Look, Ma! Two Hands!
(Latest 20 entries) (Calendar) (Friends) (User info)
Navigate: (Previous 20 entries)
Thursday, February 9, 2006
9:13AM - Sacred Cow Disease
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) copperwise linked to a CNN article about a long-term study of a low-fat diet that did not show the expected health benefits. In contrast to the study's authors I do not find this especially surprising. But the reason for studies such as this is to find the way things really work, not just the way we think things work.
What I do find surprising is that attitude evidenced by Dr. Manson, one of the study's authors. She says, "[the results] are somewhat disappointing. We would have liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health." Manson appears to have gone seriously awry with her motivations. Science is not about validating her theory; science is about determining the facts. Science requires objective analysis of the results. Manson and her fellow researchers should not be disappointed that the data does not support their theory. Rather they should be excited that the data gives insight into the reality of the situation.
From the remainder of the article it seems that the researchers have already accepted a solution and are in search of facts to support it. The article offers weaseling from the researchers like claims that the women did not cut enough fat out of their diet and that the study did not account for different kinds of fat. If the theory is that A is correlated to B and the data shows little correlation, the data does not support the theory. Such claims by the researchers are like saying that if adding boogers to silicon wafers has little effect on their yield we should add even more boogers to see if that will have a better effect.
I think what has happened is that the researchers are true believers in the religion of Fat Is Evil. (Apparently not only the creationists let belief pollute their science.) The obsession with being lean seems to have led many, not just the researchers, to conclude that if fat in the body is evil, then so must be fat in the food. Instead of advocating healthy moderation, this religion demands abstinance. Of course a diet consisting solely of fried foods is unhealthy. But so is a diet consisting solely of uncooked fruits and vegetables.
Being healthy is much more than restricting the fat in our diets. Being healthy is about eating, moving, laughing, living, and loving well.
Friday, February 3, 2006
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
12:49PM
Last week I ran across this article. I have read Graham's work before and found it worthwhile so I printed a copy to read this weekend. So I was surprised to read the following in his discussion of avoiding prestigious occupations for which one has no talent:
... you have to like the actual work of novel-writing if you're going to be good at it; you have to like making up elaborate lies.
"Elaborate lies"? Stories are created to entertain; lies are created to defraud. There is a big difference between entertaining readers and defrauding readers. (Some authors notwithstanding.) Perhaps Graham liked the turn of phrase, "elaborate lies", but it is both inaccurate and unfair.
But I ploughed ahead, trying to overlook the misstep. Some paragraphs later, though, I was startled to read the following:
... people would rather be English professors than work in ad agencies ... but it is the existence of English majors, and therefore jobs teaching them, that calls into being all those thousands of dreary papers about gender and identity in the novels of Conrad. No one does that kind of thing for fun.
Point of fact, I know someone who finds discussing gender and identity fun. Regardless of that, I find the assertion that the people who pursue English as an occupation can not love what they do ridiculous. Such a position immediately fails the Laugh-Out-Loud Test and suggests that Graham has some unexplained antipathy toward the arts.
These two ludicrous points ruined the article for me and I suspect ruined my opinion of Graham.
Current mood:  disappointed
Monday, January 30, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
9:35AM - If the Shoe Fits...
From this entry:
After this brief exposure to linguistics, it seems to me that linguists are science-minded persons, who like words more than numbers, and are too nice to want to be lawyers.
While I am neither a linguist nor do I play one on TV, I have always admired linguistics and had people assure me that I had the abilities to be either a linguist or a lawyer.
And it flatters my ego to think that I am too nice to be a lawyer.
Current mood:  amused
Thursday, January 26, 2006
9:51AM - Righteous, Dude!
This picture is worth a thousand words. This and the 900. Wow, Birdman.
Current mood: impressed
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
2:09PM - These are a Few of my Favorite Things
He is an Evil Genius.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
9:39AM - You like me! You really, really like me!
