Two things kept me up past midnight last night:
The piano guys:
John Schmidt - Michael Meets Mozart
Steven Sharp Nelson - The Cello Song
If I could, I would listen to them ALL day long.
Stack Overflow:
Mathematica NDSolve Can I use InterpolationFunction as Initial Conditions
Deriving the mean of values within a tensor
I <3 Stack Overflow.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Red Bull: It gives you wings! Then you fall to your death.
Here's my Red Bull paper. Have fun. There's a ton of references in here. Bonus points if you post a comment on what I'm referencing.
Red Bull: It gives you wings! Then you fall to your death.
Not enough energy, construct additional pylons... I mean drink more red bull
Tired? Don’t think you can stay up another two hours to finish that essay you have due tomorrow that was assigned a week ago (Red Bull Essay)? Well you’re in luck, because right here I have an energy drink! If you drink this, you’ll feel full of energy and you’ll be ready to wrestle a bear! Okay, maybe not wrestle a bear. But you will be wide awake from the caffeine, sugar, and assorted natural ingredients that promote wakefulness. In fact, as I speak right now, I wrote this snarky, self referential essay in a Red Bull induced state of hyperactivity. Should I have gotten more sleep the night before, electing to sleep at midnight instead of at 4 AM? Yes, that would’ve been far healthier than forcing myself to stay up through the use of energy drink type products. But, as a matter of a fact, I am completely swamped with work. Ask most college students around this time of year, and you’ll find that 90% of them (A statistic I determined by asking 10 of my friends) will say they find themselves with too much work and too little time in the day to do the work.
Enter Red Bull: It gives you wings! Not literally, but Red Bull wants you to believe you can do beyond what you’re normally capable of. In my case, instead of sleeping away the rest of my night I’m able to finish my essay on time for class today. I owe it all to the nectar of the gods contained within this can of Red Bull. According to the Red Bull website, they claim that numerous “scientific” studies prove that Red Bull promotes increased performance, concentration, reaction speed, vigilance and metabolism. They also claim that it makes you feel energetic for “improved well being” (Red Bull Website). Now doesn’t Red Bull sound fantastic? They may just as well advertise that the energy drink will mow your lawn, take your in-laws to the mall, and generally do your work for you. Who doesn’t want to work better, with more concentration and energy? Maybe if you do so well, your professor will give you such a high grade that you never have to do work again in her class.
Oh crap this is a really high height, how do I get down?
I’m sure by this point you’re thinking “I really wish I had his Red Bull, because it looks and sounds delicious, and it would help me get through my Chemistry 3A test today.” No? Maybe you’re thinking “What are the downsides then?” For all these great things Red Bull does, there has to be some downside to it. Unfortunately, yes, there are downsides to drinking Red Bull. If you ever had an energy drink like Red Bull, you’d know that after the initial euphoria there is the inevitable crash. I mean, if you’re all the way up there, you have to get down somehow. Now doesn’t that description sound a lot like recreational drugs to you? You might not believe me, but just you wait. By the end of this class I’ll probably be past my initial high, descending into that energy drink crash.
But, the negative qualities go beyond the crash. If you take a look at the back of a Red Bull can, you’ll find that one can contains 110 calories, 27 grams of sugar and 80 milligrams of caffeine (Red Bull Can). For reference, 4 grams of sugar is about one teaspoon (How many grams). So imagine taking a teaspoon out and swallowing nearly seven spoonfuls of sugar. And remember that can is only 8.4 fluid ounces. Most canned drinks are 12 fluid ounces. For comparison, a 12 ounce Coca Cola can contains 110 calories, 30 grams of sugar, and 34.5 milligrams of caffeine (Coca-Cola Classic). If you drank the same amount of Red Bull as that one can of Coca Cola, you’d consume an extra 47 calories, 8.5 grams of sugar and 80 milligrams of caffeine. That’s as much extra caffeine as you’d have in a 7 ounce cup of coffee. Plus, if you drink excessive amounts of it, like the 12-pack of Red Bull that my friend James had when he was in high school, then you’ll feel absolutely bat shit crazy, in addition to having a terrible crash afterwards.
