Well, here's a really fascinating blog by a friend of my family's. He's a brilliant guy with pretty good ideas/thoughts on many technological issues. In fact, he's just written a book about how revolutions in technology come about, and the best way to structure businesses to encourage them.
Anyhow, his blog is here:
http://www.pebbleandavalanche.com/weblog
Give it a look if you have a few minutes, eh?
22.10.05
Not-so-invisible barriers
First, a caveat: I am not an expert on Baltimore. Don't take what I say as the gospel truth; come here and find out for yourself. Hell, I'll even make you dinner or something if one of my loyal readers visits. This is just my (admittedly limited) observations.
I moved into Pikesville, a suburb on the northwest corner of the city (I'm half a block away from the Bmore city neighborhood of Mount Washington). In the five or six weeks before I finally got a car, I was taking public transit to Hopkins every day. Aside from my rather low opinion of the system itself (precipitating my decision to buy a car), I was somewhat disappointed by some of the things I noticed about the city, particularly with regards to race relations.
Baltimore is roughly two thirds black and one third white (virtually no other ethnicities exist in the city). I imagine the suburbs are a bit more skewed in the direction of whites (or other ethnicities), but that's pretty much the makeup of the city itself. The area from which I picked up a bus and then the Metro (subway) is one of the few predominantly white neighborhoods in the city. Yet oddly, the proportion of white people taking public transit, even from my area, was vanishingly small, confined to students and the occasional downtown professional who didn't care to drive to work (don't get me started on the traffic flow management here...).
This bothered me for a while, and I think I've finally put my finger on why. As far as I can tell, Baltimore has rigid racial boundaries. Any number of children I've spoken to have unconsciously voiced a feeling that the other race was somehow 'other' (both white and black kids, though my sample of white kids was larger). There are extremely few neighborhoods that have any significant amount of racial mixing; even if people live in the same area, they simply don't associate with other races.
And what bothered me about public transit was this: Baltimore's public transit is shitty. It's slow, rarely on schedule, and it can't even get you anywhere (one subway line with 20 or so stops, a light rail akin to Metra from Chicago, and a small and poorly organized bus system). Before I bought a car, I felt trapped I could not use my time effectively to shop, commute, study, etc. It was simply impossible to get to any number of places in and around the city in any decent amount of time (and sometimes not at all).
Now, the alternative to taking public transit is to own a car - but that is an extremely expensive proposition, no? Car insurance rates in Baltimore city are extremely high due to the car theft rate. So that leaves those without the means of buying a car in a bit of a fix.
The black people riding the Metro were not poor, or criminals, or anything else I've heard as stereotypes in the last two months. They were just people trying to get to work or school, like everyone else... but they simply didn't have the means for their own transportation. To me, this highlighted and extremely disturbing financial divide that correllates with racial lines. These people were not from the inner city, yet they still were clearly not as well off as their white counterparts in similar jobs and situations. The abominable state of the Baltimore public transit system exacerbates this problem, splitting the city into 'haves' and 'have nots' in a very recognizable manner.
(I should mention that while I'm sure this happens in every city, it's nowhere near as obvious. In Chicago, vast hordes of people of every stripe take public transit every day, because it gets them to work/school/whatever with a minimum of fuss. It's just that in Baltimore, the cost/benefit analysis is so skewed in favor of cars that the makeup of the population riding the train can be so instructive.)
I found this obervation coupled with other tidbits I picked up here and there to be... disappointing. Why do we have such obvious and rigid racial/economic boundaries? I grew up being taught the credo that people were just people regardless, and should be treated accordingly. On any random street in my neighborhood you could find a dozen nationalities, ethnicities, religions, etc. Why do some places have these sharp divisions? I thought such silliness was a thing of the past.
Now, I can understand the existence of urban ghettos, no matter how I abhor them. But these were normal, middle class, working people. Why do they also need to reap the harvest of our countries' past mistakes?
I think that these glaringly obvious demarcations between the races is the thing that I most dislike about Baltimore. I am sad that situations like this still exist.
I moved into Pikesville, a suburb on the northwest corner of the city (I'm half a block away from the Bmore city neighborhood of Mount Washington). In the five or six weeks before I finally got a car, I was taking public transit to Hopkins every day. Aside from my rather low opinion of the system itself (precipitating my decision to buy a car), I was somewhat disappointed by some of the things I noticed about the city, particularly with regards to race relations.
