Sunday 8 February 2009 @14:25
Preface: I mostly think these chain things are stupid, but since I enjoyed a few of yours, I felt obligated to reciprocate. If you’re reading this on my site or RSS, sorry, it’s mainly intended for Facebook; I just wanted it archived elsewhere too.
Official Rules, if you decide to do so: Once you’ve been tagged, you write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You must tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it’s because I already received your list (thanks!) or I want to know more about you. (To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.) You can do it in pieces. Just click on save, and you can come back later and do more.
1. I’m pathologically indecisive; choosing to do X means closing doors on anything that is not X. Therefore I take some comfort in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, because in other universes I could still be exploring those roads not taken.
2. I have, shall we say, a rich mental life. One aspect is that there’s usually an ‘other’ to whom my inner chatter is directed. Sometimes it’s a real person I know, sometimes it’s a composite or even more abstract — not a person but another perspective.
3. I’m wondering whether I can get through 25 things about me without someone alerting Creedmoor Psychiatric Center — located conveniently up the street from my home.
4. When I was a kid, #2 manifested itself as imaginary friends. They were so real to me that one day I came home from school to an empty house (latchkey kid) and poured TWO glasses of juice before I realized nobody was there to take the other one. It made me feel lonely, but not ashamed.
5. I have little use for nostalgia. Or at least I don’t seem to experience it as others do. Maybe because I feel the current era of my life is always the best. And even if it isn’t, I’d rather work on improving my situation than live in the past.
6. I hate winter time more every year. The darkness tends to depress me (seasonal affective disorder?) and I hate having to wear bulky layers of garments.
7. The fact that I need sunlight to be happy is absurd, because otherwise I’m not the least bit outdoorsy.
8. I think I got outdoorsiness out of my system before turning 17. With scouts we went camping once a month, even in the dead of winter.
9. I came close to becoming an eagle scout, but I didn’t finish and don’t regret it. My interests simply shifted.
10. I feel lucky that I learned computer programming at a young age. That kind of problem solving has always been fun for me, so it seems perfectly suited to my talent and temperament.
11. In grade school, we were asked to draw a picture of what we wanted to be or do as an adult. I drew a lovely, intricate picture of a doctor’s office and me with a stethoscope and related paraphernalia. After coming home, I was angry with myself. I tore up the drawing and made another one, all in one color (green, I think), of a room full of big 70s-era computer systems, and me typing at the terminal. The second drawing was uglier, but it was the truth.
12. I was not very savvy about applying to college, which is surprising to my friends from high-end prep schools where 90% go to Ivy League, MIT, Stanford, etc. I applied to exactly one university — early decision at Johns Hopkins — which I chose because it was nearby and seemed to be prestigious. I didn’t have any backup plan, but I didn’t need one.
13. I enjoy travel, and (apart from carrying a camera bag) I prefer to “go native” as much as possible. I’ll be wandering around Paris, for example, and have people stop me to ask for directions (in French). This kind of travel is very interesting, but not always relaxing. Sometimes it’s nice just to be pampered at a resort. Or so I’m told.
14. I’ve been to England, Scotland, Ireland, France (incl. Corsica), Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain, Poland, Australia, Bermuda, Mexico, Canada, and Japan.
15. High-priority destinations I have not seen yet include Italy, the Netherlands, Taiwan, New Zealand, and the southwest U.S. (never been to Arizona or New Mexico).
16. I have lived only in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York. Plus 4 months in southern California when I was in 2nd grade and 3 months in northern California in 1999; so maybe they add up to something.
17. When I went to college, I met many friends from the NYC area. I thought they were snobs about their hometown, but now I live at the center of the world too.
18. A highlight of travel for me (and of living in NYC) is experiencing fantastic food cultures and restaurants.
19. A bank web site asking for favorite food, movie, artist, etc. as a “security question” is ludicrous. Never mind that security questions are inherently insecure; are your tastes and experiences so stagnant that you’d answer the question the same way every time for months and years on end?
20. I have always been a fan and advocate of public radio. Lately, I listen almost entirely via podcast (like TiVo for radio), but independent podcasts now occupy an impressive slice of the pod too.
21. I donate to WNYC public radio, the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, Americans United for the separation of church and state, the Democratic National Committee (grudgingly sometimes), and occasionally to arts organizations like Lincoln Center and the New York Philharmonic.
22. My parents have always been amazing. Even when I was a teenager, they were mostly known as “the cool parents” among my friends, not because they were overly permissive, but I think because they were willing to talk and relate to us as peers.
