Entries Tagged 'interesting' ↓

The lovely J woke me up at 1:30a.  “Someone’s trying to break in!  I’ve heard someone trying to get in the front door.”

Fuck.

So I started The Sweep.  Being somewhat paranoid* I have a pattern of how I sweep the house.  I started it.  And when I got to the front room — it was empty.  But then I looked out the small window of the front door.

And there was someone sitting on our step.

Holy crap!  But — then again — if they’re just sitting there — what’s up?

It was our neighbor, whom we’ve seen wandering around drunk at 9a.  He lives four houses down.  And he thought this was clearly his place.

I go out and ask him to leave.

He says:

“No! This is my house!”

“Hey — you gotta dollar on the side?”

“Who — that’s right!  Good seeing you.”

“I’m an old man.  Get off of my propoerty.”

“How much did you pay for this place?”

“You know what? You’re kinda cute!”

And then he went back to trying to get in the front door. Only, this time, he took out a single, and attempted to feed it in, vending machine style.

“Hey — can you make this thing work? I gotta go to bed!”

That’s when J called the cops.  Oh yeah, the 911 operator started giggling when J described the scene.  Nice.

He was still at the stick a dollar in the door game when they arrived, about 5 minutes later.  They managed to get him off of my steps and back to his house with nothing more than some sharply toned verbal direction.  No arrest, no guns, no cuffs.  The right approach.

Hey Chicago Cops who showed up: Thanks, guys.  I appreciate the help.

Now I wonder what to say to the guy the next time I see him sober.  I’m pretty sure he’ll claim amnesia.  I’ll keep you posted.

* Being paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.

Sky Full of Bacon 01: How Local Can You Go? from Michael Gebert on Vimeo.

I tweeted about Nicholas Carr’s article in the Atlantic and while thinking about it stumbled across this excellent other post: The Great Unread. Overlooking the fact that this pathetic entry (mine, not his) will fall into that there category, what I like about the post (and about a lot of his writing), is the linkage to the non-blogging world. In this case, to the concept of “Innocent Fraud”. If you don’t know what that is (I didn’t), click over — you’ll enjoy it.

Ah yes: the Kenyon Alumni Bulletin. I have mixed feelings about thee.  I’ve never been mentioned, which may be as much a fault of my silence as your lack of interest.  The side effect?  I skim.  Sometimes with resentment.

The Spring / Summer 2008 edition arrived with a big yellow smiley face on it. I thought tuition had maybe just had a WalMart style price cut but no: there’s an article entitled “Four Steps to Happiness”.  (Yes, Pope: Four–awesome indeed.)

First up?  “Writing: The Two Minute Miracle” I quote

Much of [Laura] King’s research has focused on how writing about your life, for as little as a few minutes a day, improves psychological and physical health. “We don’t know why it works, but it really works,” King says. “You name it. If you write about your life experiences you will be better off.”

And then:

Researchers have noted boosts to the immune system in people who write. Brief writing sessions seem to enhance the effectiveness of the hepatitis vaccine.  Wiriting appears to alleviate symptoms in conditions from arthritis to breast cancer.

Cool.

Further: U Penn has a Positive Psychology Center and an Authentic Happiness Website.  Really?  Apparently.  Neat!

OK my two minutes are up.  Happy Saturday!

Peter Harris, Youngstown, Ohio, 1934, originally uploaded by ReidCarlberg.

I have a dozen handwritten volumes from Peter Harris who lived in Youngstown, Ohio, in the 30’s. He was, apparently, a steel worker, a thoughtful person and a communist. The diaries span a decade, starting in 1933.

I’m not related to him. I just found them at my grandmother’s house a decade or so ago and have been hauling them around ever since. It’s pretty cool to flip through. The reading is interesting (for a while) and education (Dionne Quintuplets, anyone?)

I don’t really want to haul them around, but I don’t really want to thow them away either.

Anyone have any idea on how I might put these to good use?

Just a little video experiment. The footage was taken with a Flip Video Ultra, converted from AVI to MOV via QuickTime and processed on iMovie. Up to Flickr was iMovie to M4P, up to YouTube was the iMovie share with YouTube function.

BTW the special jittery caffeine-vision is all me.

Here it is on Flickr:

Here’s the same from YouTube:

No, I’m talking about something as simple as easting the fish at last night’s ITA awards Gala.  (We won!) (Sidenote: who serves fish at a banquet for 700 people??)