Baltimore is roughly two thirds black and one third white (virtually no other ethnicities exist in the city). I imagine the suburbs are a bit more skewed in the direction of whites (or other ethnicities), but that's pretty much the makeup of the city itself. The area from which I picked up a bus and then the Metro (subway) is one of the few predominantly white neighborhoods in the city. Yet oddly, the proportion of white people taking public transit, even from my area, was vanishingly small, confined to students and the occasional downtown professional who didn't care to drive to work (don't get me started on the traffic flow management here...).
This bothered me for a while, and I think I've finally put my finger on why. As far as I can tell, Baltimore has rigid racial boundaries. Any number of children I've spoken to have unconsciously voiced a feeling that the other race was somehow 'other' (both white and black kids, though my sample of white kids was larger). There are extremely few neighborhoods that have any significant amount of racial mixing; even if people live in the same area, they simply don't associate with other races.
And what bothered me about public transit was this: Baltimore's public transit is shitty. It's slow, rarely on schedule, and it can't even get you anywhere (one subway line with 20 or so stops, a light rail akin to Metra from Chicago, and a small and poorly organized bus system). Before I bought a car, I felt trapped I could not use my time effectively to shop, commute, study, etc. It was simply impossible to get to any number of places in and around the city in any decent amount of time (and sometimes not at all).
Now, the alternative to taking public transit is to own a car - but that is an extremely expensive proposition, no? Car insurance rates in Baltimore city are extremely high due to the car theft rate. So that leaves those without the means of buying a car in a bit of a fix.
The black people riding the Metro were not poor, or criminals, or anything else I've heard as stereotypes in the last two months. They were just people trying to get to work or school, like everyone else... but they simply didn't have the means for their own transportation. To me, this highlighted and extremely disturbing financial divide that correllates with racial lines. These people were not from the inner city, yet they still were clearly not as well off as their white counterparts in similar jobs and situations. The abominable state of the Baltimore public transit system exacerbates this problem, splitting the city into 'haves' and 'have nots' in a very recognizable manner.
(I should mention that while I'm sure this happens in every city, it's nowhere near as obvious. In Chicago, vast hordes of people of every stripe take public transit every day, because it gets them to work/school/whatever with a minimum of fuss. It's just that in Baltimore, the cost/benefit analysis is so skewed in favor of cars that the makeup of the population riding the train can be so instructive.)
I found this obervation coupled with other tidbits I picked up here and there to be... disappointing. Why do we have such obvious and rigid racial/economic boundaries? I grew up being taught the credo that people were just people regardless, and should be treated accordingly. On any random street in my neighborhood you could find a dozen nationalities, ethnicities, religions, etc. Why do some places have these sharp divisions? I thought such silliness was a thing of the past.
Now, I can understand the existence of urban ghettos, no matter how I abhor them. But these were normal, middle class, working people. Why do they also need to reap the harvest of our countries' past mistakes?
I think that these glaringly obvious demarcations between the races is the thing that I most dislike about Baltimore. I am sad that situations like this still exist.
Yes, yes, yes. I know. This is rather late in coming.
Let's skip all of the 'where the hell were you for five months's, shall we? It's been a very interesting time. I moved to Baltimore in late August for grad school, and things have been amazingly hectic. First, I was homeless for a week due to school starting before my lease did. Then, I was suffering from internet withdrawal at home because getting broadband takes time. *sighs* And somewhere in there I realized that graduate school is actually supposed to be difficult, and it started taking over my life. Add that to buying an ugly car and racking up amazing amounts of minutes on the phone with the lady, and well... I'm sure you get the idea.
So, there are quite a number of things I'd just love to write about, but I think I'll start with some impressions of Baltimore, in the next post. Stay tuned! I can't say I'll be updating daily, but it might be semi-regular again, for all of you (*cough*) readers.
So, there are quite a number of things I'd just love to write about, but I think I'll start with some impressions of Baltimore, in the next post. Stay tuned! I can't say I'll be updating daily, but it might be semi-regular again, for all of you (*cough*) readers.
11.7.05
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
...but there are such things as free slurpees.
