So around the same time that I canceled cable television and phone (based on rising prices), I realized that I had a spare computer lying around the house. The cable television I was only moderately upset to give up becuase with the internet, you can watch shows for free (and legally) on network's websites or on sites like Hulu. So it wasn't such a big deal.
But the phone! How could I give up the landline! Now some of my friends will scoff that landline are useless and everyone has cellphones that are more convenient and do the same thing, and I would normally agree. But then again, often in NYC buildings I don't have service, or I leave my phone on vibrate on my bed and there is no chance I will hear it ringing from the living room(unless the heat/AC is off, there is no traffic outside, the neighbors are quiet, and I am superman.) How am I to know that someone has been looking for me for the last half the night while I sat at my computer watching TV on above stated sites, or doing HW in the living room?
Enter spare computer and Google voice. With this free service I was able to always have google voice (really G-chat in Gmail) open for free and always have "landline" (Really a VOIP phone?) that my friends can call when I am MIA on my cell, but they know I am home.
---This Section Contains Numbers and Easy Math and May Appear Scientific---
This is great since I don't pay for electricity usage in my apartment, but it is not great for my economically inclined mind. So I tried to see how much an average laptop uses if left on for 24 hours. I found that the average is 33 Kilowatt hours per month. That's about the same as leaving one 100 watt light-bulb on for 10 hours every day. With the monitor off (or the lid closed in my case) it subtracts about 15 watts from the computers usage. That is the same as the light bulb for 6 hours per day (42 hours per week)
So what is my point? On the one hand, someone might say that we should all switch to CFL bulbs and make a big difference. Which is true. But on the other hand, I am thinking about all the lights we might leave on outside our home as security lights (to deter crime), all our electric ceiling fans we use to cool off rooms, all the pool pumps, water heaters, and TVs that we use all the time. And by we, I don't me me. With an apartment in NY, I don't use any of these things that a homeowner in Florida might have (I only say Florida because of the reference to the pool pump...and I no longer really use my TV since I don't have cable) I feel like we use electricity to make our lives better and quite frankly, I need a phone.
Though I still think we can always cut back on energy we don't need/use...
But this brings me to my last point. As long as my computer is going to be on as a phone, I might as well make it a "server" for my printer to have "networked" printing as well as for my external hard-drive. I will always be looking for more ways to use this computer in order to maximize its time spent being on. Perhaps I can donate some of its idle processor time to something or SETI...
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Speaking Up
What does it take to get you to raise your voice on a particular issue?
In my Law, Science and Society - Sociology class, we spent a few classes discussing the issues of freedom in the United States and its limits in terms of National Security. The premise of the discussion was: What rights would you give away in the interests of national security?
Many people shared their insights into which rights they would feel comfortable giving up and naturally the conversation turned to the USA Patriot Act. If you take a look at the provisions of the USA Patriot act, you will see many provisions that detract from individuals' liberties in the interests of National Security. [Here is a wikipedia link with quick information about the USA Patriot Act]
Specifically, my professor had us take a closer look at the Surveillance Procedures. Under this provision, the government can observe the communications (Email, telephone, library records...etc) of suspected terrorists. The question then becomes: Who do you trust to decide who determines who is a suspected terrorist or not?
The implications behind this question is that perhaps you are seen as a suspect. Then under these new surveillance rights, the government can look into your communication history. If their suspicions were wrong, they still might uncover information about tax fraud, or some other crime and charge you for that instead.
When I was sitting in class I remember thinking: "If I didn't do anything wrong then of course I would trust the government to sort things out and judge that I have done nothing wrong." But the more I thought about this, the more uncomfortable I felt with giving up my rights to privacy. Do I feel safe checking out books about terrorism from the library because my social grouping is currently not the target of national investigation?
The question then morphed into: So in what ways do you address your concerns? And the answer is: None. I don't take time to lobby my senators. I don't organize rallies in the community to raise awareness on this issue. Maybe I'll write a blog post about it, but how far reaching will that post be? I imagine it wouldn't be so inspirational.
So, what would it take to raise my voice? Would I only raise your voice if the issue effected me directly? Would I only raise my voice if I felt that my voice would be heard?
I think we live in a world where we all shout and nobody listens. Everyone can write a blog and shout as long as they want. But what good does it really do. Does marching in the streets really bring about change? I think that from the Middle East, there is some power in standing up for your beliefs. While the effects of such protests has yet to be fully realized and understood, I applaud those who will raise their voice and make themselves heard.
I think the only way to really live in this democratic society, we not only need to vote for the right representatives, but we must raise our voice, write to those representatives continually, and speak up on issues that we deem important. Individual Freedom vs. National Security was just one example that I personally I should speak out against. But I would hope that others would speak out opposing my beliefs, as well as for other beliefs that they believe in. Ideally, i hope we will invested more time and energy in the social discourse of our society.
I know that from now on, I will invest in a few extra envelopes and stamps in order to at least write to my representatives, and send them emails - all in the interests of making my little dent in the American social experience.
In my Law, Science and Society - Sociology class, we spent a few classes discussing the issues of freedom in the United States and its limits in terms of National Security. The premise of the discussion was: What rights would you give away in the interests of national security?
Many people shared their insights into which rights they would feel comfortable giving up and naturally the conversation turned to the USA Patriot Act. If you take a look at the provisions of the USA Patriot act, you will see many provisions that detract from individuals' liberties in the interests of National Security. [Here is a wikipedia link with quick information about the USA Patriot Act]
Specifically, my professor had us take a closer look at the Surveillance Procedures. Under this provision, the government can observe the communications (Email, telephone, library records...etc) of suspected terrorists. The question then becomes: Who do you trust to decide who determines who is a suspected terrorist or not?
The implications behind this question is that perhaps you are seen as a suspect. Then under these new surveillance rights, the government can look into your communication history. If their suspicions were wrong, they still might uncover information about tax fraud, or some other crime and charge you for that instead.
When I was sitting in class I remember thinking: "If I didn't do anything wrong then of course I would trust the government to sort things out and judge that I have done nothing wrong." But the more I thought about this, the more uncomfortable I felt with giving up my rights to privacy. Do I feel safe checking out books about terrorism from the library because my social grouping is currently not the target of national investigation?
The question then morphed into: So in what ways do you address your concerns? And the answer is: None. I don't take time to lobby my senators. I don't organize rallies in the community to raise awareness on this issue. Maybe I'll write a blog post about it, but how far reaching will that post be? I imagine it wouldn't be so inspirational.
So, what would it take to raise my voice? Would I only raise your voice if the issue effected me directly? Would I only raise my voice if I felt that my voice would be heard?
I think we live in a world where we all shout and nobody listens. Everyone can write a blog and shout as long as they want. But what good does it really do. Does marching in the streets really bring about change? I think that from the Middle East, there is some power in standing up for your beliefs. While the effects of such protests has yet to be fully realized and understood, I applaud those who will raise their voice and make themselves heard.
I think the only way to really live in this democratic society, we not only need to vote for the right representatives, but we must raise our voice, write to those representatives continually, and speak up on issues that we deem important. Individual Freedom vs. National Security was just one example that I personally I should speak out against. But I would hope that others would speak out opposing my beliefs, as well as for other beliefs that they believe in. Ideally, i hope we will invested more time and energy in the social discourse of our society.
I know that from now on, I will invest in a few extra envelopes and stamps in order to at least write to my representatives, and send them emails - all in the interests of making my little dent in the American social experience.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Web Address Vote
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-----------------------
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-----------------------
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)