you can find anything, but: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424731.500-sleeping-around-boosts-evolution.html ; http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/11/08/6147.aspx ; i do have access to the paper, i downloaded it - humans are in the middle.. maybe the numbers are correct, maybe not - but on average)


*
Can twins have two different fathers? One in 12 fraternal twin sets have two different fathers worldwide, while in the US the rate is 1 in 400 twinsets.
data: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7871943
One 1992 study estimates that the frequency of heteropaternal superfecundation among dizygotic twins whose parents were involved in paternity suits was approximately 2.4%; see the references section, below, for more details.

expand that with the rare probability of that happening: The number of living human twins in the world has been estimated to be approximately 125 million in 2006[1] (roughly 1.9% of the world population), with just 10 million monozygotic twins (roughly 0.2% of the world population and 8% of all twins). The twin birth rate in the United States in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was slightly above 32 twin live births per 1,000 live births[2].


Gwrant:

Amazing, eh? That so many women would have multiple partners slop inside of them at the same time... Obviously I'm on the other end of the spectrum.
I have a hard time imagining how people could regularly achieve that these days.  I am utterly dull, apparently.

In a tribal setting 200k years ago, I imagine (letting my non-researched fantasies run amok) the relationships would be looser for two reasons.  
One, because teenagers tend to fall in and out of love fairly quickly and the average age of the Ancients was very young.  Women (girls) would be as fickle and sentimental as teenagers today. If they survived to adulthood (18+), then they might settle down and behave more "monogamously".
Could you imagine a evolutionary process based on the mentalities of horny teenagers?  
Two, in a group of 50 people, 25 are of the same sex and only 10 or so would make suitable partners, a young person does not have a whole lot to choose from.  It would be like being born and raised in a small classroom of teenagers.  A bunch of f-ing losers except maybe one or two decent catches...

With regards to being a provider- gift giving (care-taking) is highest in the honeymoon period (first few months).  Romancing with words, gifts, heroic deeds, etc...  After a year or so, the infatuation plummets.  

I think boy/men would take care of children or provide for them primarily as a way of looking good for the girls/women.  I feel within myself and urge to show-off how fun, kind, and physically fit (throwing kids up in the air) I am with kids when women are around...

Boys/Men are not really trapped (except in the modern legal sense) and I believe harems where much more overtly common (versus the covert commonality the data reveal today).

For a good read, check out Helen Fisher's Anatomy of Love.
It has been a long while since I've read Bittersweet Destiny.  I can't remember the arguments specifically.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Diesel House

Our house is like a big idling diesel truck with a 128 gallon gas tank.

The gas gauge is currently hovering over empty.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Penske

Penske agreed to refund the fuel charge they billed me, but I'm still irritated. I refilled the tank on the truck I rented until the diesel pump repeatedly clicked off, yet I still got billed for 23 liters of fuel! I only drove the truck 74 km. That would mean the truck only goes 3.2 km per liter.

I should have only used about $14.41 for the trip.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Warning: Bad Roofer

Let it be known that T&T Roofing in Ottawa, Ontario - Trevor Chesebro - is exceedingly bad.

He and his crew did not show up on time, banged up the siding, did not provide a proper receipt, did not clean up, and, most importantly, put leaks in our roof!

The step flashing slid down, leaving gaps, and they did not bother to slide it back up - so, of course, it channeled the rain water right into our house.



These guys also did not seal/caulk the nails they used for the flashing. We had unsealed nail holes straight through the roof.

They are completely unprofessional. Avoid them. Warn others against them.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Friday, July 31, 2009

Organic CropScience

"[A] study, by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. It reviewed 50 years of research into the health and nutritional benefits of organic foods. The study concluded that while there were small differences in nutritional benefits of organic produce, they weren't enough to be of any public health relevance. Overall, there were no differences in most nutrients found in organically or conventionally grown crops, including vitamin C, calcium and iron." - http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/05/07/f-food-organic.html

But what about pesticides, eh?
As it turns out, most organic foods have pesticide residues when tested and many have more pesticide residues than the maximum residue levels (MRLs), which "are generally-acceptable limits of pesticide deposits."

3.99% of conventionally grown foods and 1.24% of organic foods exceed the (MRLs).
..."from spray drift and other situations where there are interfaces among organic and conventional environments".

"Our experience shows that cases with residues above set MRLs had their origin not in organic agriculture but from unintended or intended mislabelling or persistant compounds in the soils."
- http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/eu-report-reveals-pesticides-organic-food/article-183986

How about the environment?
"organic farming yields only 75 to 90 percent of the crop of conventional systems, meaning that more land must be planted in order to have an equal return."
- http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/13/cl.organics/index.html

But it's just a small price to pay, isn't it?
"A recent study by ERS examined price premiums for organic broccoli, carrots, and mesclun (lettuce) mix. During 2000-04, the highest premiums (near 100 percent over conventional) were observed for broccoli and carrots..."



