I just got a phone call from one of my old students, who was in my Quantum class maybe 4 years ago. Apparently he’s visiting in town, along with another of my former students (who’s here now as a grad) and they wanted to take me out for a beer now that I’m no longer a TA.
You know, things like this just make me realize how cool teaching is. Especially when your students grow up and succeed.
Apparently the people marketing this t-shirt are actually for Schwarzenegger’s candidacy.
From an article in today’s NY Times:
“I don’t cast my ballot based on learned behavior.”
I’ve been trying to come up with a rational explanation for this sentence, and so far this is the best I can do:
Mr. Eddings (the speaker) is part of a new breed of voter – literally. Thanks to the wonders of modern biotechnology, he has been designed since before birth to enter into a dramatic frenzy of hole-punching and button-pushing whenever shown his programmed party affiliation. These changes are revolutionizing the once-stuffy polling places of a generation ago; already voters are reporting the normal calm and poise of the booths as being replaced with a zoo-like atmosphere, punctuated by the hoots and howls of the major parties and accented by the spectacular plumage displays of the occasional Green Party member.
Party leaders are hopeful that these new technologies will help ensure high voter turnout in an age of increasing apathy. Reports of more extensive engineering — Democrats programmed to form protest marches and Republicans programmed to eat Democrats — have so far been fervently denied by both sides.
Other parties may soon enter the fray, as well. When asked about a rumored “Project Oompa-Loompa,” Ross Perot of the Reform Party answered “You can’t make hay and cut bait at the same time!” Analysts are still trying to determine whether this amounts to confirmation or denial.
Code runs. Code reads in data. Code runs elaborate curve fits, parametric models, calculates useful parameters. Code then writes the input parameters to the output file, instead of the output data.
Of course, I only notice this after the code runs.
Sigh.
This is an amusing toy. It assembles a random filename of the sort typically output by digital cameras, then does a Google image search for that. It’s called the “personal image finder.”
Not a Google product, btw, just something someone came up with which is getting passed around here.
(Hopefully coming soon: The amusing toy thought up by one of my officemates. I’ve informed him that he needs to get this up onto the Labs page, because it’s far, far too entertaining. Details to follow later, hopefully.)
Well, as of now it’s 0400, the code may be approaching functionality, and I’ve managed to be the last person here tonight. Hey, I wonder how long until the early-morning-type people show up…
To do: Go home and sleep. For a long time.
Coming in to work at 0100 to check on a compute job. Good thing I did; it was, in fact, not working, and right now I’m fixing it so it can run while I sleep.
But interesting to note that the place is still pretty much bustling at this hour, too. I’m not sure if people here ever sleep.
Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure I don’t, all that often, so maybe they don’t either.
[politics filter]
Interesting article in the NY Times today about the dawning of a second nuclear age, characterized by a much broader (although not as deep) proliferation and the new challenges posed. There’s nothing particularly new or earth-shattering in it, but it does bring up a point which hasn’t been discussed an awful lot, namely the effort the US government is putting in right now towards the design of low- to medium-yield, deep-earth-penetrating nuclear weapons.
It’s interesting because it’s the first design push for a new kind of nuke since the Cold War, and many people are concerned that it could lead to a new arms race, or lower the bar to first use of nuclear weapons, and so on. I’m curious to know what people here are thinking about this issue. I’ve got my own — tentative — opinion, but in the interest of not pre-emptively biasing the conversation, I’ll hide it behind a cut tag
From this week’s NY Times food column in the magazine:
“I’ve never subscribed to the marketers’ description of monkfish as the “poor man’s lobster”… If you see a whole monkfish at the market, you’ll find its massive mouth scarier than a shark’s. Apparently it sits on the bottom of the ocean, opens its Godzilla jaws and waits for poor unsuspecting fishies to swim right into it, not unlike the latest recepients of W’s capital-gains cuts. So it has in common with lobster only reprehensibility of character.”
Sometimes the food column gets kinda weird.
In fact, so long as we’re on the subject of odd news quotes, this one’s from Nerve’s Carrie Hill Wilner:
[I]t was reported this week that a company called Real Men Outdoor Productions Inc. has begun offering “Bambi Hunts,” in which Las Vegas-area men pay $10,000/hour to shoot naked women with paintballs. I suppose this should provoke some sort of feminist rage in me, but in all honesty, this is too weird to be sexist. It’s just apocalyptic.
Yeah, that’s about right…
Yonatan Zunger’s Blog 
