Finding Connections

I read about a new social network today called Hachi.  It is still in beta testing and can only be joined by invitation right now.  The concept is interesting, though, because part of the goal behind this network is the ability to find connections to people you haven't yet met.

I watched the video presentation on their home page (www.gohachi.com).  The idea is that you can locate the person you are wanting to contact in the network.  The program will then look at your contacts ... and their contacts ... and the contacts of those people ... to find the best way for you to be connected to the person you are ultimately seeking, through recommendations.

This seems like an interesting application.  In a sense, it merges together the idea of social networking with mapping software (like Yahoo! Maps).  That ability to easily determine the mutual connections between yourself and another person could be useful.

I suppose my reservation is the fact that I'm not sure I would want to be put in the position of introducing a friend to a friend -- knowing that their ultimate goal might be to sell something.  That's like trying to decide who to invite to an Amway presentation.

However, the truth is that this is not a social network so much as it is a professional network.  I would not be introducing a friend to a friend; instead, I would be introducing one professional associate to another colleague.  This is not a Facebook competitor, but a LinkedIn competitor.  And if everyone who joins keeps that in mind, then this could be a powerful tool for making business connections.

It will be interesting to see how this network grows, particularly after it exits the beta-testing stage.  This certainly seems like a good way to get plugged in once that network starts to grow.

Home, Sweet Home

It seems that every trip to our state's capital has an elastic quality ... where the road coming home is stretched longer than the road which took me there.  Perhaps it happens because I typically head to meetings in Austin early in the day, while return trips usually occur after meetings -- making for a long day.

It is always good to be home, though, despite the fact that I'm tired when I arrive.  While I can relax in different places, there is nothing quite like my own chair in my own home at my own desk.

I suppose that the larger a person's comfort zone, the more they are willing to explore and experience new things.  I like to think that my comfort zone is pretty broad.  At the same time, I know that I am not as open to new experiences as I might be -- not nearly as much as I see others willing to be.  But perhaps part of that is because I keep myself busy and don't let myself enjoy new experiences as I could.

I should think about opening myself to new opportunities.  Tonight, I'll do that while I sit in my chair, in my house, at my desk.

The Toilet Paper Mystery Is Solved

As far as I know, there has been a running debate since the invention of toilet paper.  Or maybe since the invention of the spool on which the toilet paper is hung.  Does the loose end fall over the top, or hang down the back?

My wife and I disagree about this -- as, I suspect, do many couples.  We have two bathrooms in our house, and I typically utilize one while she typically utilizes the other.  And the toilet paper is hung differently in each.

So, as I was in the bathroom in my hotel room, something suddenly occurred to me.  The answer has been hidden in plain site in hotel bathrooms ever since they have been folding the ends of the roll into the neat triangular wedges!  That pattern does not work if the loose end was hanging down off the back of the roll!  Only when the loose end falls over the top of the roll can the triangular-wedge pattern work.

And so the mystery is solved.  Toilet paper should be hung so that the loose end falls over the top of the roll.  That is the correct way to do it ... since hotel maids have been well-trained in the art of folding the loose end of the toilet paper in its proper placement.

Yes, dear, I've been right all along.

Discrimination Gone Awry

I don't watch much television. After being on the road today, I turned on the television after checking into the hotel, primarily to see if the Indy 500 was finished (it was). There was a news show on one channel that caught my attention, and I listened for a few minutes. I wasn't in on the very beginning of the story, but I think I've found sources on the internet.

The topic of discussion was a coffee house chain named Marylou's, which is being investigated by the EEOC for alleged discrimination. The complaint is that the shop is only hiring young, attractive women to work the counter. There is a question of whether there are discriminatory hiring practices involved.

The news program had a female anchor, along with three females on a “panel” who offered their thoughts on the issue. I am not sure what program I was watching – I turned it off after just a bit – so I can't tell you for sure who was on the panel. Two of the three, however, stated that they had no problem with the coffee shop establishing a theme of attractive, young females serving customers in pink T-shirts. They saw no reason for government interference – since hiring that particular type of person would be important to establishing the “theme.” (The third lady on the panel was opposed, basing her argument on the fact that coffee houses don't need such themes. She didn't word it that way, but that was the gist of her claim.)