Lettuce looks good though.

This cynical reality check brought to you by Bayer CropScience, BASF, Syngenta and Monsanto.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Monkey's Uncle

While it is fun to hop on the conspiracy theory bandwagon every now and then, I really can’t take it seriously. I like to research ideas before I honestly subscribe to them, so I looked into the faked lunar landing and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

It is almost too incredible that we landed on the moon 40 years ago. It is history which occurred before I was born yet seems more advanced than our current technology. The key, I think, are the effects of gravity and atmosphere on landing and taking off. The moon has 1/6 the gravitation pull as Earth and no atmosphere, so the challenges of ascent and descent are much simpler. I am not a rocket scientist, so it’s all black magic to me.

The collapse of the World Trade Centers looks too controlled and neat for non-engineered processes. It looks like a controlled, engineered demolition. But, of course, I am not a demolition expert or a real structural engineer, so I don’t really know. As an ignorant outsider, I just have to take the word of the structural engineering community and the peer reviewed reports they have published, such as http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

So, for conspiracy theories, the problem is lack of information. I honestly don’t have enough information to either believe or disbelieve almost anything. We could have landed on the moon; it could have been an elaborate hoax. The Trade Center towers could have collapsed from heat softened buckling; they could have been demolished to make an excuse for renewed investment in the military.

Does God exist? I don’t know; I’m just a monkey’s uncle and you can’t teach a monkey calculus.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Type Junky


What is the appeal of personality tests and descriptions? I am guilty of being addicted to trying to find the perfect description of me. Is this vanity, narcissism, insecurity, a need for structure...? It feels so good to find a description that works. "Wow, this is dead on. That is so me. Its amazing how accurate this is!" I crave these moments of clarity like a drug addict. The MBTI is my drug - despite the fact that it is obsolete, inaccurate, useless, no longer in favor, etc. The fundamental premise of bimodal, one-extreme-or-the-other, type distribution is empirically incorrect. People are normally distributed over the dimensions. Most people (68%) are normal for extroversion, thinking-feeling, sensory-intuition, and perceiving-judging. Less than one sixth of the population are greater than one standard deviation from the average for any one of these dimensions, and less than (1/6)^4 are any pure type, eg ESTJ - 1/6 unusually E times 1/6 unusually S times 1/6 unusually T times 1/6 unusually J or 1/1296. So, can't find your type? This is probably why.
Despite this knowledge and irritation, I still find myself craving a description. What is wrong with me? I have taken Five Factor Model tests and self reported myself to be high on extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and stability. Translated into MBTI, that would make me a ENFJ - which utterly fails to describe me accurately (I'm much closer to an INTP).
I think I want a benevolent dictation of how to live my life - what career to choose, what hobbies, what style of dress, etc - to optimize my satisfaction and contentment. I am a machine in need of a tune up - just give me the right repair manual and I'll be humming as good as new.
Greg Robin, to be happy, be physically and socially active and think well of yourself. The end.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Plan


Architects rely too much on plan views and aerial perspectives. Not too many people fly over buildings or gardens.
It irritates me to look through Francis Ching's book on architecture form, space and order and see examples of interesting plan views. Plan views are good for traffic flow and basic functionality, but it almost completely irrelevant for beauty.
It also irritates me that we are designing a unique roof structure (for a government building in Toledo, Ohio) that will be completely invisible to any of the occupants.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

3 of 4

"The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829."
^ Mabel C. Buer, Health, Wealth and Population in the Early Days of the Industrial Revolution, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926, page 30 ISBN 0-415-38218-1

Wow. 3 out of 4 kids died before the age of five. How could you live without a completely irrational sense of hope and optimism?

Worldometers



I asked some people at work if they knew what the world population was and I was surprised how completely uninterested and far-off they were... then, a couple of weeks later, my boss asked me if I knew who painted a picture he showed me - I had no clue. Nora knew immediately that it was Emily Carr, but she couldn't care less about the world population.
For those who are interested in world metrics, check this out: http://www.worldometers.info/

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Waste of money or economic stimulus?

Rambling and disorganized... thinking.

I am not really talking about the stimulus package here - I am more curious about the benefits of spending exorbitant amounts on architecture, new medical procedures, luxury goods, etc. While my initial reaction to people spending insane amounts on basically useless things is negative and exasperated, I think it might actually be a good thing or a neutral thing. Money spent is money earned by someone else. The faster money is spent, or the more it is spent in a given period of time, the more it is used, right? A dollar spent 10 times in a year is more useful than a dollar spent once.

