|
|
 |
I have an iPhone 3G, but I want a Motorola Droid, partly for its awesome screen, physical keyboard, and open, multitasking OS. However, I mostly want it for its network, Verizon, which I'm hoping will allow me to make calls from my house reliably. The iPhone is especially bad at this (worse than my old crappy AT&T phone), and it's frustrating since I axed my landline a few years ago. Dropping calls every couple of minutes is borderline embarrassing.
But there's the problem: I'm only 9 months into my two-year AT&T contract, and would have to pay an early termination fee were I to switch to Verizon now. No doubt many other people are facing this same problem, including lots who want to switch to AT&T to get an iPhone.
So I had an idea the other day: phone-swapping. It involves a nifty bit of technology provided for free by Google called Google Voice. Among other cool things, Google Voice lets you get a "Google Number", which is a new telephone number that you can give out to everyone. You then have Google Voice automatically forward calls to this number to any number or numbers you choose, including your current actual cell phone number.
Here's what I suggest. I want to get on Verizon, so it's sufficient for me to sign up for a two-year Droid package, and have my Google Voice number point to my new Verizon number. That's easy. But what about my existing AT&T plan?
Well, let's say someone wants to get an iPhone 3G. Normally he'd have to sign up for a two-year contract with AT&T and pay $99 for the phone. Instead, I'll sell him my existing iPhone, which only comes with a 15 month contract, for $50. Shorter period and less money. And then he would use his Google Voice account to point his Google number to my existing AT&T number, which would ring at the iPhone I'm going to sell him.
It all works out perfectly! Instead of paying an ETF, I'd get $50, and he'd get a phone for cheaper and with less of a commitment than AT&T would offer. And AT&T would never know the difference. (There may be some billing issues, but with online auto-billpay from any credit card, I don't think this would be a huge problem. There might also be a Terms of Service violation; anyone care to check?)
I think this kind of switcheroo would be very useful for lots of people; ETFs are a pain for everyone.
So I want a "phone-swapping" site where Google Voice users post when they are trying to get onto a new carrier and/or leave their current one. They could then match up and do the swap. For all I know, there may be a disgruntled Droid user who's looking to ditch Verizon in a month or two, so in addition to ditching AT&T without paying the ETF, I might be able to get a Droid on Verizon for less money and time commitment than Verizion would offer. Good times!
Is anyone else interested in this? I think a simple site could be thrown up in a a week or so, but I don't have the time to do it right now.
Edit: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) snafuuu has pointed out Cellswapper, which pretty much does exactly what I want. Thanks!
3 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
One of my writing-style pet peeves is the incorrect use of the word "infinitely". As in "OMG, this math test was infinitely harder than the last one!" No, it wasn't. Of course, there are a few legitimate uses of the word, and props to people who use it correctly. But for the most part, people use it to mean "a lot". Even Malcolm Gladwell, in his latest New Yorker article about football players: At one point, while he was discussing his research, Guskiewicz showed a videotape from a 1997 college football game between Arizona and Oregon. In one sequence, a player from Oregon viciously tackles an Arizona player, bringing his head up onto the opposing player’s chin and sending his helmet flying with the force of the blow. To look at it, you’d think that the Arizona player would be knocked unconscious. Instead, he bounces back up. “This guy does not sustain a concussion,” Guskiewicz said. “He has a lip laceration. Lower lip, that’s it. Now, same game, twenty minutes later.” He showed a clip of an Arizona defensive back making a dramatic tackle. He jumps up, and, as he does so, a teammate of his chest-bumps him in celebration. The defensive back falls and hits his head on the ground. “That’s a Grade 2 concussion,” Guskiewicz said. “It’s the fall to the ground, combined with the bounce off the turf.” The force of the first hit was infinitely greater than the second. So either the second hit didn't happen, or else the first hit was executed with infinite force, which I guess is pretty impressive at the college level. NFL scouts, you watching?
5 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
From a laptop computer efficiency paper.
Laptop displays consume 30% of the total energy supplied by the power supply or the
battery and represent a substantial efficiency paradox by themselves. On the one hand,
they cut power use and physical size by perhaps 50 to 80% relative to the external
cathode ray tubes (CRTs) that preceded them. On the other hand, they still exhibit
profound, fundamental inefficiencies in their basic design. The power that feeds the
display starts at the AC wall plug and is converted in the power supply to DC. But
displays require AC power to operate their fluorescent backlights, so the portion of the
power that runs the display must undergo a second inefficient conversion from DC back
to AC in an inverter, at an efficiency of perhaps 80% to 90%. Of that AC power, about
30% to 40% is successfully converted to visible light in the cold cathode fluorescent
backlights, with the rest becoming heat.
