Name change

I'm getting married soon, and I had decided a while back that in the event I ever got married, I would take my husbands name socially but keep my own name professionally. (And my fiance is ok with this.)

I was talking to a friend of mine, who said he vehemently disagreed with this decision. He felt that in marriage, "the two shall become one" and the couple should have the same surname as a symbol of this. I take his point.

At the same time, I'm working hard for a PhD. When I graduate, I want to be Dr. MyLastName, not Dr. HisLastName. I'm doing the work; I want to use my name.

So I was thinking back, and I think the whole thing started when I read the Foundation Series by Asimov. At one point, one of the characters is talking about his wife, and he says that legally she's Mrs. HisLastName, but he feels like that designation implies that he "owns" her. And he thinks of her as such an individual, and respects her so much as a person, that he always refers to her by her unmarried name. When I read that, I thought it was the sweetest thing I'd ever read. A man who loves his wife so much that he's completely unintimidated by her intellect; who respects her so much that he can't imagine her being anything but an individual.

Weighted Vote

As I was watching the election results coming in last night, I got to thinking about the whole voting process. A democracy is based on the principle that the wisdom of the crowds will prevail - but that's making the assumption that people actually know what they're talking about when it comes to politics. And, as we've shown in previous elections, that's not always the best assumption.

So, what if we had a "weighted" vote? I know that this would be impossible to implement (talk about your logistics nightmares!) but what if?

Say, for example, you know pretty much nothing about the candidates, and you plan on voting based on a name or who "looks" more Presidential or who you'd want to have a beer with.* Your vote counts as one vote (same as now).

If, instead, you can articulate the positions of the different candidates and show a competent understanding of the issues, your vote counts as, say, 5 votes.

On the other hand, if you're voting based on what you've heard from rumors and smear campaigns, your vote counts as -2 votes. Whoever you vote for loses 2 votes.

(And yes, I realize people could say they're voting based on rumors and then vote for the other guy to make him lose votes. Again, I know this whole weighted vote thing would be impossible to implement from a practical standpoint; I'm just speaking hypothetically.)

Would this promote more civic involvement? Encourage more people to spend time learning about the issues and candidates' stances? Result in fewer smear campaigns? Or am I just punch-drunk from reloading cnn.com every 20 seconds last night?

*I know, I know, it should be "or the candidate with whom you'd like to share a beer." But that just sounds awkward.

DO NOT WANT!

Seriously guys, seriously?

This is just such a bad idea. Sherlock Holmes is awesome. And yes, he's strong. But he doesn't go around beating people up. The most "action-y" scene in any of the canonical stories was a boat chase down the Thames. Which, granted, was awesome and suspenseful. But Sherlock Holmes is not James Bond with a plaid cape!

Grrr.

Update:
Noooooo!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I was afraid of!!!

"As for McAdams, she'll play Irene Adler, Holmes' love interest who only appeared in Doyle's 1891 short story "A Scandal in Bohemia," but is expected to return in any sequels for this potential new franchise."

FYI: Sherlock Holmes NEVER fell in love. NEVER. It didn't happen. Not once. Watson makes a point of saying so as he introduces "A Scandal in Bohemia." He starts the whole thing off my saying explicitly that Holmes was never ever in love with Irene Adler.

And I quote:
"TO SHERLOCK HOLMES she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex.

It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position.

He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer--excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory."

In fact, that's why "The Three Garridebs" is so shocking...because for the one and only time in over 1000 pages, Holmes shows sincere emotion. It happens ONCE. And said emotion is concern for his friend of several years (Watson) NOT romantic love.

Stupid Hollywood.

The Economy

I had no idea what the heck was going on with the economy, mortgages, investment banks, etc. I'm an engineer, and money things just sort of went beyond me.

...until I read this. (Thanks to Sean at Cosmic Variance for linking to it.) So I thought I would also link to it for others' convenience. :-)

"One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee."

(the quote's from Dilbert)

And here it is, an analysis of why coffee is actually good for you!

I was actually trying to find a good quote from Captain Janeway (Star Trek Voyager) for this blog post, but wikiquote let me down. None of her good coffee quotes came up in search, and I can't remember any verbatim. Something like, "the best organic substrate suspended in a liquid" and "I beat the Borg with this stuff."

Company Policy

To get new hardware, large company:

Search through company website to find the online request for service application. Request the hardware be bought.
Include: Name, office number, cubicle number, department, name of computer, type of hardware needed (general), specific hardware needed, reason for request, name of project manager, name of functional manager.
Wait two months for approval of hardware to shunt back and forth through departments and red tape.

