It was brought to my attention that the web address of my blog is confusing since there is only one 't' in "whato[thinkabout]".
Thus, the question to my readers is: should I change the web address of my blog to: "whattothinkabout.blogspot.com"?
Let me know what you think. Let your thoughts be counted.
-----------------------Vote Here-----------------------
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Bed Bug Control
So one of the things that is on my mind in New York is Bed Bugs.
From the websites that are designed to scare you and make you purchase expensive anti-bedbug services, here are the more interesting "facts..."
- Bed Bugs can live up to a year without feeding.
- They don't live only in beds, they also can live in outlets, behind picture frames, anywhere really.
- Bed Bugs have been known to be around humans from early points in history, yet they are also known not to transmit blood diseases like other blood-sucking insects.
- Some Bed Bugs are resistant to common insecticides.
That last point is the main one. Since Bed Bugs are a pain to get rid of, homeowners dread getting this infestation. Moreover, since Bed Bugs can hitchhike on people as well as travel between living quarters, there is no way to be 100% protected from Bed Bugs.
Interestingly, one scientist posited that Bed Bugs are so rampant because they are benign. True they bite, and then make you itch and give you psychological fear, but they don't transmit disease. So what is the rush to find a more effective way to kill them? (Perhaps the tourist industry is reason enough, or at least interested in investing to find a viable solution)
So what do I think is a great solution? I think we should import something into our apartments/homes that is even more benign, that eats bed bugs, and is easy to get rid of. My theory is lizards. We all know that lizards eat bugs. So why not get two lizards, let them loose in our rooms, and then collect them at the end of a month or so. (This is not easy for me to imagine becuase I am not a fan of lizards, though I feel I can stomach them more than I would Bed Bugs.) But my premise still stands. Find something natural that eats bed bugs, and then later control for that animal.
Done. Problem solved... (Fine, maybe not solved, but at least entertained.)
From the websites that are designed to scare you and make you purchase expensive anti-bedbug services, here are the more interesting "facts..."
- Bed Bugs can live up to a year without feeding.
- They don't live only in beds, they also can live in outlets, behind picture frames, anywhere really.
- Bed Bugs have been known to be around humans from early points in history, yet they are also known not to transmit blood diseases like other blood-sucking insects.
- Some Bed Bugs are resistant to common insecticides.
That last point is the main one. Since Bed Bugs are a pain to get rid of, homeowners dread getting this infestation. Moreover, since Bed Bugs can hitchhike on people as well as travel between living quarters, there is no way to be 100% protected from Bed Bugs.
Interestingly, one scientist posited that Bed Bugs are so rampant because they are benign. True they bite, and then make you itch and give you psychological fear, but they don't transmit disease. So what is the rush to find a more effective way to kill them? (Perhaps the tourist industry is reason enough, or at least interested in investing to find a viable solution)
So what do I think is a great solution? I think we should import something into our apartments/homes that is even more benign, that eats bed bugs, and is easy to get rid of. My theory is lizards. We all know that lizards eat bugs. So why not get two lizards, let them loose in our rooms, and then collect them at the end of a month or so. (This is not easy for me to imagine becuase I am not a fan of lizards, though I feel I can stomach them more than I would Bed Bugs.) But my premise still stands. Find something natural that eats bed bugs, and then later control for that animal.
Done. Problem solved... (Fine, maybe not solved, but at least entertained.)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
New Sports are Dead
I would argue that there are 4 major sports leagues in the United States: baseball, basketball, football and hockey. While there are other sports leagues that do exist, they are not as prevalent based on the empirical evidence that they don't appear on my facebook newsfeed, nor do they appear on the sports section of most newspapers.
When I think about the origins of these sports, I think about a time where workers would get off of work, either during a lunch break or at the end of the day, and would throw around a ball or something. Ultimately, these pseudo-sports would catch on among other workers, the rules would become standardized, and a sport would be born.
However, that experience of capitalism is gone. The mass production factory assembly lines are a thing of the past that only resurface when reading Karl Marx or "The Grapes of Wrath." The factories of today are automated, and the workday experience of workers today is lived differently than it used to be more than half a century ago.
Moreover, sociologists have observed that in recent years, people are not attending social events as regularly as they once did 30 years ago. I mean think about it. The bowling league to which Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble belong represents a antiquated mode of entertainment that no longer reflects the experiences of the common audience (this was an obvious example based on Sociologist Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" where he discusses this phenomenon.)