What bothers me is that, after the two panelists had stated that the shop had every right to hire who it wanted for a theme, all three of the panelists agreed that there is a huge problem if the shop is only hiring young, attractive, white women. So age discrimination takes a back seat to creating a theme, and gender discrimination takes a back seat as well – but racial discrimination can't be tolerated.

I find this interesting … and troubling. If government should step in and require that hiring practices be non-discriminatory, then that should be applied equally to all forms of discrimination. If, on the other hand, a company is free to set a theme, why is the company not allowed to include race as a part of that theme? I know that I will ruffle a lot of feathers by daring to ask that question … but, in my mind, it is a logical question to ask.

The reason it makes sense to ask the question is that the primary reason that racial discrimination is wrong (and it is, by the way – I am not denying the wrongness of racism) is because it provides a benefit to some people, and denies others, based on a characteristic which has nothing to do with their capability of performing the job. Racial discrimination is also based on a factor beyond the individual's control – people don't choose to be a particular race, but are born into it. So making hiring decisions based on irrelevant factors which are beyond a person's control is simply wrong.

But the same is true of both age and gender discrimination. And the two ladies on the panel said that it's okay to overlook those characteristics in order to establish a theme for the coffee shop. So why is one type of discrimination not allowed, when other discrimination is acceptable? That makes no sense to me.

This does highlight how volatile an issue race continues to be in our society. But I'm not sure we can intelligently argue that one form of discrimination is worse than others. Attempting to do so clearly reveals the bias of those offering the argument.

Strangers and Couches

I will tell you, up front, that I am venting a bit in this post.  I have just arrived at a conference, which I will be attending for the next three days.  And there are two things which bother me about the room arrangement, provided by my employer.

First, in order to try to save money amidst tight budgets, two people are sleeping in each room.  I understand this.  Getting each person a private room would be expensive.  My problem is that this isn't necessarily bad when you know the person you are going to be sharing a room with.  My roommate is someone that I have met ... we have conversed on two prior occasions, if I remember correctly ... but is, otherwise, a complete stranger to me.

I don't know that I'll be spending a great deal of time in the room.  But that is where I'll sleep, change clothes, shower, attend my daily constitutional (does anyone still use that phrase?) ... things that I normally don't do near strangers.  I wonder how many other companies require employees to room together like this when traveling.  In my (admittedly limited) experience, upscale companies don't.

Second, when my stranger-roommate and I checked in, we found that the room has a queen-size bed and a sleeper sofa.  Really?  I mean ... really?  Two professionals are traveling to a conference, and one of them gets the pleasure of sleeping on a fold-out couch?  (Either that, or the two have to become fast friends and share a queen-sized bed.  But that's not going to happen.  Trust me.)

Part of the problem with the sleeper sofa is that it just seems ... cheap.  The company is not only failing to provide employees with a bit of privacy.  They are making it worse by not providing adequate bedding.  Yes, we are staying in a nice hotel.  Everything else is nice (although not lavish) ... there is nothing "cheap" about the hotel itself.  But the sleeping arrangements leave something to be desired.

The other part of this problem is that I have back problems.  If I sleep on a pull-out sleeper, I may not be able to walk in the morning.  And, while my stranger-roommate graciously offered to sleep on the couch before I even suggested flipping coins, the fact is that I feel guilty.  I wish my back wasn't messed up.  I wish, even more, that my back did not cause inconveniences for others.

Some people might say that I should count my blessings.  After all, we are staying in a nice hotel, and I get the bed.  To top it off, the trip is being paid for by the company, so it isn't costing me a dime.  So maybe they are right ... I don't have that much to complain about.  It still strikes me as being less than what I would have expected for traveling professionals.

Mountains and Molehills

 An Associated Press article by Christopher Torchia came out today, chronicling a rescue on Mount Everest.  An Israeli climber, Nadav Ben-Yehuda, found his Turkish friend, Aydin Irmak -- who he thought had already descended the mountain after reaching the summit.  It seems that Irmak did reach the summit of Everest ... one of the few Turks to have ever done so ... but ran into difficulties on the way down.