23. My brother and I have similar tastes and outlook on some things, but we’re polar opposites on many others.
24. For a brief time around 1999, I found the idea of having kids to be somewhat desirable, but this didn’t last long. With global population growth rates, there will be less suffering if cultures fully embrace childlessness and adoption as alternative paths to happiness, on par with procreating. (I’m sure it’s a coincidence that I just watched the Simpsons episode with SSCCATAGAPP: Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples And Teens And Gays Against Parasitic Parents, LOL.)
25. It may be partly because my parents are so great that I don’t feel the need to spawn. We’ve reached the pinnacle of parenthood, so there’s nothing more to do. 
Thursday 11 October 2007 @17:09
Grammar maven Patricia T. O’Conner responded via email to my query about suffix orthogonality. I don’t think she will mind my reprinting it here.
Hi, Chris,
You’ve done a lot more thinking about this suffix business than I have. Most of the shades of difference with adjectives ending in “-ic” and “-ical” seem to have developed idiomatically and there are no general rules governing them.
Suffixes in general can be quite mysterious. For example, two opposite suffixes (“-less” and “-ful”) give similar meanings the case of “shameless” and “shameful.” But I may be able to come up with some rough guidelines for certain kinds of suffixes.
In the case of agent nouns formed by adding “-er” and “-or,” there’s a generality to be made. Often the “-er” ones come from Old English (like “singer,” with roots in ancient Germanic), while the “-or” ones are derived from Latin (like “editor,” from the Latin edere*, “edit”). Even here, though, there are exceptions. When an English word has both endings (like “adviser”/”advisor”), the “-er” ending is often the older one. In the case of some legal terms, it appears that lawyers historically have been fonder of more pompous-looking Latinate endings than of simple Germanic ones. (Historically, English academics, jurists, and churchmen always respected Latin more than Old English, which explains much of the confusion about English grammar.)
Then there’s the “-ible”-vs.”-able” ending. If there’s a generality to be made, it’s this: Often a word derived from Old English or another Germanic source (like Old Dutch, Old Icelandic, Old Norse and so on) will end in “able” (“forgivable,” “lovable,” “readable”). But a word derived directly from Latin will end in “ible” (“terrible,” “audible,” “legible”). Again, this is only a rough generality, since there are exceptions. And oddities too: “eatable” is from the Old English etan (“eat”) while “edible” is from the Latin edere* (“eat”).
I can understand how a mathematician might be frustrated by all these generalities. As the grammarian Otto Jespersen once said, this isn’t Euclidean geometry.
Pat O’Conner
*The Latin edere can mean to eat, to publish, to edit, to give forth.
Thanks!
Saturday 22 September 2007 @10:31
Dear Grammar Mavens,
In English, the suffixes ‘-ic’ and ‘-ical’ both form adjectives from nouns. An object exhibiting symmetry is ‘symmetric’, and the aims of a devil are ‘diabolical’.
My question is about how we use each suffix. For some roots, they seem interchangeable (diabolic vs. diabolical). For others they produce distinct shades of meaning (mythic vs. mythical). In some cases, one conceivable variant is absent from the dictionary and never used (chaotic vs. *chaotical, or *chemic vs. chemical). And in other cases, one variant seems to be preferred but the other can be found in the dictionary and is often heard (cyclic vs. cyclical).
To me personally, words like ‘cyclical’, ‘symmetrical’, and ‘fantastical’ clearly have redundant suffixes, because ‘cyclic’, ‘symmetric’, and ‘fantastic’ are already perfectly good adjectives. Unfortunately, I don’t seem to apply my own rule consistently, because I would use ‘parenthetical’ over ‘parenthetic’.
Nouns ending in ‘-ic’ confuse things too: ‘magic’ is both a noun and an adjective, but we also have ‘magical’ to make slight semantic distinctions. A “magic journey” is supernatural (perhaps enabled by a magic carpet or enchanted broomstick), whereas a “magical journey” is merely extraordinary.
‘Logic’ is strictly a noun (we need -al to form the adjective), but mysteriously, both ‘gynecologic’ and ‘gynecological’ are listed in my dictionary as adjectives. Similarly, ‘graphic’ and ‘graphical’ are both adjectives, as is ‘cryptographic’, but not *‘cryptographical’. In the former case, there might again be different shades of meaning: is a graphic depiction the same as a graphical depiction?
Is there any pattern or method to this madness? As a borderline mathematician, I would prefer orthogonal grammatical characteristics (orthogonalistical grammatic characterisms); as a language user, perhaps I must submit to its haphazardly evolved nature.