Then, because of the inherent opacity of most liquid crystal technologies, 95% of that
light is absorbed in the crystals themselves, rather than passing through them to emerge
as useful visible light of a particular color.38 In total, then, perhaps only 1% (84% *
30% * 85% * 35% * 5%) of the energy content of the electricity drawn from the wall is
actually available in the pattern of visible light emitted from its display that we call
“information.” If, to be generous, we consider only the efficiency of the entire chain of
components in the display system, rather than the computer as a whole, we would still
have to conclude that the system only converts about 2% to 3% of the electrical energy
consumed by it into visible information.
(ThinkPad love: ThinkPads were the most efficient laptops tested by the NRDC. In particular, the T40 had the highest performance and the lowest energy usage. The IBM power supply was the most efficient among those tested; if everyone switched to IBM power supplies, the savings would be between 210 and 520 GWh, depending on usage. Apparently, ThinkPads also have unusually efficient screens; switching to ThinkPad screens would save an additional 260-550 GWh.)
4 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
I am of course going utterly gaga over Usain Bolt's recent performances at the World Championships in Berlin. First, there was the mind-blowing 9.58 in the 100m. Keep in mind that before Bolt started running the race for real about 18 months ago, the record was 9.72. He beat his own world record by 0.11s – totally ridiculous. His astounding performance leads to perverse charts like the 100m world record progression: 
He's the last three little x's in the bottom right. Okay, and then he ran the 200m in 19.19 last night, beating his old world record there by another 0.11s. Keep in mind that those other guys he's roasting are (with one exception) the other fastest guys in the world. This isn't a high school track meet. Now, that one sprinter who's missing, Tyson Gay, is actually the second fastest man in the world in the 200m. But his best time is a mere 19.58, so… not in the same league. It's hard to imagine one person being that much better than everyone else in the world. But it's happened. Bolt is a freak of nature – the first really tall guy (6'5") with enough coordination and footspeed to run fast. The crazy thing is that he's only going to get better. He turns 23 today, and apparently sprinters really hit their prime at around 27. Furthermore, and this is something I haven't seen anyone else point out yet, his 200m time is slow. For the first time since the advent of electronic timing, the 200m WR is more than twice the time of the 100m WR. The sprinters in the 200m are at top speed for longer: the first 100m starts slow, from the blocks, but the second 100m is at a full sprint. Thus, the 200m is the only track even in which the increased distance also increases the average speed. So you'll find the best 200m times are faster than 2x the best 100m times. You can see for yourself here and here. Not the case now, as Bolt's 9.58 and 19.19 attest. My hypothesis: he is simply not in good enough shape to sustain his top speed for 200m. In fact, you can see him visibly tiring in the last 20-30m of the race in the video above. As he gets better, we'll see that 200m time drop to fall in line with historical expectations. Before Bolt ran, the records were 9.74 and 19.32, a difference of .16s. So based solely on his 9.58, a 19 flat or so is in the cards. But he'll get faster in the 100m, too. So sub-19 (fantasy-land, now) is on the horizon. I'm calling it here: Bolt will run a sub-19 200m.
I really like optical illusions, and have posted a few in the past, such as this one: 
Those snakes aren't actually rotating; they just look like they are. Anyway, I came across a really cool one recently: 
In this case, those green and blue spirals are actually the same color. No, I'm not kidding. Feel free to open up Photoshop to check for yourself, or head here for a detailed look and an explanation. More color illusions of this ilk here, and more illusions in general at the top page of Akiyoshi Kitaoaka's amazing site. Enjoy!
