Category: Connections

September 27, 2004 /

“BIKE HELMETS ARE GOOD. I am now going to wear a bike helmet at all times, even in the shower and when sleeping.”

Matt from Man-Man discovers the joy of bike riding on Quebecois backcountry roads. This is why we should bomb Canada.

If you monitor human-human interaction, you do it on your own time, understand?

September 24, 2004 /

I’ve been thinking about my performance evaluations class (which I’m failing, but still find interesting, except for the math), Leonard’s comment on bad metrics and the concept of keystroke counters and loggers (thanks to spam). There’s a quote in the textbook for the aforementioned class, “that which is monitored improves,” attributed to “Source Unknown.” So I can’t call out the person who said it for being wrong, which it is.

Here’s a handy set of heuristics for deciding when to monitor. For you! It would be better drawn as a flowchart or tree, but I’m lazy.

Good Things To Monitor

  • Efficiency of system-system interaction, based on system output

  • Quality of human-system interaction, with the goal of improving the system, based on user-satisfaction output

Bad Things To Monitor

  • Quality of human-system interaction, with the goal of improving the human
  • Quality of human-system interaction, based on system output

Incidentally, this also covers the basis of the problem I have with standardized testing. Or the lecture-test educational system as a whole, in fact.

Update 09.25.2004 1054 hrs: Leonard has pointed out to me that I somehow copied the wrong Crummy hyperlink. It’s fixed.

September 17, 2004 /

Dammit, Chad Burbidge, I know you read this at least sometimes, because your name is on my search referrer list every month. Quit hiding and write me already!

While I’m talking about referrer logs, I apparently got like 1500 hits in the last week from an unassigned IP address in a block that belongs to Microsoft. Eh? I guess it could be some forwarded Hotmail email; I don’t think it’s MSN search, because my logs notice that. Or maybe I have a whole bunch of fans who all use the same MSN ISP account.

Oh, and Leigh-Anna Donithan, do you still exist? You are not in my referrer logs, but if you ever egosurf and find this, you should write me too.

September 17, 2004 /

Here’s some things.

Thing One I never write about my life in here anymore, because I’m increasingly disconnected from school (a drive-through with occasional stressfalls) and work (a drive-through). Of the interesting things I do in my free time, everybody who’s interested in them is, well, already there (see Blognomic, Anacrusis and Tuesday now Thursday Night Basketball).

Thing Two But there is something I need to write about my life, which is that last Tuesday, Maria and I accompanied her mother on a trip to Sam’s Club. While hungry.

Never do this.

You can pretty much guess the results. We got all American on that place, and will never be able to eat everything we bought before it spoils. Anybody need, oh, an acre of croissants or two stone of grated parmesan? Come on over! We ran out of cabinet room!

Thing C I can’t figure out if I like Buttercup Festival or not, but it’s hard to resist a Sharpie-drawn strip that features Space Björk and mouth harp-loving frogs.

Thing F I have succumbed to clickolinko.

Thing Last Ergo, PUPPY!

A Syllogism

September 10, 2004 /

Propositions:

  • Corporations are not human, but are considered persons under some aspects of the law.
  • Corporations exist to serve people.
  • Corporations may, in effect, act autonomously.
  • These are three defining attributes of robots.

Conclusion:

Corporations are analogous to robots (or, more specifically, are a subset of the class of entities that can be considered robots).

Recommendation:

That the following three laws apply to corporations:

  1. A corporation may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A corporation must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A corporation must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Objection:

These laws were demonstrated to be incomplete and to have significant flaws, repeatedly, by their own creator. Also, there’s the question of whether the Zeroth and Fourth laws (replace “human being” in the First Law with “humanity” and “another corporation,” respectively, and maintain order of precedence) should apply; after all, a version of the Zeroth Law has recently been used to justify a war.

Still, I think it’s interesting to consider. Would applying the Three Laws with high prejudice be better or worse than the system we currently have in place?

September 6, 2004 /

So Modern Humor Authority posted a second issue, which I guess means they really do intend to have a web presence. It’s still weird to me to think that Kris Straub didn’t invent MHA and its frontman–or rather, that they’re based on a real human and his magazine, instead of Scott McCloud and his ouevre. But that’s the way it is.

MHA itself is pretty obviously ripe for ridicule (read the AppleGeeks review and see for yourself), but they seem to tolerate it well, since they knew about the Checkerboard Nightmare parody and still stayed in contact with Kris. That’s the impression I got, anyway. It kind of makes me want to put together some kind of parody ezine, like a massive satire of all review publications, but I don’t know. That kind of thing is getting a little played out.

August 17, 2004 /

It occurs to me that all known arguments for censorship–in fact, all possible arguments for censorship–are logically rude.

Gerda: I wish to { purchase, view, broadcast } this material.
Grobian: Upon reviewing this material, I find it to obscene. You may not { purchase, view, broadcast } it; it is harmful to the mind, inhibiting moral judgment and causing its viewers to confuse fantasy with reality.
Gerda: Why is it permitted for you to review the material and judge it, and not for me to do so?
Grobian: I have been tasked with reviewing such material, and would not be so tasked if I were incapable of viewing it safely.
Gerda: But if the material impairs judgment to such a degree, and prevents its viewer from realizing that his or her judgment has been impaired, how do you know that your verdict is not the result of impaired judgment?
Grobian: I am striking it down as obscene, instead of running out to commit vicious criminal acts, which I would clearly do if the material had affected me.
Gerda: So your prediction is the opposite of the only available evidence–your own case–of the effects of reading this material. Doesn’t this empirically disprove your prediction?
Grobian: No. If you, for example, were to view this material, you would commit vicious criminal acts.
Gerda: How do you know that?
Grobian: You’re a pervert. The fact that you want to { purchase, view, broadcast } this material proves it.

That’s just one example–not all arguments for censorship use such flagrant circular logic (but the FCC certainly does). I’d have a more powerful argument here if logical rudeness were inherently invalid, but unfortunately, it’s not. Then again, if one’s going to be logically rude in the first place, one isn’t terribly likely to mind being invalid too, is one?