Empathy

Here is one of my New Year's resolutions: To display more empathy. For those who do not know (from experience this is a lot of you), empathy is

1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

I am going for the first definition here. Empathy is something that everyone could use more of. I think we would treat each other a lot better if we paused and thought about the other person's feelings for just a second. A simple, kind word can go a long way; a mean-spirited one can cut deep. I have not empathized much the last year, and I hope that the next year can be one full of caring.

Robot wars

The wars are coming. Which side will you be on?

The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day when it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth.

Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future.

I think this article is drivel. Science fiction authors have been addressing this problem for 60 years. Let them sort out the rights of robots in the future. The government study was pointless.

I have one question - would you put your brain in a robot body? It would have the strength of 5 gorillas.

Elections

We had elections a while back, and in case you did not know, Naomi Jakobsson won. But there was another interesting thing on the ballot:

City of Champaign Township Withdraw from Iraq?
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING

Yes 9,888 58%
No 7,104 42%

City of Champaign Township Impeach Pres. Bush?
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING

No 9,140 54%
Yes 7,877 46%

I think it is interesting local governments put this on the ballot. I am aslo surprised by the numbers. Not the Iraq ones, but the impeachment ones. Because the vote has no real meaning (direct consequences) I wonder people would vote differently if it did. Either way, I think the message got accross.

How obvious is this?

From CNN:

Poll: Most Americans see lingering racism -- in others

(CNN) -- Most Americans, white and black, see racism as a lingering problem in the United States, and many say they know people who are racist, according to a new poll.

But few Americans of either race -- about one out of eight -- consider themselves racist.

One in eight is a huge number; that's about 40 million people. If 40 million people had AIDS would we call in a "lingering problem?" And I am not sure how many people you know, but I know more than eight people, meaning statistically I know more than a few individuals who would describe themselves as racist.

I would just say the poll is dumb, if you want to do a story on racism, why not do a good one that highlights the challenges in combating the problem.

Here is more proof: people like this actually sell albums.

Eat less meat

An interesting fact, if it is true and not more UN propoganda:

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

It might be true, because I am sure the UN would love to blame Bush, although he is "from" Texas, and they eat a lot of steak down there. Ha! I knew we could blame him somehow.

Small world

I "know" someone quoted in a CNN article. I know, I can hardly contain myself, that is why I am posting it on my blog. I work with the brother-in-law of the person in quoted here:

After the service, 10-year church member Michelle Richmond predicted Haggard and the church will recover.

"I probably cried all morning," Richmond said. "He knows he's hurt us and it hurts when your brother has done something, but like Pastor Ross said, he's in a good place -- he's better off this week than he was last week -- and he will receive the healing he needs and he did a good thing for our church so that we can heal."

What a small world. That means I am 4 degrees removed from the male prostitute in Colorado, that opens up all sorts of possibilities.

How long does it take to get a Ph.D.

I think these numbers are not accurate (from ACS):

Report details time to doctorate
Over the past 25 years, the total time from baccalaureate to earning a Ph.D. in the physical sciences has risen by almost a year to 7.9 years, according to an NSF report. "Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients" pulls data from 1978 to 2003 from the agency's Survey of Earned Doctorates. Among physical science fields, chemistry has the shortest time to degree, with students taking an average of 6.9 years, followed by physics and astronomy, where the average time is 7.6 years, and mathematics, with an average time of 7.9 years. The report also notes that 66% of those earning a Ph.D. in all fields in 2003 received primary support from program- or institution-based sources, such as teaching assistantships, research assistantships, and fellowships. Of that group, those with teaching assistantships had the longest average time to degrees. The data also show that earning a master's degree lengthened the time to Ph.D. In chemistry, for instance, the average time to earn a degree for those who didn't receive a master's degree was six years, while those who did earn a master's took an average of 8.5 years.

These numbers are difficult to imagine - 6.9 years for a Ph.D. in chemistry (8.5 if you add a masters)? What is going on here? I do not believe them, it is hard to see how these can be true. It is like the guy compiling the statistics was a drunk, and had to guess at the end. I don't believe them, like I have always said 94% of all statistics are made up.

Women like to talk

Finally, scientists are doing something useful.

It is something one half of the population has long suspected - and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men.

In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 more than the average man.

Women also speak more quickly, devote more brainpower to chit-chat - and actually get a buzz out of hearing their own voices, a new book suggests.

The book - written by a female psychiatrist - says that inherent differences between the male and female brain explain why women are naturally more talkative than men.

In The Female Mind, Dr Luan Brizendine says women devote more brain cells to talking than men.

And, if that wasn't enough, the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high.

I have not read the book, but I think most of the "conclusions" are absolute drivel. It is also hard to know what in this article is "creative journalism," and how much is science. Talking to women give a rush similiar to heroin. Do you hear that?

From the nanny state

I love the UK. I think it's a great country, but this is ridiculous. Is it the government's job to do the following:

Oversize clothes should have obesity helpline numbers sewn on them to try and reduce Britain's fat crisis, a leading professor said today.

They want to put labels in clothes to tell people they are fat. If they want to be fat it is their right - it's in the Constitution. I know you might disagree, but look, you'll see it. It's somewhere in the middle, one of the ones nobody pays attention to.