Today, recreation is more individualized then it has ever been. When we want to have fun, we turn on the computer or TV which are made to be enjoyed in small groups. There are many examples of why this is true. (Consider the TV. Most of the time, when we watch a movie or a TV show, we beg for silence from out peers in order to hear the show and enjoy the plot and all subtle details. while it is true that some TV shows can be watched in groups, those groups are usually pretty small, and not as social as the "tea parties" of the earlier decades.)
Therefore, since entertainment today is more individualized, and since our workplace is less social and more automated, I believe that the potential for new sports to develop is very limited since the opportunities to kill time after a mindless days at work with a larger group of friends, no longer exists.
But I suppose I can't tell the future, and "dead" is such a strong word...
When I think about the origins of these sports, I think about a time where workers would get off of work, either during a lunch break or at the end of the day, and would throw around a ball or something. Ultimately, these pseudo-sports would catch on among other workers, the rules would become standardized, and a sport would be born.
However, that experience of capitalism is gone. The mass production factory assembly lines are a thing of the past that only resurface when reading Karl Marx or "The Grapes of Wrath." The factories of today are automated, and the workday experience of workers today is lived differently than it used to be more than half a century ago.
Moreover, sociologists have observed that in recent years, people are not attending social events as regularly as they once did 30 years ago. I mean think about it. The bowling league to which Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble belong represents a antiquated mode of entertainment that no longer reflects the experiences of the common audience (this was an obvious example based on Sociologist Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" where he discusses this phenomenon.)
Today, recreation is more individualized then it has ever been. When we want to have fun, we turn on the computer or TV which are made to be enjoyed in small groups. There are many examples of why this is true. (Consider the TV. Most of the time, when we watch a movie or a TV show, we beg for silence from out peers in order to hear the show and enjoy the plot and all subtle details. while it is true that some TV shows can be watched in groups, those groups are usually pretty small, and not as social as the "tea parties" of the earlier decades.)
Therefore, since entertainment today is more individualized, and since our workplace is less social and more automated, I believe that the potential for new sports to develop is very limited since the opportunities to kill time after a mindless days at work with a larger group of friends, no longer exists.
But I suppose I can't tell the future, and "dead" is such a strong word...
There are Two Types of People in the World
I know that this is old news to some, but check out this guest post I wrote on Nathan Miller's blog at Nathan-Miller.com
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ability to Memorize
Here is something I often think about.
We all know that many early civilizations relied on Oral Traditions. Since it used to be that books were written in a time consuming manner, books were scarce. As a result, society compensated by transmitting information through an oral tradition that was based on memorization.
Today, such a feat is considered remarkable. Take Judaism for example. How could an individual memorize the entire Bible, as well as the Mishna and even the Talmud? We assume that these people have photographic memories and have a super-ability to memorize things accurately and completely. After all, I can only count on my hands the number of people today who I know who have the bible memorized, and they have a unique skill that other simply don't have.
However, I have a different theory. While it is true that there are some individuals who can do have a more acute sense of memorization, the human mind is more remarkable than we allow. In today's world, we are bombarded with so much information that we are constantly trying to find ways to access and store it. With the creation of the internet and digital storage, we have an even greater capability to access greater amounts of information, and a greater ability to store that information with the possibility to retrieve that information on command. I posit that since we have access to more information about the world, we constantly "forget" specific details since we know we can always "remember" those details at any time by looking them up.
Moreover, I also think that we can remember things when they are repeated to us many times. For example, consider music. When we hear songs over and over again, we begin to memorize the lyrics. I wouldn't be suprised if the amount of lyrics we have memorized would be equal to the amount of information contained in the bible. The melodies help us remember the words (consider how easy it is to sing the alphabet in order to figure out what letter follows another. And if you don't sing it, do you at least keep the same melodic rhythm?). Just as there were devices in oral traditions that helped people remember the stories.
When I was talking this idea over with my sister, she pointed out that memorization is also a skill. The more you train that skill, the better you will be able to memorize things. This goes along with my idea above that if we didn't have the ability to "remember" things by looking them up, then we could actually care to develop this skill more.
Therefore, I am less impressed when I think about Oral Traditions. Yes it is true that there are people with photographic memories that can memorize things after seeing things a few times (or even once), but I think anyone can memorize things, even whole books (or lines for a movie/play). We just have to make a conscious effort to memorize and repeat the information over and over again(which is hard because it is easier and less time consuming to just "forget" it and access it later).
What do you think?
We all know that many early civilizations relied on Oral Traditions. Since it used to be that books were written in a time consuming manner, books were scarce. As a result, society compensated by transmitting information through an oral tradition that was based on memorization.