This paper needs social commentary
So what does the existence of Red Bull tell us about American Society? Does it mean that we’re all lazy good-for-nothings who put off their work to the last minute due to procrastination, only to find they don’t have enough energy to finish the work because it’s two in the morning? Maybe me, but I don’t think that’s true of society as a whole. I think that Red Bull’s existence is merely due to German innovation. The founder of Red Bull adapted an existing Thai drink known as Krating Daeng for European markets. For him, the Thai drink was actually a cure for the jet lag he experienced when flying (Selling Energy). So no, the existence of Red Bull isn’t some social commentary on the current state of the US by some corporate figurehead. It’s just a delicious energy drink that an Austrian businessman marketed extremely well. So much for social commentary, I suppose that’s where this paper will end then.
Actually, no, I will say this: The sheer perverseness of the energy drink among teens and young adults speaks volumes about what we value as a whole in American culture. Think about it: If you just did your work on time, then you wouldn’t have to stay up late at night rushing to finish an assignment like I did. I know I said earlier that I don’t think it’s true that society as a whole is a bunch of procrastinators. I did mean that, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think high school and college students aren’t procrastinators. They are. We all love goofing off and not doing the work we have to do, and if you say you don’t then you’re full of shit. I still don’t think this is the core of the problem though. A lot of people do need energy drinks like Red Bull to help them stay awake to meet deadlines, but I think because of a deeper issue: inability to do time management.
Does that mean if we were able to better manage our time, Red Bull wouldn’t exist? Personally, I don’t think so. It’s delicious and not-nutrious-at-all, and I think that’d be more than enough to make it popular. Despite how bad it is for you, and how badly it can cause you to crash afterwards, it’s just like any other we’re willing product to pay for: Something that makes us happy. I know this Red Bull made me happy, and maybe when you go to Bits and Bytes afterwards you can enjoy that happiness too.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Self Referential Works Are Fun.
It's always fun when you're reading or enjoying some work (Book, movie, essay, whatever you want) and it makes a reference to itself. Usually this is in a "Ha ha, look we're making fun of ourselves" moment.
In the essay for class that's due well.. Today, it's abundantly clear I make excessive use of self-referential humor in how I make fun of the paper I just wrote and myself in how I wrote it.
For an example of a self-referential work, more specifically of the self-referential humor category, see this terrible blog post written by some college student at Hofstra University: Self Referential Works Are Fun
In the essay for class that's due well.. Today, it's abundantly clear I make excessive use of self-referential humor in how I make fun of the paper I just wrote and myself in how I wrote it.
For an example of a self-referential work, more specifically of the self-referential humor category, see this terrible blog post written by some college student at Hofstra University: Self Referential Works Are Fun
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The Reader in the Text
Depending on the text in question, the reader can take on a variety of roles. The reader doesn't necessarily own the text in any way, as the ideas written down are those of someone else. Most times, the text asks some sort of question (Whether explicitly or implicitly) which the reader is to "answer" in some general sense of the word.
This can range from raising an intellectual question, for the reader to think upon, to questions which call for a solution that the reader is to provide. In some texts, the reader may be just someone who is to be informed of some facts or information. The reader can even be a core component of the text as the text may wish to convince the reader of some position, as in the case of a rhetorical piece of text.
There is no one single role for the reader of any text. He may be a passive bystander for some texts, whereas in others he can be an active participant in some forum of discussion or the catalyst which brings about a change. Whether the reader belongs or not depends on the text in question. In some cases there should be only one reader as in the case of a diary or journal, and any other reader does not belong there. In every sense of the word, the reader would be an intruder in the case of a private text.
This can range from raising an intellectual question, for the reader to think upon, to questions which call for a solution that the reader is to provide. In some texts, the reader may be just someone who is to be informed of some facts or information. The reader can even be a core component of the text as the text may wish to convince the reader of some position, as in the case of a rhetorical piece of text.
There is no one single role for the reader of any text. He may be a passive bystander for some texts, whereas in others he can be an active participant in some forum of discussion or the catalyst which brings about a change. Whether the reader belongs or not depends on the text in question. In some cases there should be only one reader as in the case of a diary or journal, and any other reader does not belong there. In every sense of the word, the reader would be an intruder in the case of a private text.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
* Do the benefits of the Internet outweigh the costs that come with it?* Can we afford to not know everything, given that we can search for it instantly and easily?