I’m talking about The Critter.  Will I be brave enough to be logic like this writer with her 9 year old son in NYC.  He took it home alone.  As an adventure.  With her approval.

A great article.  I just hope I remember it when the time comes.

I’ve been missing This American Life.  Last week’s, The Audacity of Government, is worth a listen.  Check it out.

I forget who I was talking to, but the question of whether or not you can bargain at Best Buy came up.  Enter the NY Times:

Frederick Stinchfield, 23, was a Best Buy salesman in Minnetonka, Minn., until last January. He said about one-quarter of customers tried to bargain. Much of the time, he said, he was able to oblige them, particularly in circumstances where a customer buying electronics (like a camera) also bought an accessory (like a camera bag) with a higher markup. He said the cash registers at Best Buy were set up so that prices could be reset at checkout.

Read Even At Megastores, Hagglers Find No Price is Set In Stone at the NY Times.

This echoes what I’ve heard from other sources.  Interesting!

Reddit.com had The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe’s “Top 20 Logical Fallacies” on it’s front page the other day.  An interesting review for me and you might enjoy it as well.  And if you want to really hate politics, run your favorite candidate’s ads through these filters.

This is my reordering and rewording of their list.  All credit goes to them for what I got right, all errors are my own.

Arguer Related

Does the arguer suggest their belief is true based solely on their credentials, without providing objective evidence?  If so, that’s Argument from Authority.

Does the arguer suggest that their belief if true based on their inability to explain or understand it not being true?  If so, that’s Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Does the arguer suggest that their belief about why or how something happens is true simply because we are currently unable to explain the why or how in detail?  If so, they’re Confusing the Currently Unexplained with the Currently Unexplainable.

Does the arguer suggest that a given set of rules applies to their argument, but not to another argument?  If so, they’re being Inconsistent.

Opponent Related

Does the defender address the counter argument or the person making the counter argument?  If it’s the person and not the argument, that’s Ad Hominem.

Does the arguer suggest their belief is true simply because we can’t prove that it isn’t? If so, that’s Ad Ignorantiam.

Does the arguer suggest that if you are skeptical of their argument A on the basis of reason X, then you must also be skeptical of argument B on the basis of reason X, even if argument B is if sufficiently provable using evidence other than reason X?  If so, they are arguing Reductio ad absurdum.

Does the defender suggest that their argument, flawed as it is, is justifiable as your counter is also flawed?  They are arguing Tu quoque (“You, too”).

Sequence

Does the arguer suggest their belief is true based on the ultimate effect it has, its end result, rather than their belief itself? If so, that’s Argument from Final Consequences.  (aka, a teleological argument)

Does the arguer suggest because A and B occurred simultaneously, A caused B (or visa versa) without demonstrating a causal link?  If so, they’re Confusing Association with Causation.

Does the arguer suggest that since A preceded B, A caused B without providing evidence demonstrating causality?  If so, they’re arguing “Post-hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this).  They assume cause and effect for two events that are temporally but otherwise not related.

Does the arguer suggest that if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then Z?  If so, they are presenting a Non-Sequitor, i.e., a logical connection where none exists.

Does the arguer suggest point B without articulating preceding point A?  Then they have an Unstated Major Premise or are Begging the Question.

Argument

Does the arguer suggest that, although A and B are different, since it is difficult to tell exactly where A becomes B, A and B are essentially the same thing?  If so, they’re presenting a False Continuum.

Does the arguer suggest that there are really only two possible choices, A or Z, when in fact there is also B to Y (i.e., some additional number) of possibilities?  If so, they’re presenting a False Dichotomy.

When given evidence proving otherwise, does the defender continue to argue their belief by moving the criteria for proof or acceptance out of range of whatever currently exists?  If so, they’re Moving the Goal Posts.

Does the arguer suggest that we cannot accept position A because it would lead to the much more extreme and unacceptable position Z?  If so, they are arguing the Slippery Slope.

Does the defender suggest that their view is correct not by arguing against your actual objection but by arguing against a much more defendable artificial objection?  If so, they are using a Straw Man argument.

Does the arguer suggest that A is true and when presented with counter evidence B suggest that A is still true but cannot be proved except in non-B conditions?  Then this is special pleading or ad-hoc reasoning, the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to make it continue to appear valid.

Does the arguer use circular reasoning?  This is tautology.