Today, such a feat is considered remarkable. Take Judaism for example. How could an individual memorize the entire Bible, as well as the Mishna and even the Talmud? We assume that these people have photographic memories and have a super-ability to memorize things accurately and completely. After all, I can only count on my hands the number of people today who I know who have the bible memorized, and they have a unique skill that other simply don't have.
However, I have a different theory. While it is true that there are some individuals who can do have a more acute sense of memorization, the human mind is more remarkable than we allow. In today's world, we are bombarded with so much information that we are constantly trying to find ways to access and store it. With the creation of the internet and digital storage, we have an even greater capability to access greater amounts of information, and a greater ability to store that information with the possibility to retrieve that information on command. I posit that since we have access to more information about the world, we constantly "forget" specific details since we know we can always "remember" those details at any time by looking them up.
Moreover, I also think that we can remember things when they are repeated to us many times. For example, consider music. When we hear songs over and over again, we begin to memorize the lyrics. I wouldn't be suprised if the amount of lyrics we have memorized would be equal to the amount of information contained in the bible. The melodies help us remember the words (consider how easy it is to sing the alphabet in order to figure out what letter follows another. And if you don't sing it, do you at least keep the same melodic rhythm?). Just as there were devices in oral traditions that helped people remember the stories.
When I was talking this idea over with my sister, she pointed out that memorization is also a skill. The more you train that skill, the better you will be able to memorize things. This goes along with my idea above that if we didn't have the ability to "remember" things by looking them up, then we could actually care to develop this skill more.
Therefore, I am less impressed when I think about Oral Traditions. Yes it is true that there are people with photographic memories that can memorize things after seeing things a few times (or even once), but I think anyone can memorize things, even whole books (or lines for a movie/play). We just have to make a conscious effort to memorize and repeat the information over and over again(which is hard because it is easier and less time consuming to just "forget" it and access it later).
What do you think?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Waking Up
Why is waking up so hard?
This morning, I awoke to my backup alarm clock. I am always worried that I will sleep through my alarm clock, or that I will turn it off in my sleep, or fail to set it properly when I go to bed. So I always set two alarms to increase the probability of setting the alarm correctly and not sleeping through it. This morning, I was glad for the extra alarm, since I don't remember turning off my first one (I checked later, it was set correctly...I must have dismissed/snoozed it in my sleep)
This brings me to my second point. When you wake up, you should always snooze your alarm. If you start turning off you alarm first thing when you wake up, then you will develop habits to turn off your alarm more efficiently. You will literally be better able to turn off your alarm with your eyes closed while asleep (The metaphor for really easy things that come second nature to you: “I could [insert action] with my eyes closed/fast asleep”). However, if you always snooze your alarm, then even if you accidently snooze your alarm in your sleep, then you will have more chances to wake up when your alarm goes off again and again.
This brings me to my third point. You should always have a battery powered alarm. Just in case the power goes out and your clock resets. Also, you should change the battery in your alarm clock at some point in your life... (J/k, you should change it more often).
But in all seriousness, I think that the only guaranteed way to wake up is to set two battery powered alarm clocks. Then you will never sleep through your alarms. Unless it is Shabbat, or you are really tired...
This leads me to my fourth point; the gist of this blog post. Why is it so hard to wake up? Ok, there will be some morning people who will respond: "What are you talking about?", so let me rephrase the question: "why is it so hard for some people to get up?"
My thinking is that it starts with going to bed too late in the first place. The logic is that if you aren’t a morning person, you are a night person, which means you are up late (AKA up past 10). Perhaps people have an affinity for doing work at night, or doing some activities in the night time, and therefore prefer to stay up later. With their lack of a good night's sleep, they have trouble waking up in the morning.
However, I think another piece to the puzzle has to do with your mind's alertness. Sometimes I fall asleep and swear to myself that I will wake up and start working on some project. However, when I actually wake up, I no longer feel motivated to work on the project. It’s as if I haven’t thought about that project in hours (har har). Clearly, when I awake, I am not in the mindset to want to do things that I previously thought I would when I was fully awake. I failed to take into account my future mindset and therefore set goals that were unrealistic.
This demonstrates that when I wake up, I must be lazier and less motivated then when I go to sleep. But this doesn't explain why when I have to go to the airport, or do something important; I always wake up on time and urgently. There has to be more psychological factors going on to sleep that I am not considering. Perhaps when we fall asleep when we know we have urgent/exciting things to do, they are always in our minds, and therefore we wake up from a usually less relaxing sleep?
Either way, when I wake up, I usually give myself 5 min before I decide whether to fall back asleep or not. Usually when I wake up, I always default to sleep. But after 5 minutes, I find that the decision becomes more realistic as my mind's gears start turning again.