* Does the Internet have us on a constant information overload, even when we're not using it, to the point that we can't deeply focus anymore?
* How is writing changing with the vast information available?
* Is this the last major technological innovation, short of Artificial Intelligence, that will change the way we think?
* If the brain is as plastic as researchers think, can the "information skimming" behavior be simply seen as emergent behavior from our interactions with the Internet? Or is it something that has been imposed upon us by the system we're interacting with?
During my read through of Carr's article, I found several similarities between his article and Gopnik's article. I realized both authors drew upon the idea that in each age was a technology that was lauded, and another that was criticized. With the vast amount of information and it's ease of access in society, it's no wonder both authors would suggest that it leads to staccato like reading behavior where one cannot deeply focus on a topic. Both authors cleanly fit within Gopnik's definition of "Never-Betters," but I feel that there is much more to the Internet that we have not yet realized. As much as the Internet can be a distraction and also a great resource for those doing research, I feel there is a lot of untapped potential that we are on the verge of realizing. What exactly? I don't know. If I did, I'd be out there trying to make it happen though. Call it a gut feeling.
Some other notes: It's rather interesting to think about how the Internet changes our thought processes. Sure, with a computer you can stream through massive amounts of information extremely quickly. Now imagine what happens if your computer has two monitors. You can have twice as much information up and it changes how you think once again.
I have two monitors because of the immense boost in productivity I gain when programming, my chosen profession and one of my fields of study. But where there was once one window of information, now there is two. It can get a bit distracting sometimes when I'm goofing off. Especially when you have two windows of StumbleUpon open. Case in point: While I was reading this article on one monitor I got distracted by my blog and started writing this long winded tangent before I had even finished reading the article or writing the actual blog post!
* Does the Internet have us on a constant information overload, even when we're not using it, to the point that we can't deeply focus anymore?
* How is writing changing with the vast information available?
* Is this the last major technological innovation, short of Artificial Intelligence, that will change the way we think?
* If the brain is as plastic as researchers think, can the "information skimming" behavior be simply seen as emergent behavior from our interactions with the Internet? Or is it something that has been imposed upon us by the system we're interacting with?
During my read through of Carr's article, I found several similarities between his article and Gopnik's article. I realized both authors drew upon the idea that in each age was a technology that was lauded, and another that was criticized. With the vast amount of information and it's ease of access in society, it's no wonder both authors would suggest that it leads to staccato like reading behavior where one cannot deeply focus on a topic. Both authors cleanly fit within Gopnik's definition of "Never-Betters," but I feel that there is much more to the Internet that we have not yet realized. As much as the Internet can be a distraction and also a great resource for those doing research, I feel there is a lot of untapped potential that we are on the verge of realizing. What exactly? I don't know. If I did, I'd be out there trying to make it happen though. Call it a gut feeling.
Some other notes: It's rather interesting to think about how the Internet changes our thought processes. Sure, with a computer you can stream through massive amounts of information extremely quickly. Now imagine what happens if your computer has two monitors. You can have twice as much information up and it changes how you think once again.
I have two monitors because of the immense boost in productivity I gain when programming, my chosen profession and one of my fields of study. But where there was once one window of information, now there is two. It can get a bit distracting sometimes when I'm goofing off. Especially when you have two windows of StumbleUpon open. Case in point: While I was reading this article on one monitor I got distracted by my blog and started writing this long winded tangent before I had even finished reading the article or writing the actual blog post!
The way we browse the Internet
If you observe most people as they browse the Internet (or even just use a computer) you'll notice a familiar pattern. While casually browsing new web sites, people typically spend a short amount of time on a web site before leaving the site for somewhere else.
From the point of view of a programmer, this is a huge problem. Some of us try to make a living doing web design and there is a great need to minimize what's known as bounce rate. Bounce rate is simply a percentage that tells you the relative number of people who visit your site and leave shortly thereafter. Having a low bounce rate is good, because that usually means people stay on your web site for extended periods of time.
It can be suggested that the Internet goes against traditional ways of reading and information processing, in that people often only skim the surface of a web site before moving on. As a web designer, if you design your web site well and "do everything right*" you tend to cause the opposite phenomenon. Instead of having someone visit your web site, followed by their quick departure, people will tend to stay if you have a good web site.
