On the advantages of using LaTex

me (writing a report): Oh hey, Word has an automatic table of contents.
(inserts template)
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Awesome.
(changes all appropriate bullet points to "heading" fonts)
(clicks "update table of contents")
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Huh. Maybe at least one heading had to be set before I inserted the table?
(deletes table of contents, adds a new one)
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: What the?
(goes back, re-highlights several bullet points, clicks "update table of contents")
computer: Your table of contents is empty! Just highlight whatever text you'd like added to the table of contents, change it's font to a "heading" font, and we'll add it automatically!
me: Dammit Microsoft, this would have been so much easier using LaTex.

As a former professor used to opine, "I don't consider myself computer-illiterate; I simply don't share the same perspective as Microsoft."

UPDATE: I found it. Apparently "headings" is different from "heading-style fonts."

Politics

I was reading a news article on politics and the subsequent reader comments at lunch today.

me: "Well, if you believe the vitriol spewing on the web, either you're a socialist or you're a fascist."

coworker: "There's no middle ground?"

me: "Nope."

coworker: (rolls eyes) "I'm moving to Canada."

me: "So you choose socialism, apparently."

Hopefully the vitriol dies down a bit after the midterms.

Philosophy

I'm generally not shy about my hatred for philosophy. I think it's because I'm scientifically-minded; I like to test theories, not just debate them. And a lot of times it seems like philosophers argue about semantics and language so abstract that what they're saying has no real meaning. Other times, it seems like philosophers argue about things that could be tested or understood scientifically.

I'm not gonna say that all philosophy is bunk; I understand that philosophy helps exercise logical and critical thinking muscles. However, a lot of times I read a philosophical argument or brainteaser and have to roll my eyes. For example, I recently read this article on "philosophical brainteasers" and they all seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) things that people think are paradoxes because they don't properly understand math and science, or
2) arguments based on contradicting definitions.

Over the next several posts, I'll go through them and explain my thoughts on each of the paradoxes. If there's a lack of science / math understanding, I'll point that out and do my best to correct the misunderstanding. If it's a semantics argument, I'll point that out too.

I realize that a lot of this is going to sound pretty snarky. And like I said, I have respect for philosophy as a means to sharpen logic and critical thinking. But I also hate it when people equate something scientific with something mystical or abstract. (I'm thinking mostly of brain twister #8. I did a facepalm as soon as I read that one. Basic misunderstanding of physics going on there.)

And yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to get through all of them. I'm not exactly regular about posting stufff...

(although as I have zero followers I don't think it's really an issue. If you've stumbled upon my blog, HI! leave a comment so I know my words aren't going into the great black hole of cyberspace.)

Reading Rainbow

Reading Rainbow is going off the air. This makes me both sad and angry. Sad, because I have very fond memories of Reading Rainbow, and I always figured my kids would watch it. Angry, because of the reasons given for the show ending.
"According to research," what kids really need is to learn phonics. But as I recall, Sesame Street does a pretty good job of at least starting that process. My mom told me that when I was very small, I pointed to her "Hershey Chocolate" pillow case and said, "R." She looked, and I was indeed pointing to the letter R. Excited, she ran downstairs and gathered all the alphabet magnets from the fridge and brought them back to me. "Do you recognize any others?" she asked. I knew R, S, and W.
She hadn't started teaching me the alphabet yet (I was really young), but I knew a few letters from Sesame Street.

But Reading Rainbow filled a different void. It inspired a love of reading. Even the opening sequence was thrilling. Open a book and become an astronaut! An explorer! Open a book and open your imagination!
When I was a kid, the local library had a display in the children's section for "Books Recently Featured on Reading Rainbow." It was the first place to go every time we went to the library.
It seems that these days there's so much focus on standardized tests. When I was in school, we'd have a standardized test maybe every three years, and the test would last one or two days, maximum. And it wouldn't take up the whole day - just one or two periods. Now, it seems like there's a test every year, and they can take an entire week. All day, every day.
I understand that there's a need to measure students' learning, and that we need to make sure kids attain a certain level of aptitude. But I think all the additional focus on testing is superfluous. Teachers can't do anything but prepare students for the next test, and there's no time to instill a love of learning.
I don't really know if there's a solution to this. Can we measure student performance while still leaving room for inspired tangents in the classroom? Leave your thoughts in the comments (as well as your favorite Reading Rainbow memories).

Driving rant

Let me say upfront: I do not like driving. If I could move to NYC and never have to drive again in my life, I'd be pretty happy about that. Overall, however, I just kinda deal with it. But sometimes things happen that make the experience pretty...horrible.

Now, I'm not sure if this is just my township or if there's some sort of traffic-sign-makers' strike going on, but there are three (count 'em, THREE) places nearby with road work, but no indications of said road work beforehand.

One of these places is a bridge that's out. I know that the bridge is out; my fiance and I have talked about how annoying it is to have to drive way out of the way to get around it. But one day I was driving and was distracted and so forgot to avoid that route. Until I saw a sign saying "Road ends in 500 feet" and a giant barrier. No warning at the previous intersection; no real way to turn around; just a dead end.

Today I stumbled across two more of these beauties. I was driving to school when traffic suddenly stopped. People were moving in the other direction, but going East was just stuck. Finally I (and a lot of other drivers) started pulling into shopping centers and turning around. (Luckily there are shopping center entrances about every 20 yards on this particular stretch of road.) As I turn around, I notice that there's road work blocking both lanes of traffic less than a block away. And this particular area has a pretty even gridwork of roads; it would have taken minimal effort to set up "Detour" signs at the previous intersection and routed traffic around the mess. But no; instead everyone got stuck.

As I was driving back home, I approached a green light and watched in wonder (horror?) as an SUV made a left into the intersection while he had a red light. Luckily I was paying attention and didn't hit him. But as I went through the intersection thinking "What the...?" I noticed yet another big "ROAD CLOSED" sign. The poor guy probably had no warning that his road was going to suddenly stop.

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.