So when Ben-Yehuda found his Turkish friend, he faced a moral dilemma of sorts.  Should I continue on to the summit, attaining one of my life goals?  Or do I help my friend down the mountain and save his life?  That seems like a no-brainer, right?  And yet, at the same time, it isn't quite so easy.  We recognize the value of human life -- and the call to save a life (particularly that of a friend) seems to outweigh any other priorities we might have.  At the same time, being close to the summit of Mount Everest -- which is, most likely, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity -- is not something abandoned quickly or easily.

In Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy), John Lennon made famous the phrase, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."  While this may not be what Lennon meant (because I've never been a big Beatles fan), it seems that life itself -- the things that happen in our daily lives -- is precisely what prevents us from achieving what we most want in our lives.

That becomes a dilemma.  We can become cold and calloused and ... ruthless ... in the pursuit of our dreams.  Or we can be observant and concerned about the things happening around us, doing our part to make the world a better place through the lives that we touch.  What is not clear is whether we can often expect to do both.

In moral theory, this is one of the pesky problems for utilitarians.  Utilitarianism is the theory which, roughly speaking, argues that the right action is that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number.  What becomes a problem is the reality that, quite often, acting toward that greatest good is not in my best interest -- I can help others, but I have to sacrifice my own desires in order to be able to do so.  So where is the motivation to be a good utilitarian?

These choices are not easy.  As we think about our goals and dreams and desires, we believe that it is through the achievement of such things that we truly define ourselves (at least in one sense).  But we have to weigh that against the cost of such achievement ... because we are also defined by how we deal with life as it happens.  Which is more important?  And is that truly a choice for the individual to make for herself?

If it is a choice for the individual, then we applaud Ben-Yehuda for saving his friend ... but we would applaud, with equal vigor, had he continued to the summit.  I'm not sure I volunteer to be in the latter cheering section, because I think that it would have been wrong for him to have made that choice.

Why We Like the Avengers

I will admit that, despite the title of this post, I haven't actually seen the movie The Avengers, which opened earlier this month.  I have heard a few people at the office talking about it -- they seemed to think it was well worth the cost of the ticket.  They also said something about making sure to watch all of the credits ... and the good news is that, not having seen the movie, I can't spoil anything because I know nothing more than that.

Why are these comic-book characters our heroes?  An article I ran across today, talking about a forthcoming biography of Walter Cronkite, may help with the answer.  Apparently, while Cronkite was viewed as trustworthy by the general public, there were many ethically questionable things going on outside of the public eye.  (The article, by the way, was posted at http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/biography-paints-cronkite-darker-side-175158957.html).  Had people known what the famed newscaster was really like, he probably wouldn't be thought of as an icon in broadcast news.

And therein lies the key point.  We know too much about public figures for any of them to be viewed as heroes -- at least on a large scale.  Sure, there will be some who extol just about anyone.  But to have widespread support from the general public is exceedingly difficult, and perhaps impossible, because of the depth of scrutiny that is expected in our day and age.  I suspect there is a vicious cycle involved.  Those who find themselves in a position to be in the public eye probably pulled a few strings to get there -- the same strings which, once revealed, cast doubts upon their character, rendering them unheroic.

Back in the "good old days," real people were heroes.  They weren't perfect.  They had their foibles.  Maybe we want to say that they should not have been respected, because of what we know now.

But is that any worse than creating heroes from comic-book characters, to fill the void?

We need heroes.  We need to believe that good will triumph over evil.  We need role models to admire, so that we will be emboldened to do our best and stand for what is right.  And I suspect that we have lost something very valuable when the heroes we identify are fictional characters -- indirectly at least, confirming that really being heroic isn't something that regular people can do.

Where have all the heroes gone?  I wish we could find some real ones again.

Phone Aversion

For years, I used a prepaid cell phone ... adding minutes when needed.  In truth, I used it for text messaging more than for talking.  With Net10, it was 10 cents per minute, and 5 cents per text message.  While I didn't have a smart phone with web access, I had a phone -- and it averaged about $15 per month.  Not bad, compared to the $100+ cell phone bills some of my colleagues were paying.