Foolish spending, however, does not promote efficient industries.
Inefficiency leads to costing more for the same thing - which is basically inflation, no?
If you invest in a foolish project, you are not going to get your money back plus interest, you are going to lose money.

So all spending is not equal.

Architecture is not necessarily foolish - it can promote business, tourism, etc. But I am suspicion when government money is spent on extravagant airports that are going to be used regardless.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Nunavut


How sad it would be to live in Nunavut.
The total population is about 30,000 people.
The number of criminal offenses in 2006 and 2007 was 9,607 and 9,308.
Of those who are not living off the land, 28 percent are unemployed.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Spent

Spin-off ideas from Geoffrey Miller’s new book…

This book is based in evolutionary psychology, or evolutionary sexual selection psychology. Socializing is beneficial for our survival as human animals, but better for the high status individuals than for the low status ones. So we vie to be high status and have high status offspring – males and females alike, similarly, but differently… Through their real and perceived effects, general traits are amplified over generations through differential mating and survival success. Beauty, health, and fertility are clear and easy to accept examples – it is easy to imagine handsome, healthy, vigorous pre-historic men having more kids than ugly, sickly, infertile men. It is also easy to imagine healthier, more fertile women having more kids. It is only slightly more difficult to image prehistoric men and women who were nicer, more conscientious, more intelligent, more social, and more risk taking had more kids.

In tight, social, tribal communities like the societies humans evolved in, it is easy to be accurately evaluated by everyone in your community. It is not necessary to advertise your qualities in any other way except the way you interact and live your life, and possibly through ornamentation and possessions. The qualities themselves result in more alliances, more friends, and more lovers. Emphasizing and advertising these traits through ornamentation results in more friends and lovers, unless, of course, everyone else is advertising just as much as you… Then you up the ante and result in an arms race – where everyone is striving to seem better than average, or where those that seem better win more friends and lovers. And all of this is done more or less unconsciously through our likings, preferences, urges, wants, and needs and is monitored through our self-esteem, or sense of social worth.

How do you increase your sense of social worth (self-esteem) in a world with virtually no face-to-face interaction with the 10,000 people we see or pass by every day? Through ornamentation and possessions? Can I sell you on the idea that this thing (whatever it may be) will make you stand-out of the crowd as distinctively intelligent, fun, risk taking, or conscientious? Yes, I can. Will you feel better and have a higher self esteem? Yes, probably, but only for a little while because your social status will not really be raised among those who know you – at least not for very long. Those who do not know you do not interact with you enough to affirm your status sense, so you lose confidence in the boost. Unless, of course, the product actually changes the way in which you interact with the people you know, it has no effect on your social worth.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

"Of Modern Poetry," Wallace Stevens

The poem of the mind in the act of finding
What will suffice. It has not always had
To find: the scene was set; it repeated what
Was in the script.
Then the theatre was changed
To something else. Its past was a souvenir.

It has to be living, to learn the speech of the place.
It has to face the men of the time and to meet
The women of the time. It has to think about war
And it has to find what will suffice. It has
To construct a new stage. It has to be on that stage,
And, like an insatiable actor, slowly and
With meditation, speak words that in the ear,
In the delicatest ear of the mind, repeat,
Exactly, that which it wants to hear, at the sound
Of which, an invisible audience listens,
Not to the play, but to itself, expressed
In an emotion as of two people, as of two
Emotions becoming one. The actor is
A metaphysician in the dark, twanging
An instrument, twanging a wiry string that gives
Sounds passing through sudden rightnesses, wholly
Containing the mind, below which it cannot descend,
Beyond which it has no will to rise.
It must
Be the finding of a satisfaction, and may
Be of a man skating, a woman dancing, a woman
Combing. The poem of the act of the mind.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Happy Narcissist

...they tend to be "more extraverted and less socially anxious," he says. "There's no good evidence that deep down, narcissists hate themselves."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5586/1474d

Thursday, May 21, 2009

NY Times

Message in What We Buy, but Nobody’s Listening
By JOHN TIERNEY

Why does a diploma from Harvard cost $100,000 more than a similar piece of paper from City College? Why might a BMW cost $25,000 more than a Subaru WRX with equally fast acceleration? Why do “sophisticated” consumers demand 16-gigabyte iPhones and “fair trade” coffee from Starbucks?

If you ask market researchers or advertising executives, you might hear about the difference between “rational” and “emotional” buying decisions, or about products falling into categories like “hedonic” or “utilitarian” or “positional.” But Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico, says that even the slickest minds on Madison Avenue are still in the prescientific dark ages.