3 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
On Friday, weather.com reported that the chance of rain on this coming Saturday -- a day of no small importance to me -- is 0%. Now that's a bold statement, of course, but a reasonable interpretation of it is: "There is no way it is going to rain on Saturday". When I checked the weather again today, weather.com now reports a 20% chance of precipitation. How is this possible? My not unreasonable interpretation of the precipitation chance number N on day D is: "There is an N percent chance that it will rain on day D: given the initial conditions present today, if day D were to occur 100 times, it would rain on N of the times." By this logic, 0% and 100% are very dangerous numbers. If a percent ever falls to 0% on a given day in advance of D, it can never leave 0% on subsequent days before D. Same with 100%. There is no occurrence that could induce a change. (Assuming arbitrary precision, which we'll discuss later.) I think what weather.com really means is: "Given what we know now, there's an N% chance of rain on day D. But we may know more later." Also reasonable, but a really irritating interpretation for those of us who just want to know what the weather will be like. We don't want to have to worry about what weather.com does or doesn't know. And I think weather.com could account for this uncertainty by an empirical analysis of past 0% and 100% claims. How often did they have to change that number before day D? Add in a little factor that accounts for this uncertainty. I don't know enough about weather prediction to make any better suggestion at the moment. Also, I suspect that their desire to not appear overly precise, manifested in their use of only a single digit of precision in their percentages, is a real problem here. Anything under 5% might appear as 0%. So that’s another good excuse. But the fact of the matter is that when I see 0%, I want to be able to plan my beach party with confidence. Don’t destroy my confidence, weather.com.
3 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
Damn. There's so much beauty in music it's absurd. What trick of evolution allows it this level of emotional resonance?
2 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
When I was in high school, someone gave me a collection of Edgar Allan Poe's short stories. Of course, all of his classics ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "The Pit and the Pendulum", etc.) were present, but at the very back was a story I had never read before, called "The Imp of the Perverse". The Imp is a sneaky guy who lives in your head. He's the one who implores you to pull the red stop cord on the train, or take a step over the edge of the Grand Canyon – or to drop a snide comment at your family reunion. He eggs you on with a simple motivation: to see what happens when you do exactly the thing you're not supposed to do. I was fascinated by this concept, mainly because I often feel this temptation. (I feel like it should be as well known as schadenfreude – it's got to be as universal, and there's no other good term for it.) Anyway, I was delighted to read an article in the New York Times about the Imp featuring Daniel Wegner, who wrote the awesome The Illusion of Conscious Will. The article mentions that actively fighting "perverse" thoughts can paradoxically increase your chance of acting on them. I had a related meta-problem: since I've read about the Imp of the Perverse, I'm always waiting for him to arrive. So as soon as I spot that tempting "Emergency Stop" button in the elevator, I think "Good ol' Imp", and before I know it I'm dreaming of pushing the button. One step closer.
I have a very simple technique for highway driving: I drive 13 miles an hour over the speed limit. This is usually fast enough to place me into the fast lane, but slow enough that it's not worth it for cops to ticket me. I've driven roughly 30k miles and have never been pulled over. So I think it's a good strategy. However, the Bay Area is tricky about speed limits. Changes are frequent, and can vary by up to 20 mph (50-65 on 101S in SF; 45-65 on 880N in Oakland). So if I'm cruising at 78, I can get into big trouble if I don't notice that the limit just dropped to 45. I want some kind of phone or GPS app that will just tell me what the current speed limit is. (Even better: one that will beep when I exceed 13 mph over it.) Anyone? I don't really care about speed traps; I just want to know the speed limit.
I've been listening to a lot of American Analog Set lately. My friend Lonnie introduced me to them in 2000 and since then they've been a constant, steadying presence in my life. In fact, one of their songs was the genesis of the title of this blog. For various reasons I've listened to them less frequently of late, but they're back. I guess you could classify Amanset as "drone-rock": whispered vocals, fuzzy or chiming guitars, languorous tempos, repetition, melancholy lyrics. A warm blanket. It's easy to find them boring if you don't listen carefully enough. But if you do, and let the music feel for you, it's a powerful experience. Here's a YouTube playlist of some Amanset songs. (Please click on the "HQ" button on the bottom right of the YouTube widget; it drastically improves the sound quality. Also there's silence at the end of every track, so you'll have to manually skip forward. Until there's a better way to embed audio streams, this will have to do. [Note: I'd be happy to pay the buck or whatever to enable repeated streaming for visitors. Let me do it!]) What's my favorite Amanset song? None of these, actually. Why spoil the fun? I may continue this trend of exploring bands that I like. Next up might be Porcupine Tree, just because Steven Wilson keeps pumping out amazing stuff.
Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
How do dogs recognize each other?