I finally broke down and got a smart phone about a year ago.  I did so when T-Mobile came out with their "Monthly 4G Plan."  It is still a pre-paid sort of plan ... and it costs twice as much as my old cell phone, because I'm paying $30 per month.  But with that plan, I get unlimited text messaging, unlimited web access, and 100 minutes of talk time.  Since I talk on the phone so little, it made sense for me -- and is still economical.

I'm wondering what percentage of the customers on that particular plan are middle-aged men.  I know that some of the men that I work with at the office are similar to me (although they have a "full plan" for their cell phones) in that they use their smart phones for texting and web browsing far more than talking.  I also know that the telephone in our building -- which is in a "common  area" -- gets answered by women the vast majority of the time.  (We don't have a secretary, so it's just a matter of who responds when the phone rings.)

I'm not sure why I have never liked talking on the phone.  And it can be a problem sometimes.  My mother isn't convinced that I love her, because I don't call very often.  What she fails to realize is that she is the only person I call with any regularity whatsoever.  I'll spend more time on the phone with my mom in a month than I will spend on all of my other phone calls for the year.  (And if she really loved me, she'd start sending text messages!)

I guess that's one thing that I do like about the technology we've become so adapted to -- it gives us new ways to communicate.  I suppose that if the land-line telephone was still all we had, then I'd use it more.  As it is, I can do most of my communications through other mediums -- text messaging, instant messaging, email -- and I can survive without actually talking on a telephone very often.

I still seldom use more than 20 minutes or so of my phone's talk time each month.  So don't expect to find me sporting a Bluetooth headset any time soon.

Teachers and Proms

A recent news article reveals that a track coach in Oregon, Melissa Bowerman, has been fired from her position because the married 41-year-old escorted one of the 17-year-old students to the school's prom.  The report (found at http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/track-coach-daughter-law-nike-co-founder-fired-141749438.html) quoted Bowerman as stating that she and the student "danced to 'a couple' of slow songs and spent the rest of the evening playing ping pong and foosball."

The motivation for this date, apparently, was to motivate the student to do better in his classes.  What is not clear was whether the student asked the teacher whether she would go with him, or whether it was the teacher who came up with the idea for the date -- to motivate the student (since he was depressed about the fact that he didn't have a date).  It is interesting (to me) that the student's father had no qualms about the date, stating that the coach was "like a surrogate mom" to the athletes.

I understand that romantic encounters between adults and minors are serious matters which must be dealt with.  I also understand that teachers are rightly scrutinized, precisely because they work in close proximity to minors on a daily basis -- interaction that is not always closely monitored.  But this wasn't something that happened in an unmonitored classroom; this occurred in a public venue.

I suppose this story catches my attention because of something that happened a number of years ago.  My wife was a school teacher at that time, and she was called upon to be one of the teacher chaperones at the school prom.  I went with her, and we danced to one or two songs.  She also noticed one of the teenaged girls was obviously wanting to dance, but was not being invited onto the dance floor by any of the male students.  She elbowed me and told me to treat the girl to a dance -- and I did.  There was nothing romantic or sexual involved.

Was I wrong to dance with the girl?  I don't think so.  Could someone have walked in while I was dancing with her, not knowing any of the "background," and had concerns?  Perhaps.

But isn't it troubling that we automatically assume the worst in such situations?  We assume guilt until innocence is proven ... ignoring the fact that the accusation itself will tarnish the person's reputation, often beyond repair.  Even worse, I can't help but suspect that this usually happens in the name of self-preservation.  That is, I would suggest that the dismissal was based on the school's fear of a lawsuit, as opposed to any concerns about the students and their interactions with this particular coach.

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Maybe the very fact that an adult shared a dance with a minor is something that cannot be tolerated.  It seems to me, though, that this only makes sense if we assume the worst and suspect that the dance was indicative of other, more serious, issues.  With no evidence to substantiate those concerns, I don't see a justification for the punishment.