A good friend of mine used to joke that 7 Eleven gave out free slurpees on his birthday. Of course, it wasn't quite because it was his birthday, but rather for the more prosaic reason for it being the eleventh of July (more proof that 7 Eleven must be an American company; else they'd hand out slurpees on the seventh of November). But nonetheless, an amusing idea.
Today is twenty years since his birth. Have a slurpee in his honor, eh?
A good friend of mine used to joke that 7 Eleven gave out free slurpees on his birthday. Of course, it wasn't quite because it was his birthday, but rather for the more prosaic reason for it being the eleventh of July (more proof that 7 Eleven must be an American company; else they'd hand out slurpees on the seventh of November). But nonetheless, an amusing idea.
Today is twenty years since his birth. Have a slurpee in his honor, eh?
4.7.05
Jingle-jangle
After a longish absence, I bring you an odd thought:
It's always a fun exercise to try and see what themes historians of the future will draw out of our times as being unique or representative of change. Undoubtedly, rapidly proceeding industrialization, revolutions in communication and electronic media will be some of the obvious ones. Others that people speculate about are the death of nationalism (heh, they're a bit premature on that one, but meh), the 'space age', dramatically improved healthcare, etc.
But what about a random little sidebar in a history text? What are those little examples of how life changed for us compared to those before us? I posit that one possibility might be remarkably simple: keys.
Look in your pocket - how many keys do you have? On a rough count, I've got eight or nine - four for my home, another couple for my parent's place, a bike lock, a key or two for work, a mail key, etc. And I'm remarkably lightweight on keys - I don't have any vehicles, nothing complicated at work, no P.O. boxes, nothing. Most adults have dozens of keys, all for various obscure purposes. (A caveat - for now, I'll just talk about developed nations in urban areas... that's a remarkably large portion of the population that is likely to be focused on in histories for this era, so I think I'm safe in working on with those.)
Now, how many keys did that average person have one hundred years ago? Not as many, but still a decent number, right? What about two hundred years ago? Okay, that's a lot fewer. And add another hundred years, and probably next to no one had keys except for jailers.
I don't know the exact reason for this - probably something to do with the rise of cities and the greater ease of fencing goods for quick profits. I would suggest, though, that it hints at an underlying societal concern with personal security that increased in the last few centuries. Think about it - you all have dozens of passwords, encryption schemes, keys, firewalls, deadbolts, etc. There are whole industries focusing on providing better security - with either something that you know (e.g. passwords), something you have (e.g. keys) or something you are (e.g. biometrics) (thanks to a friends' father for those distinctions). Are we so much more worried with security because our goods and property are so much more valuable now? Or do we have a preoccupation with imagined terrors for some obscure psychological reason? I don't know; I'm just pointing out an interesting phenomenon.
But think of all of the subtle ways in which society is shaped by keys. The bare minimum of things that people always take with them include keys (and, my guess would be, wallet and cell phone). You hear the jingle-jangle of keys everywhere - it's ubiquitous. People can even tell who's approaching by the sound of their keys or of the way they look through their keyring to find the correct one. Giving keys to one's home to another person is taken as a sign of trust. The examples go on - make up as many as you want. It's an intriguing thought, no? I wonder what it says about us.
In reality, of course, I doubt anyone would think this was important enough to stress, except perhaps in some poor history grad student's thesis. But fun to speculate nonetheless.
It's always a fun exercise to try and see what themes historians of the future will draw out of our times as being unique or representative of change. Undoubtedly, rapidly proceeding industrialization, revolutions in communication and electronic media will be some of the obvious ones. Others that people speculate about are the death of nationalism (heh, they're a bit premature on that one, but meh), the 'space age', dramatically improved healthcare, etc.
But what about a random little sidebar in a history text? What are those little examples of how life changed for us compared to those before us? I posit that one possibility might be remarkably simple: keys.
Look in your pocket - how many keys do you have? On a rough count, I've got eight or nine - four for my home, another couple for my parent's place, a bike lock, a key or two for work, a mail key, etc. And I'm remarkably lightweight on keys - I don't have any vehicles, nothing complicated at work, no P.O. boxes, nothing. Most adults have dozens of keys, all for various obscure purposes. (A caveat - for now, I'll just talk about developed nations in urban areas... that's a remarkably large portion of the population that is likely to be focused on in histories for this era, so I think I'm safe in working on with those.)
