Next up, frogs, boils, and pestilence
It’s raining in SoCal. In July. With blue sky above.
Not just a little bit either. A pretty good shower.
First world problems: top is down on the fun car.
It’s raining in SoCal. In July. With blue sky above.
Not just a little bit either. A pretty good shower.
First world problems: top is down on the fun car.
Everything we thought we knew about dogs' thinking was wrong.
Time to get to work training!
So I work for a rather well-known private university, which runs a rather well-known research center, funded largely by a government organization with a FLA, rather than the usual TLA. As part of the budget disaster known as “sequestration,” but which is really an ongoing decline over the last several years, this FLA organization decided that scientists don't get to travel anymore. No more conferences. No more meetings. No more collaboration with other scientists. Basically, whatever knowledge is in your head, you get to die with that. When it becomes not useful anymore, you can prepare to be discarded. There's not even the pretense of being an involved member of the scientific community anymore.
Sequestration was just the final bullet in the head for this policy. For a long time now, program managers have been very reluctant to spend money on travel, even though it's a pittance compared to other budget items. I can't imagine that deleting travel from the FLA budget saved any money at all. But it looks good for our political masters, I suppose. Or rather it looks bad when a scientist goes to a meeting in Hawaii. Even though it's a couple of thousand dollars.
I sit in meetings that waste more money than that in an hour, that are mandated by completely insane “safety” or “wellness” or “IT security training”.
So we got this system-wide email a couple of days ago, that postdocs can travel to conferences (which seems insane, as what postdoc would come here ever again if they couldn't go to a conference and present results? It's career suicide), with the final line:
We truly value the contributions of our Postdocs community to the success of TLA, and believe that participation to research conferences is vital to their careers
With the clear implication that either participation in research conferences either 1) isn't valuable to my career or 2) no one at the FLA cares. The latter implies we'll take the knowledge you got as a postdoc, and use it until it becomes no longer valid, then we'll discard you for a postdoc who has been participating in conferences vital to their careers.
When I came here, I was told straight up that I was expected to deliver papers at domestic conferences once or twice a year, and at foreign conferences once a year. Not as a reward, but expected. As part of my contribution.
A few years ago, I was invited to give a talk about the flagship mission I was working on at a major yearly conference. Domestic, so relatively cheap. Would have been a couple thou. I prepared it, got it ready to go, then was told “we can't afford it. Cancel”. So I did. A few months later, the flagship mission was cancelled. Do you think it might have been cancelled partially because the management wasn't ponying up to evangelize for it, both politically and amongst their peers? If no one knows what you're doing, why do you expect support?
I think the two things are directly related, but you'll never get anyone around here to acknowledge that the reason missions keep getting cancelled might have something to do with the distaste for even minimal amounts of participation in the community.
It's not as bad in climbing as it is in surfing (so I hear), but it's still there. I'm going to start a new clothing company with the title NLO – no locals only. On the back it will say “We're all a local somewhere. We all travel everywhere.”
I could make dozens, maybe hundreds of dollars. Or lose a bunch.
[update 9 July 2013] Ordered.
A plane crashes. Our corporate masters have the story ready, waiting to go.
Do you think that NPR wrote that story this morning? No, they had it in the can. Suggested and aided by someone at Boeing. Nothing at all to do with a pledge drive.
Message to the plebes: keep flying! Else our stock price will go down.
One of the most frequent comments one sees anytime there's a news article about cyclists, cycling, or the death thereof, is how cyclists are scofflaws. We don't obey the rules. We weave about, we ride on the sidewalk (or we don't ride on the sidewalk), we ride on the right, we don't ride on the right, we pass on the right, we don't pass on the right, we take up the whole lane, we don't take the whole lane. Always with the subtext that we're doing it wrong and are therefore fair game.
I will happily buy anyone who posts such a stupid thing on the intertubes a beer, and furnish a folding chair, and we can go sit at the stop sign next to my house and count the number of cars who actually make a full stop (never mind just go through it at full speed). Same thing at any of the six other intersections I ride through daily where I see cars completely disregard stop signs. Less than 50% come to a legal stop.
That doesn't include that quite literally more than half the population who don't understand the term “right-of-way.” Pro-tip: It means the person on your right, all other things being equal, goes first.
Here's the thing: I can't hurt anyone but me. If I go through a stop sign at 10 mph, it's my chance. And the only reason I get hit if I don't stop is because one of you didn't stop or yield or rolled through. I've gotten yelled at because I stopped! And most people don't want me to stop and clip out and put a foot on the ground. Because it's slow, for everyone, and you all hate it when cyclists slow you down almost as much as you despise cyclists just for not being in a car. And you wouldn't follow the rules of the road and give the cyclist ROW anyway, because I can count on one hand the number of times that's happened. A cyclist who tried to take the legal ROW would live a short unhappy life. And most of you don't stop at stop signs either. All of you speed. All of you talk on cell phones, or text.
So I don't wanna hear it. I go through stop signs because it's the safest thing for me to do. All I care about is not getting hit by one of you cell-phone-talking, stop-sign-running, bike-lane-infringing, texting, speeding, passing-too-close motherfuckers. I do what's safe. I roll through stops if it gets me away from you, I ride right down the middle of the fucking street so that you can't pass me, and I make sure that you distracted fuckers see me. Because I'm in your way.