Blurred Views

I noticed that Microsoft's StreetSide venture is being abandoned in Germany ... where Google's Street View program was also left unfinished.  As reported by David Vranicar in TechNewsWorld yesterday (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/75177.html), the StreetSide and Street View programs have both met great resistance in that country because of privacy issues.

Interestingly, both Microsoft and Google allowed Germans the ability to opt out -- rendering the images of their residences and businesses blurred.  This leads to a first question, in my mind:  Did I have a chance to opt out?  Can I get my home blurred?

There are so many concerns with privacy these days.  So much of information about us is available to the public -- so much of our lives is online.  One of the recent debates has to do with whether employers and school officials have a right to social media passwords for their employees and students.  Even without those passwords, people are scrutinized through their online presence.

I think it has gone too far.  I don't use a great deal of social media -- I have some accounts set up, but I forget to check them or post status updates.  I really don't have anything to hide (that I know of!).  But would I give my password to my employer, so it could be scrutinized?  No.  It is clearly unethical for the employers to even ask.  Why don't they just ask to tap into your cell phone, so they can listen in on every conversation and receive a copy of every text message?  I think that even the employers would agree that requesting such access would be an overt violation of privacy.  Yet the request for a password is no less intrusive.

I applaud the Germans for collectively standing up for their privacy rights.  It seems that they were awarded the ability to opt out because of that collective concern.  Of course, not all of them chose to opt out ... but some didn't have to, because their resistance to the program meant that both Google and Microsoft have abandoned the project within their borders.

In all fairness, I also give kudos to both Google and Microsoft for pulling out when they did -- even though the German government has ruled in the company's favor, giving them the legal right to continue taking pictures. Perhaps the rest of us might learn to become more proactive with regard to privacy issues, rather than crying foul after the fact.


UPDATE:  I found this information about opting out of Google's Street View, for those who are interested: http://survivalblog.com/2012/03/letter-re-renewing-your-google-street-view-opt-out.html.  I have not yet found an ability to do so with Microsoft's StreetSide ... although Bing Maps says that StreetSide is not yet available where I live.

Rules Make Us Successful

Occasionally, I'll watch auto racing ... usually either NASCAR or an Indy car race.  I used to be a big NASCAR fan, watching the race every Sunday.  I guess there was only so many left turns I could stay excited about, because it turned out to be a passing fad.  But I'll still watch on occasion.

I know that the Indianapolis 500 is coming up -- the Memorial Day race every year.  (Along with NASCAR'S Coca-Cola 600, you can have a full day of left turns, if you'd like!)  This morning, I happened to read an article about some of the drama going on with the Indianapolis 500 preparations ("In the Pits:  Drama -- of course! -- in IndyCar Again" by Jenna Fryer).  One line jumped out at me from this article:  "Unlike Formula One and NASCAR, which both succeed operating as virtual dictatorships, IndyCar has moved closer to the model that ultimately killed CART — the inmates trying to run the asylum."

That statement jumped out at me, I think, because it clarifies a simple fact of life.  We hate rules, we rebel against rules, and yet we need rules -- strictly enforced -- to be successful.  (Parents, take note -- your children need you to be a disciplinarian.)  I don't keep up with pro football, but maybe this is what the NFL's commissioner is trying to do with the fines he levies against some of the players -- to bring about the sort of discipline that will make the league successful.

Rules give us the framework within which success can occur.  Without them, and without their enforcement, things are no longer focused, energy is wasted, and success is harder to achieve.  Perhaps though, the real key lies in the enforcement.  Just having rules is not enough to make us successful.  We need those rules to be actively applied.

Bringing this home -- to the individual level -- we can't allow our passions and appetites to control our lives.  We need to have self-discipline.  That means establishing valid rules, and -- more importantly -- enforcing them.  That is what drives us toward success.  Otherwise, we're letting the inmates run the asylum.

Blame It, or Fix It?

One of my favorite comic strips of all time is Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Watterson.  The strip still appears ... in re-runs these days ... and I enjoy reading it every morning.  In today's punchline, Calvin comments. "It's a lot more fun to blame things than to fix them."  (According to information found on Wikipedia, this strip originally appeared on May 18, 1992; it was re-run today, May 21, 2012.)