Tuesday 14 November 2006 @0:38
Our paper is just about ready for Wednesday’s conference deadline. This might be the earliest I’ve ever ‘finished’ a paper — is it ever really finished? — nearly 36 hours before the deadline.
Of course, 5 hours ago it was a page and a half too long, so I started applying my time-tested ‘paper compression’ techniques:
- reduce the vertical space taken up by figures containing code and examples, even if that means abandoning customary line-breaking and indentation,
- look for paragraphs with just one or two words on the last line, and rewrite them to make them a line shorter,
- hunt down bibliographic entries that go on too long, and shorten Transactions to Trans., November to Nov., etc.
It’s amazing how much mileage you can get out of these silly tricks. Now it’s at the point where if certain key paragraphs need one more word inserted, the whole thing spills onto page 11.
This is a new field for me. I’ve read a fair bit, but still it’s strange and scary to be submitting somewhere that I don’t recognize any of the names on the program committee. (No offense folks, if any referees look me up and read this!) I had an idea that was vaguely related to compiler implementation, but actually could be generalized to a different field, and that seemed the best place for it. Plus this work was far more accessible to my M.S. students — one of them is my co-author — than any of my work on type theory. There’s something to be said for that. I don’t think I’ll post any version of the paper here until I hear whether it is accepted, but for the curious I put a poster online some time ago — with very preliminary data — that describes much of the result.
Wednesday 31 May 2006 @15:24
To me, one of the great things about the explosion of writing on the Internet is that we don’t need to formulate our own opinions on anything anymore. No matter what opinion you’d produce, on any topic, most likely someone out there has already expressed it; all you need do is adopt it.
This leads to a kind of shopping experience: whenever you encounter a new topic of debate, rather than carefully considering the facts and drawing your own conclusions, just Google for others’ opinions and decide who you agree with. Easy peasy!
Take all of the above as facetious, if you prefer. I’m not yet certain how serious I am. (Which reminds me of The Simpsons: in Homerpalooza, one teenager says to another, “Are you being sarcastic, dude?” “I don’t even know anymore.”)
We may think it would be a better world if everyone’s opinions were independently researched and thoroughly considered, but that is unrealistic. And shopping around for opinions from diverse sources is perhaps far better than getting all your opinions from one source, whether it be your church, parents, political party, or home-town newspaper.
Example: I’m basically pro-choice, but mostly because people I trust tend to have that point of view. Personally, I have a hard time caring about the issue much either way. I will never get pregnant because I don’t have the right apparatus. And I will never get anyone pregnant because, well, I’m a Kinsey 6 and in sexual terms, women are about as appealing as Jabba the Hutt. Pretty effective contraceptive, that.
If anything, maybe parents ought to be permitted to extinguish their children until they’re 3 or 4 years old. Ah, but I jest. (I think.) And anyway, many folks who do slaughter their kids appear to be the same brand of fundamentalists who get all huffy over abortion.
This all started with me browsing magazines on amazon.com, and wondering if I am missing anything by relying solely on the Internet and not subscribing to opinions in print. It might be nice to receive some glossy monthly tome packed with various atheist-progressive-rationalist-libertarian-humanist-determinist points of view.
There are a few candidates, but it’s hard to tell which I would like best: Reason, Free Inquiry, Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic, American Atheist, Mother Jones, Liberty, American Prospect, etc. I should try to skim some of these next time I’m at the book store.
Friday 19 May 2006 @17:39
My last post contained some technical details about my laptop and its memory configuration. If that post is still accessible on the web years from now—as is my intent—I have to assume it will sound absolutely ridiculous.
To illustrate what I mean, let’s revisit an old email message. I have archives of email dating back to 1991, and I occasionally browse them for grins and nostalgia. Here is a message my friend sent me in 1994:
From: mbp@…
To: league@…
Subject: Argh.
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 18:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
[person] just showed me his new toy. A notebook, with active matrix color VGA screen 500 MB hard disk, internal 14.4K FAX/modem, and… get this… 486DX4/75 CPU. Puppy weighs less than 7 lbs. And is literally the size of a notebook. Amazing color, etc., etc.
He said something about $6000, and I’m pinching pennies to even CONSIDER a $150 modem. (or a $150 or $250 CPU)
Ah, those halcyon days when we were impressed by a 7 pound laptop for 6 grand. Progress, eh?
jan
Kevin
RW
siva
pir
link
Filed under 
Tagged 
Related posts • 