You know what I'm talking about: dogs will ignore other species, but bark at and interact with each other. Now that doesn't sound like an impressive recognition task, but consider that dogs have been bred over the last few thousand years into a staggering variety of subspecies, with radically different features, sizes, and proportions. How does a Great Dane know that a Chihuahua is a dog? (And vice versa; the chihuahua essentially has the brain of a wolf in the body the size of a rodent. That must be confusing.) The first explanation that comes to mind is smell: dogs smell the same, and they have great noses, so it's easy to tell if another animal is a dog. But I've seen many dogs bark at others – from behind a closed car window. So it's something more sophisticated. More possibilities: smell is first, sight is second, dogs only bark at similar-looking dogs if they can't smell, etc. Google didn't come up with much. The best I could find is "Dogs too have their own scent and smell to establish who is who, sniffing around each other's bodies. Dogs also use sight to first look and decide if it is a dog they are looking at and then sniff to find out if they know each other." I don't have a dog (though I think they are awesome), so if you do I'd love to hear your thoughts. Shopping by calories
I don't know what the deal is with my metabolism, but I have to eat a ton of food each day. If I don't eat breakfast, I won't survive till lunch, and even after a big lunch I'm hungry by 4pm. When I go to a convenience store to grab some snacks, I often find myself shopping by calories: which item will give me the most calories per dollar? This sounds perverse, but I can't help it. And I've found lately that I do this subconsciously even when I'm shopping in a grocery store! Weird. Does anyone else do this? Kent? Obama's Egypt speech
A thing of beauty. Read the transcript (it's easy and pretty short). It's nuanced, bold, and inspiring. Some people have been complaining that it's all words, no action. But the speech itself – just words – is a huge step forward. I can't imagine Bush even attempting this. Progress has to start somewhere. An A-Z Music Project update
Earlier this year I started listening to all my music in alphabetical order. I had the ambitious goal of finishing by the end of the year. Well, there's no way that's going to happen. True, I had a very busy semester, one that didn't leave much time for listening to music, but I'm now only halfway through the Bs (Bonnie "Prince" Billy, to be exact, and 70 hours done of 90 total in the Bs). My new projected end date: Jan 2012. Really?
10 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
| 2009-05-29 17:44 |
| Done |
| Public |
I finally finished grad school. I'm now officially a Ph.D., though as in many things it's pretty clear that the journey was more important than the destination. A (Ph.D.) friend of mine put it, roughly, this way:
When you get your Ph.D., you don't feel euphoric; you feel relieved. It's as if someone pulled a knife out of your back. ... and that about sums it up. Here are a few things I learned along the way (in no particular order): - I love teaching. I TAed two classes and taught another. Loved them all. Teaching is now definitely a long-term career goal of mine.
- I love coding. NewsDog, Sudoku Slam, Total Fragmentation, and now Modista. There's a joy in good engineering, a beauty in elegant design, and real satisfaction in making something that people can use.
- I like, but don't love, research. Sadly, I'm now cynical about "selling" research, choose-your-own benchmarks, and the chance that anything cool will ever get used in the real world. Some people love the thrill of it, but I guess I don't. When I started, academia seemed purer than business. But it quickly became clear that not much is different: the currency is simply fame instead of money. At the same time, I'm proud of what I've done, even if it won't lead to anything practical. There's some nice stuff in there, I suppose. (I still think that the proofs Bill and I did for the unpublished bin-packing paper are the most elegant I've contributed to.)
- I love California, as a perusal of the photo-entries of this blog will attest.
- I love playing the guitar, and wish I could play more often. Soon, perhaps.
- I love playing ultimate (frisbee).
- I love Bekah.
On the ultimate frisbee note, I just finished my four year "college" career playing for Cal. It ended on a low high note, if that's possible. It was a huge time commitment -- 5-6 days a week, nearly year round -- but also very rewarding, and I made several great friends on the team. I reached a certain level of competence (a starting player for a top 10 team, some nice highlight photos), but never greatness. (I suppose that is how I am with most things.) It was really fun, though, and I'm sad to stop playing -- though I'll treasure my now-free weekends.
5 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
A few years ago I saw an Idlewild show in SF. The local opening band was called Why? and put on an incredible show. I picked up their album Elephant Eyelash (amazing lyrics), and investigated some other artists on their label/collective, Anticon, such as cLOUDDEAD. All good stuff.
However, I vividly recalled one song they played during the live set that (a) I thought was awesome, (b) featured a dude playing the vibraphone and the drums at the same time, and (c) was not on any of these albums.
After a while I forgot about Why? and only recently found out that they've released a new album that has the mystery song on it! The song is called "A Sky For Shoeing Horses Under", and is just about as good as I remembered, sans a bit of live electricity.
Check it out.
(After listening to it, but only then, watch the video if you're interested.)