Search through company website to find the online request for service application (again). Request the official IT person come install the hardware.
Include: Name, office number, cubicle number, department, name of computer, type of hardware to be installed (general), specific hardware to be installed, reason for request, name of project manager, name of functional manager.
Wait one week for IT person to be free.
Discover that the company-sanctioned version of the hardware you need doesn't fit in your computer.

Search through company website to find the online request for service application (third time). Request a new computer, that will hold the new hardware.
Include: Name, office number, cubicle number, department, name of computer, type of hardware needed (general), specific hardware needed, reason for request, name of project manager, name of functional manager.
Screw up some piece of information. Become informed that they can't give you what you requested, and they think there's something fishy about your request in the first place. Spend several hours on the phone calling from one department to another until you find the one person who understands what you need and dictates to you how to fill out the RFS form correctly. If you're lucky, this guy will take pity on you and tell you to just call him when you need the hardware installed and he'll come by and do it.

Wait one week for new computer. Call the nice guy you finally found. Cross fingers until whole operation is complete.

Go tell boss happy news that you can finally do that piece of the project you've been unable to do. Find out that said project has lost funding.

To get new hardware, small company:

Boss: "Go on ebay and see if you can find what you need. We'll reimburse you once you've got it."

Spend half an hour on ebay, find what you need, confirm it has all the parts with seller, place bid.

Snap, Crackle, & Pop

A little background:

If you're trying to describe the motion of something, the first thing you need is its position. If you measure the rate of change of its position, that's called velocity. The rate of change of velocity is acceleration.

I'd always wondered what the rate of change of acceleration was, until one day in college one of my professors mentioned in passing that this quantity does in fact have a name; the rate of change of acceleration is called "jerk."

So, naturally, I had to start wondering what the rate of change of jerk is. But I wonder no more! Thanks to this post in Cosmic Variance, I now know that the rate of change of jerk is snap.

But wait! There's more! The rate of change (derivative) of snap is crackle, and the derivative of crackle is pop.

Snap, crackle, pop. Never let it be said that scientists have no sense of humor.

Nothing but Nets

OK, so it's been a little while since I blogged. But today I read this article in the NYTimes and had to share. =) A good cause, and not much money required to make a difference.

Cool, no?

Science and Religion

"...what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.”

Congratulations, Professor Heller! I'm really glad to see someone working to reconcile science and religion for once, rather than trying to drive them deeper apart. It's like that moment at the end of "Inherit the Wind" when Henry Drummond picks up a copy of "Origin of Species" in one hand, a Bible in the other, weighs them thoughtfully for a moment, then shrugs, snaps them together, and puts them both in his briefcase. (If you haven't read or seen the play, I highly recommend it. Reading it was the catalyst for my own reflection on the relationship between science and religion.)

Anthropic Principle

This article made me really happy. Because few things annoy me as much as the anthropic principle. In the first X-Men movie, Prof. X tells his students to write the difference between the weak and strong anthropic principles for homework, then explains to Logan that he's teaching physics. I wanted to throw something at the movie screen.

I think this sums it up nicely:

“However, we shouldn't assume that no explanation exists just because we don't yet know one, and, consequently, we should keep looking for an explanation at least until we have a convincing scientific theory that explains many other things and within which one can show that it is impossible to provide an explanation. The most interesting thing is that – unless we do discover a theory of everything – we will not know what is left to discover, which makes the search exciting.”

Being Girlie, part 2

Here's another article on the same topic as before. Two points I found interesting:

1. Being attractive is detrimental. "Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss." Well that sucks. On the one hand society is telling women, "If you're not physically ideal, you're doomed to loneliness your entire life." And now there's a study saying if you are attractive, you're doomed to an unsuccessful career. I would argue the point a bit; I think it's possible to be both pretty and successful, but it does take more work to prove that you're more than just pretty. I was told in engineering school that while it might be easier to get a job as a woman engineer, it would be much harder to prove to my coworkers/superiors that I deserved the job due to the assumption that I only got the job to boost the equal opportunities numbers.
On the other hand, I think it would be great if more bosses thought like Dr. House:

Dr. House: Would that upset you, really? To think that you were hired because of some genetic gift of beauty, not some genetic gift of intelligence?

Dr. Cameron: I worked very hard to get where I am.

Dr. House: But you didn't have to. People choose the paths that grant them the greatest rewards for the least amount of effort. That's the law of nature, and you defied it. That's why I hired you. You could have married rich, could have been a model, you could have just shown up and people would have given you stuff. Lots of stuff, but you didn't, you worked your stunning little ass off.