Total Existence Failure

Someone sent me this article on "Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth."

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.

I love it. Check out the list, my favorite by far is number 10:

You will need: nothing

Method: No method. Simply sit back and twiddle your thumbs as, completely by chance, all 2 x 10^50 atoms making up the planet Earth suddenly, simultaneously and spontaneously cease to exist. Note: the odds against this actually ever occurring are considerably greater than a googolplex to one. Failing this, some kind of arcane (read: scientifically laughable) probability-manipulation device may be employed.

Utter, utter rubbish.

Kids and innocence

From California:

LONG BEACH, California (AP) -- Teacher Bill Morgan walks into his third-grade class wearing a black Pilgrim hat made of construction paper and begins snatching up pencils, backpacks and glue sticks from his pupils. He tells them the items now belong to him because he "discovered" them.

The reaction is exactly what Morgan expects: The kids get angry and want their things back.

Morgan is among elementary school teachers who have ditched the traditional Thanksgiving lesson, in which children dress up like Indians and Pilgrims and act out a romanticized version of their first meetings.

He has replaced it with a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers.

I can see how many Thanksgiving school performances perpetuate racial stereotypes and are offensive. But here is what I think the issue is: at what age should you take innocence away from children? Should they know the truth about things in Kindergarten? I am not saying we should lie to kids, but in many cases we do (or at least avoid the truth). Most kids believe in Santa Clause, why do we perpetuate this myth (for the record I still do believe, but I know most of my readers do not, yes Jacob, this means you).

We are not honest with children about many issues, because they might not understand the complex issues involved, and they might end up with misconceptions. Have you ever tried to teach a 5-year-old about the wave/particle duality of light? I mean talk about messed up.

White-only scholarship?

I think it is about time for a dialog on affirmative action. I think the goals are laudible, but is the current methodology the best way to go about it? I was sent this article. Basically, these students at Boston University wanted to make the news (and a point), so they offered a white-only scholarship. On the surface I see this act as extremely inflammatory. It brings up memories of institutional racism in the US (the white-only culture that still exists in some form). But is the offensive because white students are traditionally "privileged." I feel that the only whites who suffer from some of these policies are the poorest ones. I did not come from a privileged background, I would like to see socio-economic status become a major player. I will stop now, but my favorite line from the article is below:

"It's a poor way to talk about affirmative action," said David Coreas, the 21-year-old senior who is president of the Latino fraternity Phi Iota Alpha at BU. "If they want to have a scholarship, then let them have a scholarship, but they're stirring up controversy in the wrong way."

David, is there a "right way" to "stir up controversy?" I think that is the point. This scholarship perhaps does preclude an intelligent discussion on affirmative action, which is a shame.

Time Magazine: "Michael Heien is Man of the Year"

OK, so I am not really person of the year, but I am still very important, and it turns out you are too. According to Time:

NEW YORK (AP) - Congratulations! You are the Time magazine "Person of the Year."

The annual honor for 2006 went to each and every one of us, as Time cited the shift from institutions to individuals - citizens of the new digital democracy, as the magazine put it. The winners this year were anyone using or creating content on the World Wide Web.

"If you choose an individual, you have to justify how that person affected millions of people," said Richard Stengel, who took over as Time's managing editor earlier this year. "But if you choose millions of people, you don't have to justify it to anyone."

I love that guys quote, it makes it seem like a cop-out to me. I still humbly accept the award, thanks you Time Magazine. I have a blog, and some poeple might read it. Time did something interesting by stressing the individual. Here is a question to ponder: "Is this shift towards individualism undermining the institutions that hold our society together?" Discuss.

No comment.

From a friend, yes she told me about this article. I will not post her name becuase I think she wishes to remain anonymous. But here is the interesting part of the article:

The long and short of it is that while all condoms are of the same size, all penises are not.
--Indian Express

UPDATE: I got the incorrect article, the right one is here. It reads:

A survey of more than 1,000 men in India has concluded that condoms made according to international sizes are too large for a majority of Indian men.

Dare I say it - that sounds like a lengthy study? Also from the story:

It's not size, it's what you do with it that matters," he said.

"From our population, the evidence is Indians are doing pretty well.

Man-purse

I like bags that carry around useful items. Sometimes I wish it were socially acceptable to carry around a man-purse. But there is some viceral reaction when I see a guy like this. I am sure the guy on the left is perfectly OK, but part of me wants to punch him. This is a shame, because this man is a trailblazer. He is fighting the good fight so our children can live in a world of tolerance and understanding.

I was at target and I bought a bag I saw. I have had 4 people tell me it look like a man-purse. So I have posted a picture of me with it. Tell me what you think - is it a purse or a bag? Should I wear it and risk being a social outcast, or should I put it in the closet?

Tom is dumb

Tom Cruise on his baby's birth:

It Was Spiritual. It Was Powerful. It Was Indescribable.

Tom you are truly a moron. He described it with three words: spiritual, powerful, and indescribable. In fact, he could have said "I can't describe it." That would sound more intelligent that this. For the record, I have hated Tom Cruise before it was cool to hate him.