I can't stop listening to it. Well, except to listen to Motherlover, of course.
Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
I've started a pretty bizarre project this year: to listen to all the music I own in alphabetical order (by artist and then by album name). Yes, that's 14,245 tracks, nearly a thousand hours of music, from ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead to Yo La Tengo (Frank Zappa is under F). So if I listen for three hours a day, it'll take me a year to get through it. It's ambitious, but doable.
Why? For one, I'll get to listen to more music. I swear, if I have to pick a CD to listen to, it can take me several minutes to do so. This eliminates choice. (And is much preferred to random, which is fun for a while, but quickly drives me nuts.) Second, it'll give me a chance to rediscover old favorites I've forgotten, and explore music I haven't yet given a fair shake.
I've also given myself some fairly loose rules: I don't have to listen to A-Z exclusively; I can listen to any other music I want at any time. So if the mood is wrong, I don't have to force it. However, I've found myself drawn to the challenge over the last month. The other rule is that if I get new music, I insert it into the library. It if comes after my current position in the alphabet, I'll listen to it as part of the sweep; if not, too late.
At the start, I had some open questions. For instance, there are several artists for which I have many albums. Would listening to these albums all in succession drive me nuts? And which artist is going to be toughest? Would it be They Might Be Giants (219 songs, 7h33m)? Or Dream Theater (71 songs, 9h45m, average song length 8m13s)? Or maybe Alice in Chains (90 songs, 7h5m of depression)? Or the king, Beethoven (115 tracks, 17h34m)? Maybe I'd even enjoy that kind of immersion.
Progress thus far: I've made it through the As: (442 songs, 32h37m). Now onto Bach. It hasn't been that bad. In fact, 7 hours of Alice in Chains was pretty cool. Worst experience so far: three albums of Autechre, which I had picked up because I liked Aphex Twin, but had never listened to seriously or in such isolation. Definitely not as good as Aphex Twin, and three albums worth (all listened to today) nearly put me over the edge. But I made it. And there have been more than enough quality experiences too. So far so good.
Just yesterday I thought of a cool addition. I signed up for Last.fm, a service that monitors what you're listening to and suggests new tracks based on that data. I figured it would be neat to feed it my whole collection and see what it suggests. Unfortunately I had gotten through most of the As already, so all it got was Arrested Development, Arturo Sandoval, and Autechre thus far. Heh. Let's see what it makes of that.
4 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
I have a clear favorite (in terms of artistic quality, not content). See if you can guess which one it is!
6 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
You might have heard about this from me already, but if not, here's my latest project with my friend Arlo:
(click on the image to go to the site)
It's a way to browse through items via visual similarity. Right now we have women's and men's shoes, handbags, watches, and eyewear, but we're looking to add more stuff as well.
If you like it, please spread the word!
5 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
Well, I've warmed up a little to the SD850 IS. Here are some of my favorite pictures from this last year. The selection clearly shows my penchant for spiders and macro shots of flowers will cool backgrounds. I'll have to broaden my range, I guess.
The Olympics are destroying my sleep schedule. Some thoughts: - It's funny that American media outlets are portraying the medal race as close ("Too close to call" proclaimed ESPN.com today.) We're getting walloped.
- Does NBC really have to show the preliminaries for every artistic event (diving, gymnastics, etc.)? Couldn't we just skip to the medal rounds, and show other entertaining events in the meanwhile? The poor woman who won gold in the discus for the US -- a gold that's worth just as much as any of Michael Phelps's heralded golds -- only had her medal ceremony televised. Not even a single throw. And what about awesome sports like team handball and ping pong? Sure, Americans don't follow handball. But maybe that's because they've never seen it. NBC could do so much good by introducing the US (even in small doses) to sports the rest of the world plays, or even other athletes, rather than fawning over the chosen few from start to finish.
- Don't deny it: Bron-bron and KG would make a sick beach volleyball team.
- Usain "Unsane" Bolt is filthy. Disgusting. Sure, Phelps did a great job, etc., but his achievement really pales in comparison to Bolt's. (I wrote a little bit about track's competitiveness here). It's going to be exciting to follow him over the next few years...
- It seems quite likely that at least one of the Chinese medal-winning gymnasts was under age. This is definitely a violation of the rules, and the IOC should grow a spine and do something about it. However, it raises the larger question of why there should be an age limit at all in gymnastics. It seems a bit of a farce to award a gold medal to a 16 year old when a 13 year old is actually the best in the world. (Or a 15-year, 11-month-old who just missed the cutoff.) I've heard some nonsense about how doing gymnastics could be damaging to younger bodies. Right. Like the current crop of 16 year olds started at age 15? In reality, they've been practicing since 5 or 6.