2. Can't have it both ways. "A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both." I've heard this before, and I've also seen it in action. When a man expresses emotion in the workplace, he's being "forceful" or "assertive" or "passionate." When a woman expresses emotion in the workplace, she's being "emotional." On the flip side, if she shows no emotion, she's "cold." Again, I do have to pick a bone a bit and say that I don't think it's impossible for a woman leader to be perceived as both competent and likable, but it's certainly difficult. That's why, when I meet a woman who has risen through the ranks, and who I think manages to walk that very fine line, I try to analyze exactly how she does it. How does she manage to be firm but not bitchy, polite but still assertive, encouraging but not naive?

This is why I like to watch "Voyager" (yes, I'm a Trekkie, I'm not ashamed.) Capt. Janeway has to look after her crew almost like a family, but no one would ever claim she's not tough enough. I'm always fascinated how the writers managed to make this character both competent and likable...and then try to figure out if how she acts would work when applied to the real world.

Comments welcome =)

"Screw that nonsense: I want a warp drive."

I thought this article was interesting but also hilarious. My personal favorite is the floating city; ever since I was a kid I thought it was be really fun to live in the ocean. But I'd definitely take a trip to a space hotel or moonbase. Basically I'd just love to explore new places. =)

Vegetarianism

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Best food advice I've heard in a while. Here's an article with more reasons to eat mostly plants.

Best of Craigslist

This is the best thing I've read in a while. (Again courtesy slashdot.)

I was complaining about Microsoft to a friend one day, and he said, "You know what? You don't like GUI's." I immediately began to protest, but then I stopped and thought about it, and realized he was right. I prefer a nice, simple console to a bunch of images you point and click and hope they do the right thing.

So, here's to Unix.

The Science of Love

This article's kinda long, but I enjoyed it. I'm enough of a Vulcan to be tickled pink that love has a perfectly logical, scientific explanation.

After all, as Richard Feynman said, "Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?"

Double Einstein Ring

May I just say, "Whoa."

That's pretty awesome...first of all that scientists now have that data, and that ability to study the universe more deeply. And also that it's so incredibly rare. Can you say "lucky?"

Sorry, this stuff is just so cool. And I know some people say, "Why bother studying this stuff? It's not practical at all." But seriously, who wouldn't want to know about the universe? It's the UNIVERSE. I mean, we're humans. Constantly curious, that's us. =)

Who would you meet?

If you could meet anyone (real, not fictional characters), alive or from history, who would you want to meet?
The way I've come up with a list is to imagine that I'm going to have lunch with someone, and I try to figure out who would be really interesting to talk to, and who I think I'd actually get along with.

My list:
Fred Rogers
Fr. Hesburgh (I've met him, actually, and he's completely awesome)
Richard Feynman and Isaac Asimov
Fareed Zakaria
Archibald MacLeish

Separately, here's a list of people I feel I could learn a lot from, but I think I'd be too intimidated to actually be able to speak in their presence:
Martin Luther King Jr. / Frederick Douglass / Lucretia Mott
Gene Krantz
Oprah
Nancy Pelosi
Richard Branson
Thomas Edison
Euler
Buzz Aldrin
Bob Gates / Maj. Gen. Doug Stone

Bloomberg

OK, I promised myself when I started this blog that I'd stay away from serious or controversial topics (like politics). But after reading this, can I just say, I really hope Michael Bloomberg runs for President. If he does, he immediately gets my vote.
And then I was thinking about the movie "The American President." The President in that movie is very popular, very likeable, etc...basically the writers tried to make a character that the audience would vote for if he was real. And the two big political issues that come up in the movie? Gun control and the environment. And he's a bachelor. Yup, Michael Bloomberg is Andrew Shepherd. Sort of. (What? I thought it was funny.)

Now of course there's a good argument that an Independent candidate could never win. However, here's a devil's advocate argument to chew on:
In the current political atmosphere, many people want a non-Republican President. So I'm going to assume that the Republican candidate will lose, and ignore him. (Feel free to challenge this assumption if you like.)
So for the Democrats: if Obama wins the nomination, he has a seriously good chance of winning. People like him. If, however, Hillary wins the nomination, she'll be fighting a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in this country.
Thus, if Hillary wins the nomination, we'll have 2 not-so-popular choices for President. I argue that this could leave a significant number of votes open for a 3rd-party candidate, particularly if he's smart, politically savvy, and rich. Bloomberg is all three. There's a good chance that in this scenario, the campaign would become NOT Hillary vs. Republican, but Hillary vs. Bloomberg, with the Republican candidate left as an afterthought.
Comments welcome, but please keep things civil. =)