While Calvin's comment is humorous, it is also sad -- because of its truth.  Too often, people are content to make excuses and pass blame, as opposed to making a different and righting what is wrong.  We allow ourselves to think like victims, failing to assume responsibility for what becomes of ourselves.  And that is dangerous.

I have recently found myself thinking about my "bucket list" -- the things I'd like to do before I kick the bucket.  I've also been reading some motivational literature, and I find continual reminders that I need to set goals for myself.  Without goals, we can't hope to excel.  Without a goal, you lack direction and the motivation to achieve.

And yet I am not good at goal-setting.  People ask, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" and I honestly have no clue.  I find it extremely difficult to visualize the future in that way.  And yet, I am learning -- through various sources -- that you have to think big and take action toward specific and measurable goals if you are ever going to bring about effective change.  You can blame things, or you can take responsibility.

Over the past few months, I have found myself watching a series of videos on Yahoo! Screen.  The project is called Failure Club, and it chronicles seven New Yorkers who have goals they are seeking to achieve within a year.  New episodes are available each Monday and Friday -- this morning, episode 45 was released.  (You can access these at http://screen.yahoo.com/lifestyle/failure-club/.)  Without giving away all of the plot lines that are involved, I will admit that I have been amazed by the transformation in Meg -- the subject of today's episode.  At the outset of the series, were I asked to place money on those I thought would be successful in achieving their goals, I doubt she would have made my list.  And today's episode showed just how far she has come.

The power of goal-setting is slowly sinking in for me.  That doesn't mean I've actually done it yet.  It also doesn't mean I'm any closer to knowing how to visualize a future worth pursuing.  But I need to start that process, instead of continuing to spin my wheels.  Whether it's a bucket list or a five-year plan, I need to start getting something on paper ... and, more importantly, making the effort to bring it about.

Financing an Education

I have an upcoming dilemma.  My son is now 15 years old, and I don't have anything set back for his college savings.  My financial woes aren't the focus ... his education is.

There has been much talk, in recent years, about the value of a college education.  Much of that discussion -- or at least the parts of which I have been aware -- raise the question whether a university degree has value.  The vast majority of students leave college encumbered with a student-loan debt that will take many years to pay off.  And that is true whether they ultimately graduate or not.

Many point to the data showing that having a college degree virtually guarantees a greater earning potential.  What is not clear is whether degree-holders earn more because their education gave them abilities that others lacked, or because employers only offer certain opportunities to those who have jumped through the educational hoops.

At the same time, I remember seeing a report a couple of years ago (although I wasn't able to find it again in a quick search while writing this entry) which said that about 60% of the jobs in Texas require some training beyond high school, but not a four-year degree.  (According to this report, only 20% of the jobs in Texas require a four-year degree or better.)  And it is true that a good career in a high-paying job can be secured with a two-year degree or training certificate in a technical field.

I happen to think that this debate (like many) has lost sight of the focal point that needs to be addressed.  The question is not about a four-year degree versus no training beyond high school.  It seems that the point is to find a desirable vocation and achieve the training required for success in that field.  If I want to be a diesel mechanic, I could get a degree in mechanical engineering -- but it is it worth my while to do so?  Will that really make me a better mechanic?  Or will I be over-qualified for the job I'm truly seeking?  Perhaps what is needed is to do away with the expectation that everyone needs a university degree, requiring students to obtain -- and pay for -- more education than needed.

But I digress.

My problem is that I see the value of a technical education.  But my son is a history buff.  He would like to be a history teacher ... and possibly a coach.  Teaching is one of the fields that does, for good reason, require a four-year degree.  And I have no resources to help provide that for him.

I feel as though I've let him down ... even before we arrive at that bridge.  I am encouraging him to do well in school, so that scholarships will be available.  But one of the things I would do differently, were I given a chance to do it again, is that I would be a better manager of my finances ... and I would have followed through on the goal of establishing a college fund early on.  I hope my failure to do so does not ultimately restrict my son's opportunities to do what he most loves.

Noisy Hybrids?