Now, how many keys did that average person have one hundred years ago? Not as many, but still a decent number, right? What about two hundred years ago? Okay, that's a lot fewer. And add another hundred years, and probably next to no one had keys except for jailers.
I don't know the exact reason for this - probably something to do with the rise of cities and the greater ease of fencing goods for quick profits. I would suggest, though, that it hints at an underlying societal concern with personal security that increased in the last few centuries. Think about it - you all have dozens of passwords, encryption schemes, keys, firewalls, deadbolts, etc. There are whole industries focusing on providing better security - with either something that you know (e.g. passwords), something you have (e.g. keys) or something you are (e.g. biometrics) (thanks to a friends' father for those distinctions). Are we so much more worried with security because our goods and property are so much more valuable now? Or do we have a preoccupation with imagined terrors for some obscure psychological reason? I don't know; I'm just pointing out an interesting phenomenon.
But think of all of the subtle ways in which society is shaped by keys. The bare minimum of things that people always take with them include keys (and, my guess would be, wallet and cell phone). You hear the jingle-jangle of keys everywhere - it's ubiquitous. People can even tell who's approaching by the sound of their keys or of the way they look through their keyring to find the correct one. Giving keys to one's home to another person is taken as a sign of trust. The examples go on - make up as many as you want. It's an intriguing thought, no? I wonder what it says about us.
In reality, of course, I doubt anyone would think this was important enough to stress, except perhaps in some poor history grad student's thesis. But fun to speculate nonetheless.
8.5.05
Can one person really do it?
In an introductory engineering class I took several years ago, a lecturer made the assertion that no single person could make something as simple as a pencil, any more. All of the specialized steps - from logging to processing graphite to finishing, etc. - are far too complex to be mastered by a single person. He was making a point about the interdependence of everyone in our current industrial world, and the important of stakeholders at each step of the way.
For some inane reason I recalled this assertion a few days ago, and realized that the lecturer had overlooked (or omitted) the hardest part of a pencil to make by oneself: the eraser.
Now, I know you are all thinking, "What on earth is he talking about? Erasers are incredibly simple! Is this going to be another annoying and trite post?" Have no fear, my intrepid readers! I actually have a small point.
Think about it: what goes into the design of a good pencil eraser? Well, erasers seem to work on two principles: smudging and graphite removal. The action of the eraser smudges the pencil marks (much like you could do with a finger, albeit much more efficiently), but also the little bits of eraser that come off 'pick up' the pieces of graphite and can be blown off (note how they turn black with graphite).
This makes extremely demanding requirements for a good pencil eraser. First, it has to attach well to itself and graphite. Second, the mechanical properties (particularly, but not exclusively, the Young's modulus) need to be optimized to allow the flexibility and "give" so that the eraser doesn't rip the paper - yet the eraser also must hold together strongly enough to not develop defects from erasing. Next, pieces of the eraser material need to be able to flake off as they are rubbed on paper. Add on requirements of being nontoxic, easily disposed of, inexpensive, reliable over a range of pencil and paper types, longevity concerns, etc... it becomes a very sticky problem relating to materials science, mechanical engineering, industrial and manufacturing engineering, and more.
Theoretically, one could just fool around and find something that works (which is how I suspect erasers were first developed), but to truly optimize the design, this requires extremely careful thought and a team of specialists.
So, to sum up, erasers are quite impressive and cool. Next time you need to fix a math problem (or a crossword puzzle, for those of you poor souls no longer taking math), appreciate the sheer genius of the simple things around you.
For some inane reason I recalled this assertion a few days ago, and realized that the lecturer had overlooked (or omitted) the hardest part of a pencil to make by oneself: the eraser.
Now, I know you are all thinking, "What on earth is he talking about? Erasers are incredibly simple! Is this going to be another annoying and trite post?" Have no fear, my intrepid readers! I actually have a small point.
Think about it: what goes into the design of a good pencil eraser? Well, erasers seem to work on two principles: smudging and graphite removal. The action of the eraser smudges the pencil marks (much like you could do with a finger, albeit much more efficiently), but also the little bits of eraser that come off 'pick up' the pieces of graphite and can be blown off (note how they turn black with graphite).