Instead of running focus groups and spinning theories, he says, marketers could learn more by administering scientifically calibrated tests of intelligence and personality traits. If marketers (or their customers) understood biologists’ new calculations about animals’ “costly signaling,” Dr. Miller says, they’d see that Harvard diplomas and iPhones send the same kind of signal as the ornate tail of a peacock.

Sometimes the message is as simple as “I’ve got resources to burn,” the classic conspicuous waste demonstrated by the energy expended to lift a peacock’s tail or the fuel guzzled by a Hummer. But brand-name products aren’t just about flaunting transient wealth. The audience for our signals — prospective mates, friends, rivals — care more about the permanent traits measured in tests of intelligence and personality, as Dr. Miller explains in his new book, “Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior.”

Suppose, during a date, you casually say, “The sugar maples in Harvard Yard were so beautiful every fall term.” Here’s what you’re signaling, as translated by Dr. Miller:

“My S.A.T. scores were sufficiently high (roughly 720 out of 800) that I could get admitted, so my I.Q. is above 135, and I had sufficient conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellectual openness to pass my classes. Plus, I can recognize a tree.”

Or suppose a young man, after listening to the specifications of the newest iPhone or hearing about a BMW’s “Servotronic variable-ratio power steering,” says to himself, “Those features sound awesome.” Here’s Dr. Miller’s translation:

“Those features can be talked about in ways that will display my general intelligence to potential mates and friends, who will bow down before my godlike technopowers, which rival those of Iron Man himself.”

Most of us will insist there are other reasons for going to Harvard or buying a BMW or an iPhone — and there are, of course. The education and the products can yield many kinds of rewards. But Dr. Miller says that much of the pleasure we derive from products stems from the unconscious instinct that they will either enhance or signal our fitness by demonstrating intelligence or some of the Big Five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, stability and extraversion.

In a series of experiments, Dr. Miller and other researchers found that people were more likely to expend money and effort on products and activities if they were first primed with photographs of the opposite sex or stories about dating.

After this priming, men were more willing to splurge on designer sunglasses, expensive watches and European vacations. Women became more willing to do volunteer work and perform other acts of conspicuous charity — a signal of high conscientiousness and agreeableness, like demonstrating your concern for third world farmers by spending extra for Starbucks’s “fair trade” coffee.

These signals can be finely nuanced, as Dr. Miller parses them in his book. The “conspicuous precision” of a BMW or a Lexus helps signal the intelligence of all the owners, but the BMW’s “conspicuous reputation” also marks its owner as more extraverted and less agreeable (i.e., more aggressive). Owners of Toyotas and Hondas are signaling high conscientiousness by driving reliable and economical cars.

But once you’ve spent the money, once you’ve got the personality-appropriate appliance or watch or handbag, how much good are these signals actually doing you? Not much, Dr. Miller says. The fundamental consumerist delusion, as he calls it, is that purchases affect the way we’re treated.

The grand edifice of brand-name consumerism rests on the narcissistic fantasy that everyone else cares about what we buy. (It’s no accident that narcissistic teenagers are the most brand-obsessed consumers.) But who else even notices? Can you remember what your partner or your best friend was wearing the day before yesterday? Or what kind of watch your boss has?

A Harvard diploma might help get you a date or a job interview, but what you say during the date or conversation will make the difference. An elegantly thin Skagen watch might send a signal to a stranger at a cocktail party or in an airport lounge, but even if it were noticed, anyone who talked to you for just a few minutes would get a much better gauge of your intelligence and personality.

To get over your consuming obsessions, Dr. Miller suggests exercises like comparing the relative costs and pleasures of the stuff you’ve bought. (You can try the exercise at nytimes.com/tierneylab.) It may seem odd that we need these exercises — why would natural selection leave us with such unproductive fetishes? — but Dr. Miller says it’s not surprising.

“Evolution is good at getting us to avoid death, desperation and celibacy, but it’s not that good at getting us to feel happy,” he says, calling our desire to impress strangers a quirky evolutionary byproduct of a smaller social world.

“We evolved as social primates who hardly ever encountered strangers in prehistory,” Dr. Miller says. “So we instinctively treat all strangers as if they’re potential mates or friends or enemies. But your happiness and survival today don’t depend on your relationships with strangers. It doesn’t matter whether you get a nanosecond of deference from a shopkeeper or a stranger in an airport.”

Man and Dog Discover Dead Rat in Ottawa’s Experimental Farm

OTTAWA, Aug. 19, 2024 — A man and his dog encountered a dead rat in the middle of the road in the Experimental Farm near the Ottawa Civic Ho...