Any thoughts?
This morning, I awoke to my backup alarm clock. I am always worried that I will sleep through my alarm clock, or that I will turn it off in my sleep, or fail to set it properly when I go to bed. So I always set two alarms to increase the probability of setting the alarm correctly and not sleeping through it. This morning, I was glad for the extra alarm, since I don't remember turning off my first one (I checked later, it was set correctly...I must have dismissed/snoozed it in my sleep)
This brings me to my second point. When you wake up, you should always snooze your alarm. If you start turning off you alarm first thing when you wake up, then you will develop habits to turn off your alarm more efficiently. You will literally be better able to turn off your alarm with your eyes closed while asleep (The metaphor for really easy things that come second nature to you: “I could [insert action] with my eyes closed/fast asleep”). However, if you always snooze your alarm, then even if you accidently snooze your alarm in your sleep, then you will have more chances to wake up when your alarm goes off again and again.
This brings me to my third point. You should always have a battery powered alarm. Just in case the power goes out and your clock resets. Also, you should change the battery in your alarm clock at some point in your life... (J/k, you should change it more often).
But in all seriousness, I think that the only guaranteed way to wake up is to set two battery powered alarm clocks. Then you will never sleep through your alarms. Unless it is Shabbat, or you are really tired...
This leads me to my fourth point; the gist of this blog post. Why is it so hard to wake up? Ok, there will be some morning people who will respond: "What are you talking about?", so let me rephrase the question: "why is it so hard for some people to get up?"
My thinking is that it starts with going to bed too late in the first place. The logic is that if you aren’t a morning person, you are a night person, which means you are up late (AKA up past 10). Perhaps people have an affinity for doing work at night, or doing some activities in the night time, and therefore prefer to stay up later. With their lack of a good night's sleep, they have trouble waking up in the morning.
However, I think another piece to the puzzle has to do with your mind's alertness. Sometimes I fall asleep and swear to myself that I will wake up and start working on some project. However, when I actually wake up, I no longer feel motivated to work on the project. It’s as if I haven’t thought about that project in hours (har har). Clearly, when I awake, I am not in the mindset to want to do things that I previously thought I would when I was fully awake. I failed to take into account my future mindset and therefore set goals that were unrealistic.
This demonstrates that when I wake up, I must be lazier and less motivated then when I go to sleep. But this doesn't explain why when I have to go to the airport, or do something important; I always wake up on time and urgently. There has to be more psychological factors going on to sleep that I am not considering. Perhaps when we fall asleep when we know we have urgent/exciting things to do, they are always in our minds, and therefore we wake up from a usually less relaxing sleep?
Either way, when I wake up, I usually give myself 5 min before I decide whether to fall back asleep or not. Usually when I wake up, I always default to sleep. But after 5 minutes, I find that the decision becomes more realistic as my mind's gears start turning again.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
A Secret Code (Revised)
(Thank you Nathan for your diligence)
Ok, try this.
Embedded in this clever blog entry, you might find a very unique and secret code.
I would challenge you to persevere and continue to keep trying to crack it.
It is definitely something to think about.
I mean, the whole purpose of this blog is to give its readers many things to think about.
Done.
I am doing just that by making you spend the time and sit down to search this post for clues.
I have written an entry that really makes you have to spend some time trying to figure out the secret code.
However, I realize this entry then has little content of specific interest.
Whatever.
I still had a really fun time putting together this complicated riddle, and hiding great clues throughout this blog entry.
But let me know when you figure it out.
Just place a comment to this post with the answer and show others your brilliance.
And then they can stop wasting their precious time with silly codes like this.
And then there would be much rejoicing and celebrating over your great accomplishment today and you'll be forever happy.
Ok, try this.
Embedded in this clever blog entry, you might find a very unique and secret code.
I would challenge you to persevere and continue to keep trying to crack it.
It is definitely something to think about.
I mean, the whole purpose of this blog is to give its readers many things to think about.
Done.
I am doing just that by making you spend the time and sit down to search this post for clues.
I have written an entry that really makes you have to spend some time trying to figure out the secret code.
However, I realize this entry then has little content of specific interest.
Whatever.
I still had a really fun time putting together this complicated riddle, and hiding great clues throughout this blog entry.
But let me know when you figure it out.
Just place a comment to this post with the answer and show others your brilliance.
And then they can stop wasting their precious time with silly codes like this.
And then there would be much rejoicing and celebrating over your great accomplishment today and you'll be forever happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)