This makes extremely demanding requirements for a good pencil eraser. First, it has to attach well to itself and graphite. Second, the mechanical properties (particularly, but not exclusively, the Young's modulus) need to be optimized to allow the flexibility and "give" so that the eraser doesn't rip the paper - yet the eraser also must hold together strongly enough to not develop defects from erasing. Next, pieces of the eraser material need to be able to flake off as they are rubbed on paper. Add on requirements of being nontoxic, easily disposed of, inexpensive, reliable over a range of pencil and paper types, longevity concerns, etc... it becomes a very sticky problem relating to materials science, mechanical engineering, industrial and manufacturing engineering, and more.
Theoretically, one could just fool around and find something that works (which is how I suspect erasers were first developed), but to truly optimize the design, this requires extremely careful thought and a team of specialists.
So, to sum up, erasers are quite impressive and cool. Next time you need to fix a math problem (or a crossword puzzle, for those of you poor souls no longer taking math), appreciate the sheer genius of the simple things around you.
2.5.05
Obscure joke of the week
Courtesy of HaRav HaGaon HaNichbad Dune Shlita, I bring you a joke that half of you won't get and the other half will think is hilarious:
What do you get when you cross a Yekka and a Lubavitcher?
Someone who is always exactly twenty minutes late.
(Now's your cue to laugh.)
That's replaced my old favorite, the muffin joke. (Two muffins are sitting in an oven. One muffin says, "Boy, it's hot in here!" The other muffin says, "Look! A talking muffin!"
*Bows*
What do you get when you cross a Yekka and a Lubavitcher?
Someone who is always exactly twenty minutes late.
(Now's your cue to laugh.)
That's replaced my old favorite, the muffin joke. (Two muffins are sitting in an oven. One muffin says, "Boy, it's hot in here!" The other muffin says, "Look! A talking muffin!"
*Bows*
14.4.05
End of hiatus (hah!)
So, upon the urgings of a certain Precise person of my acquaintance, I am resuming semi-normal blogging activities. My life has been rather interesting lately, but I hope that things will settle down somewhat.
Shortly, I just chose a graduate program to attend. I've spent the last two months on interviews/figuring stuff out with regard to that. Somewhere in there, I've managed to form a League of Nations (er... if you don't get this, nm). I will be attending Johns Hopkins' PhD program in Biomedical Engineering. Any of my Baltimore readers (hah!) can now rejoice. Or tremble in fear; either reaction is acceptable.
I probably won't be able to post more than twice or so a week, but I'll try to make those posts amazingly insightful and amusing. Or trite and boring, depending on how tired I am.
Shortly, I just chose a graduate program to attend. I've spent the last two months on interviews/figuring stuff out with regard to that. Somewhere in there, I've managed to form a League of Nations (er... if you don't get this, nm). I will be attending Johns Hopkins' PhD program in Biomedical Engineering. Any of my Baltimore readers (hah!) can now rejoice. Or tremble in fear; either reaction is acceptable.
I probably won't be able to post more than twice or so a week, but I'll try to make those posts amazingly insightful and amusing. Or trite and boring, depending on how tired I am.
22.2.05
Hiatus
I'm afraid that I'll have to disappoint all of my readers. Things have gotten somewhat complicated, and I won't be able to post much in the next month or so. I will attempt to have sporadic posts, but that's it. So no amazing insights or brilliant jokes. Heh.
6.2.05
Humility is one of my best traits
Due to an excellent suggestion from Ms. Lchin, another function of this weblog will be to give advice to supplicants. Any who wish to bask in the sheer amazingness of my wisdom filtering down to the masses is free to email me with requests for advice (just a note: that's a throwaway address, so if you know another email of mine, please use that).
The origins of this idea are enshrined in the following conversation:
Thanks also go to ManCandy and Dave Eggers for a weblog description that truly does me justice.
The origins of this idea are enshrined in the following conversation:
02:22:04 Lchin: you'd be a good advice columnist
02:22:11 Lchin: the subtle undertones of all your replies being
02:22:22 Lchin: "Ender wiggin does not give a fuck."
Thanks also go to ManCandy and Dave Eggers for a weblog description that truly does me justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