Truth is, you might get pissed, but the number of psychopaths who are willing to just straight up kill me in cold blood is relatively low, compared to the number of you who are willing to kill me just because you're not paying attention. There are a lot of cold-blooded psychopaths, but most of them aren't willing to go to jail (say hi to the GoPro), but there are millions of you who just aren't fucking paying attention and will kill me just as quick, and just as dead. You might be sorry, but I'll still be dead.
So I ride in such a manner as to make you pay attention. Too bad if that pisses you off. I'm less likely to get killed because you're pissed off than killed because you're not paying attention.
That even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again. A good article in Forbes, of all places.
Is the money the stockholders’, the customers’ or the employees’? Apparently, it can be any of those possibilities, depending on which argument the article is trying to make. In Professor Friedman’s wondrous world, the money is anyone’s except that of the real legal owner of the money: the organization.
One might think that intellectual nonsense of this sort would have been quickly spotted and denounced as absurd. And perhaps if the article had been written by someone other than the leader of the Chicago school of economics and a front-runner for the Nobel Prize in Economics that was to come in 1976, that would have been the article’s fate. But instead this wild fantasy obtained widespread support as the new gospel of business.
Tagged OWSThe shareholder value theory thus failed even on its own narrow terms: making money. The proponents of shareholder value and stock-based executive compensation hoped that their theories would focus executives on improving the real performance of their companies and thus increasing shareholder value over time. Yet, precisely the opposite occurred. In the period of shareholder capitalism since 1976, executive compensation has exploded while corporate performance declined.
So I watch The Daily Show from the Comedy Central website. First, their streaming sucks ass. Second, when a TDS finishes, the website auto-starts the most recent Colbert Report. While I think SC is pretty funny, the schtick has worn thin for me, so I generally don’t want to watch it. But you’d think that after it finishes, CC would switch over to the next TDS. But no, once it’s on TCR, it just keeps putting up TCRs. It never switches back to TDS.
It’s like they don’t want me to 1) stream, and 2) watch TDS. It’s working.
In five easy steps.
I’d say this is utter paranoia, that the Cabal that runs our country is not that cohesive and controlling, that it just happened by accident, but they have done it to the healthcare system, the secondary school system, the public unions, the networks, and the great research labs.
And I read this recently:
“Henry, there’s something I would like to tell you, for what it’s worth, something I wish I had been told years ago. You’ve been a consultant for a long time, and you’ve dealt a great deal with top secret information. But you’re about to receive a whole slew of special clearances, maybe fifteen or twenty of them, that are higher than top secret.
“I’ve had a number of these myself, and I’ve known other people who have just acquired them, and I have a pretty good sense of what the effects of receiving these clearances are on a person who didn’t previously know they even existed. And the effects of reading the information that they will make available to you.
“First, you’ll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn’t, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn’t even guess. In particular, you’ll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn’t know about and didn’t know they had, and you’ll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well.
“You will feel like a fool, and that will last for about two weeks. Then, after you’ve started reading all this daily intelligence input and become used to using what amounts to whole libraries of hidden information, which is much more closely held than mere top secret data, you will forget there ever was a time when you didn’t have it, and you’ll be aware only of the fact that you have it now and most others don’t….and that all those other people are fools.
“Over a longer period of time — not too long, but a matter of two or three years — you’ll eventually become aware of the limitations of this information. There is a great deal that it doesn’t tell you, it’s often inaccurate, and it can lead you astray just as much as the New York Times can. But that takes a while to learn.
“In the meantime it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn’t have these clearances. Because you’ll be thinking as you listen to them: ‘What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?’ And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I’ve seen this with my superiors, my colleagues….and with myself.
“You will deal with a person who doesn’t have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you’ll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You’ll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you’ll become something like a moron. You’ll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours.”
— Daniel Ellsberg to Henry Kissinger, 1968
and I realize that whatever I think, however paranoid I am, there’s just a wealth of information I don’t have, and can’t know. And it doesn’t make me trust them to do the right thing.
Tagged OWS
August mist
A very lovely series of days, in late July, early August. The marine layer [1] is back, and with it, the parrots have returned [2]. Sunny, warm days with an onshore breeze, cool evenings.
The 10 day forecast calls for more of the same. Fine by me, and I'm sure fine by the dogs. We've been going for runs in the morning. In August!
[1] commonly known as the June gloom, but like April in Paris [3], May is more likely to have the onshore marine layer coming up to the mountains. June gloom, May gray, August mist? Doesn't quite work. Anyway, the marine layer is not so great if you live at the beach (pro-tip: SoCal beaches are often gray and gloomy year round), but for those of us farther inland, it's pretty wonderful.
[2] Why are parrots squawking at each other so pleasing, and grackles not? Anthropomorphizing, parrots seem joyous, and grackles seem annoyed.
[3] April in Paris is cold and wet – E.Y. Harburg needed two syllables for the meter.
Dogs Comments Off on August mist Permalink