Yesterday Kawasaki-san asked his readers to add a photo that captures their essence. Since I use a Canon camera and iPhoto, I had thousands of photos ready to hand. After some reflection I chose a photo that I thought best captured my essence. A quick filtering with Photoshope Elements and the photo was ready to go.
This morning I read that I won an award!
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
11:33AM - What Amazon could learn from Google
I like Amazon a lot. So much so that one year they gave me a coffee mug for Christmas because I bought so much smurf from them.
But their home page leaves a lot to be desired, especially when compared to Google's. Sure, Amazon's home page is awfully busy, presenting me with tons of smurf in which I have no interest. There is a compelling, Zen simplicity in Google's home page of which Amazon's is the antithesis.
The one thing, though, the really annoys the smurf out of me is that the focus is not in the search text field when the page loads. I quite literally can not remember a time I went to Amazon when I was not searching for something. Most often it is a book title or an author name. But I am always searching for something. I never wander on over to Amazon to browse through the most-recently-added category of housewares. I want to find something to decide if I want to buy it.
Having to click in the search text field may not seem like much of a bother. But since it is a completely unnecessary bother, it bothers me.
Current mood:  irritated
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
1:57PM - Must-See
I watched Murderball over the weekend. I originally dropped it in my Netflix queue because it is about a form of rugby.
Yet the movie is about more than just the high-spirited shenanigans of rugby players. It is really the story of five people who are quadriplegic. It is truly an inspirational film, not in the typical, live-at-five, feel-good sop, but in the sense of inspiring the viewer.
I laughed. I cried. I was moved. Well worth watching.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
6:45PM - I Love It!
I read an athlete who is short and stout describe herself as "vertically challenged" but "horizontally gifted".
Current mood: amused
Thursday, January 12, 2006
10:38AM - That Explains It
Adam Carolla posits that the only explanation for Pat Robertson is that Robertson is a 34-year-old performance artist named Mark who lives in a tri-level outside Oakland with his life partner.
Current mood: giggly
10:37AM - New Sign-Off
From Kawasaki-san:
"Live long and kick butt."
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
4:21PM - Memery
I want you to ask me something you think you should know about me. Something that should be obvious, but you have no idea about. Ask away.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
8:48PM - Did I Blink?
Why have I not seen the term "Macintel" bandied about? Surely one of those clever digerati has thought of it!
Current mood:  curious
9:24AM
Kawasaki-san writes "An innovator doesn't worry about shipping an innovative product with elements of crappiness if it's truly innovative" and "I'm saying it's okay to ship crap--I'm not saying that it's okay to stay crappy".
I really, really disagree. No company should ever ship crap. Maybe the product has an incomplete feature set (e.g., only plays AAC and MP3 files, not WAV). Maybe the product has merely adequate implementation of some features (e.g., always burns audio CDs with a one-second gap between tracks). But never, ever ship crap.
Because if a company ships crap, "crappy" is the adjective associated with the product and the company. There is a benefit from being first to market (or even creating the market) so shipping an innovative product early has some benefits. There are plenty of examples of products that chased perfection to their own demise. So there must be a balance between timeliness and completeness.
I may just be using a different definition of crappy than Kawasaki-san, but I think the concept of "rejected or left matter, residue, dregs, dust" is a good definition. Anything that should be rejected should be removed from the product. Crap is bad, not just mediocre. Successful products rarely have bad things in them.
Monday, January 9, 2006
7:12PM - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Good
Apple has shipped my new toy.
Bad
Apple shipped my new toy via FedEx.
Ugly
FedEx claims they will deliver it on Wednesday, the one day when there will be a few hours where no one will be available to sign for it.
So I expect the same behavior from them as when Apple shipped the iBook via them. FedEx will claim that they tried to deliver it during that few hour window and just ship my new toy back to Apple, subsequently losing it for weeks until someone at Apple screams loud enough. Which, of course, will probably means that it will be weeks if not months before I see my toy.
I hate you FedEx!
Current mood: disgruntled
Navigate: (Previous 20 entries)
|
|
nostalgic
relieved