Take my favorite community web site, Stack Overflow (SO), a web site designed for programmers of all kinds. Ask any programmer who regularly uses it and you'll find they tend to spend a lot of time on SO. Most people who use it typically invest non-trivial amounts of time into asking, answering, and viewing questions.
It's not exact, but this is almost the opposite of those who are casually browsing the Internet, going from web site to web site. I'm in no way suggesting that people jump from web site to web site because the designer who created the web site was a terrible web designer. But the case can be made that good web design leads to a lower bounce rate. In turn, this means people are probably more deeply entrenched in your web site. Remember, causation does not imply correlation!
You can just as easily make a counterargument that other web sites (Like Google) are fostering the skimming behavior, due to the way that they make it easy to access vast amounts of data in an easy and manageable way. But that's life; Nothing is absolute. These are simply two common patterns you can find in all the data.
*Note: I'm being a bit vague here because there's a lot of small details that go into this that are beyond the scope of this post. Besides, I'm not a web designer so I don't even know half of them.
From the point of view of a programmer, this is a huge problem. Some of us try to make a living doing web design and there is a great need to minimize what's known as bounce rate. Bounce rate is simply a percentage that tells you the relative number of people who visit your site and leave shortly thereafter. Having a low bounce rate is good, because that usually means people stay on your web site for extended periods of time.
It can be suggested that the Internet goes against traditional ways of reading and information processing, in that people often only skim the surface of a web site before moving on. As a web designer, if you design your web site well and "do everything right*" you tend to cause the opposite phenomenon. Instead of having someone visit your web site, followed by their quick departure, people will tend to stay if you have a good web site.
Take my favorite community web site, Stack Overflow (SO), a web site designed for programmers of all kinds. Ask any programmer who regularly uses it and you'll find they tend to spend a lot of time on SO. Most people who use it typically invest non-trivial amounts of time into asking, answering, and viewing questions.
It's not exact, but this is almost the opposite of those who are casually browsing the Internet, going from web site to web site. I'm in no way suggesting that people jump from web site to web site because the designer who created the web site was a terrible web designer. But the case can be made that good web design leads to a lower bounce rate. In turn, this means people are probably more deeply entrenched in your web site. Remember, causation does not imply correlation!
You can just as easily make a counterargument that other web sites (Like Google) are fostering the skimming behavior, due to the way that they make it easy to access vast amounts of data in an easy and manageable way. But that's life; Nothing is absolute. These are simply two common patterns you can find in all the data.
*Note: I'm being a bit vague here because there's a lot of small details that go into this that are beyond the scope of this post. Besides, I'm not a web designer so I don't even know half of them.
Monday, September 12, 2011
First Thoughts
When writing up my first assignment, a reaction paper written in crayon on construction paper, I found myself drafting my thoughts several times before actually committing my response to paper. At first I just let my thoughts flow naturally as they came onto the scrap paper I was using. With the second draft I began picking my various ideas apart. I added some sentences here and there and removed others.
By the time I felt ready to actually commit it onto the construction paper, I felt it would be a simple transcribe from my existing copy. But, I found myself making small tweaks in the sentence length. I found myself limiting myself even further, because the crayon wrote far larger than I had anticipated. I noticed I was much more careful in the entire process, from draft to final copy.
I almost never do drafting and it usually ends up hurting me, since I end making quite a few mistakes along the way. This felt so much more permanent to me though, so I really took my time trying to organize my thoughts on the paper. It was something of an interesting experience and it certainly pushed me towards the mentality of "measure twice, cut once."
By the time I felt ready to actually commit it onto the construction paper, I felt it would be a simple transcribe from my existing copy. But, I found myself making small tweaks in the sentence length. I found myself limiting myself even further, because the crayon wrote far larger than I had anticipated. I noticed I was much more careful in the entire process, from draft to final copy.
I almost never do drafting and it usually ends up hurting me, since I end making quite a few mistakes along the way. This felt so much more permanent to me though, so I really took my time trying to organize my thoughts on the paper. It was something of an interesting experience and it certainly pushed me towards the mentality of "measure twice, cut once."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)