- Update: Jeez. I forgot just how insane decathletes are. Bryan Clay, the current leader: 10.4 in the 100, 25'6" long jump, 48s 400, 6'6" high jump. Damn!
4 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
| 2008-07-26 14:31 |
| STPizzle |
| Public |
| A Song for Sleeping |
I used to write about nearly every concert I went to, but I stopped several years ago. (So that I won't forget what I've seen, I do keep a list of shows on my computer -- 78 thus far since I've been in Berkeley. I kind of regret doing only this, because it's hard to remember details about specific shows, especially if I've seen the same band multiple times.) For various reasons, I decided to write one about the Stone Temple Pilots concert I went to last night.
One reason is that STP was one of the most critically underrated bands of the 90s, and it was satisfying to see them at a totally sold-out show. Critics invariably lumped them in with the grunge movement as a poor man's Pearl Jam, which never made any sense to me. STP arguably are better pop tunesmiths and have a more consistent catalog. Besides, the music sounds totally different.
Another reason is that now my list of "bands I grew up with but never got to see live" has decreased in size by one. Nice!
The final reason is that immediately evoked in me some memories from waaay back when, and I was surprised by their clarity.
- Sitting at a table in Friendly's (?) in Cheshire with Charles, around 8th grade. Charles took a tape (yes, tape) out of his backpack. It wass Core. "AJ, you have to check this out." I did.
- Traveling in India with my family. I picked up Purple for 50 rupees, about $2 at the time. I listened to it the whole trip, and my sisters (especially Meera) even started to like it.
- Talking to my neighbor Dave after he saw them live, sometime in high school. "That guy has no knees," he said about Scott Weiland. (I now know what he means.)
- Playing Rock Band for the first time recently. I was content to use the guitar and drums, but I did choose to sing one song -- "Vasoline".
So how was the show? I'd give it a 7/10. Black Rebel Motorcycle Club opened... eh. STP absolutely slayed on their heavier numbers, like "Wicked Garden" and "Sex Type Thing". Weiland raved about Berkeley, and even went on a 2-3 minute long pro-Obama rant, which was cool. But the crowd lost some energy in the middle and it took a while took get it back. Luckily, STP has no shortage of monster riffs, which helped. The first encore was, awesomely, "Dead and Bloated", which features one of the greatest-ever album-opening moments: "I am / smelling like a rose that somebody gave me on my birthday deathbed..." shouted through a megaphone, followed by an immense riff. The second (at which point I was thinking, "what could they possibly play now?") was the satisfying "Trippin' on a Hole in a Paper Heart". Yeah for 90s rock!
2 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
Question of the day: Are there more (a) American-made cars or (b) Priuses in North Berkeley? My informal sampling suggests that they are roughly even.
3 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
I'm usually pretty careful (some might say anal) about the meanings of words. For instance, "uninterested" and "disinterested" mean very different things, and "peruse" means the opposite of what most people think it does.
So I was surprised recently to find that "ravel" can mean the same thing as "unravel". It is similar, in this way, to "bone"/"debone" ... but doesn't it seem like "ravel" should mean the opposite, to "tangle"? Turns out that that's right, as well. Ravel can assume either definition. It's an "autoantonym", a word that has two opposite meanings.
After some googling, I found this great list of autoantonyms. The best part is that you know many of these already; it's just that your brain is so good at inferring from context that it automatically decides on the contextually-correct meaning and the conflict is rarely apparent. My favorites:
- aught: anything / nothing
- custom: usual; normal / special; unique
- impregnable: impossible to enter / able to be impregnated
- resign: to quit; give up / to sign up again
- shank: latter part of a period of time / early part of a period of time
6 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
| 2008-05-06 23:00 |
| Games |
| Public |
I think one of the most succinct and illuminating ways to understand how a person thinks is to ask him or her explain the rules of any reasonably complex game to you. If I get a chance later, I'll try to describe some of the things I've observed, but I suggest you just try it out and see for yourself.
Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
So I'm doing this ESPN Tourney Challenge thing. Right now I'm in the 99.6th percentile, above all but 0.4% of entrants. And yet, due the the law of "the internet is frigging gigantic", I'm still ranked 12199th. How can I feel good about that?
4 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
|
| |
|
|