Chris Matyszczyk wrote an article for c|net news today ("Do Hybrid Cars Kill You with Silence?") which pointed out that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) is looking for ways of increasing safety related to hybrid cars.  As it turns out, hybrids traveling at slow speeds are more likely to hit pedestrians or cyclists; because they make very little noise, those they are running into don't hear them coming.

So, this summer, the NHTSA will be creating guidelines for the minimum amount of noise that a vehicle can make on the road.  Once these standards are in place, those quiet electric cars will have to have noise-makers installed ... for safety reasons.

Until reading this article, I hadn't thought about this as a safety concern.  I have only ridden in such a car on a few occasions, so I haven't had much occasion to ponder their special challenges.  But this reminded me of something else I have often wondered about:  hubcap spinners.  These are the (quite silly, in my opinion) hubcaps that spin independently of the wheel ... so they will generally rotate slower than the wheel when the vehicle is moving, and they will often continue slowly spinning when the vehicle has stopped.

When I first saw these, several years ago, my first thought was ... well ... unflattering.  But my second thought, which came very quickly, had to do with safety.  This happened because the first time I recall seeing spinner hubcaps was on a car at an intersection I was about to cross ... and I was trying to figure out whether the vehicle had stopped (as it should have, based on the traffic signal) or not.  I realized, almost immediately, that one of the ways that I determine whether a car is moving is by looking at the rotation of the wheels.  I would suspect that I'm not alone in this.

Under some circumstances, of course, a car could be moving even though it's wheels are not turning ... if it is sliding on icy or wet pavement, for example.  But under normal and dry road conditions, the rotation of the wheel is an indicator of the movement (and relative speed) of the vehicle.  This is one of those visual cues we may not be aware of ... until something like a spinner hubcap throws our perception into doubt.

The hubcaps seem to be falling out of favor.  I would offer a heartfelt, "Good riddance."  But I wonder how often they contributed to accidents -- because other motorists were unable to gauge the speed of the vehicle sporting those attachments.  And that leads me to wonder why they were allowed in the first place.

Maybe some people thought it looked cool.  It was novel, I suppose.  But being cool or novel shouldn't trump safety considerations.  I'd vote for banning spinner hubcaps ... and I'll wait to see what sorts of sounds hybrid cars start emitting before I pass judgment on that development.

Running on Freebies

I found a new open-source product today.  Apparently it's been around for quite a while and I just haven't heard of it.  It was through an article in TechNewsWorld ("A Tale of Two Suites: Do We Still Need OpenOffice.org?" by Katherine Noyes, dated 17 May 2012) that I was introduced to LibreOffice.

I've used OpenOffice before, and I have found it quite useful.  According to the article, OpenOffice is a relic compared to LibreOffice; I'll have to download it and give it a try.  After all, the price is right.

I'm an Android user, as far as my mobile technology goes.  I enjoy the free apps that I get on my phone and tablet.  I have a Kindle app (which was free, of course), and I enjoy the free books that I'm able to download to read.  I use Paint.NET when I'm working with images; Audacity is my sound editor; I upload files to servers using FileZilla or WinSCP; I use SciTE for editing program files.  I backup and synchronize files through DropBox and Box.  I have created websites with Weebly, and Prezi is where I normally go to prepare a multimedia presentation.  And my security software is the free version of AVG.

As a matter of fact, as I browse the icons scattered across my computer's desktop, I'm not finding a single piece of software that I have paid for.  Yes, I'm quite the frugal user.  (In other words, I'm cheap.)

Yes, I still run the Windows operating system.  (I tried Ubuntu, but found that really utilizing that operating system requires a knowledge of Linux, which I don't have.  There were a couple of tools I tried to download and install that I couldn't get running correctly, because I wasn't sure how to fix them through the command-line interface.)  Apart from the operating system itself, I do everything I can think of on applications or software that didn't cost me a thing.

It's amazing, in ways, that so many things are freely available.  I know that almost all of these offer more features and greater functionality for paying customers; you still get what you pay for.  But, for an average user like myself, I haven't yet found anything that I'm needing to do that goes beyond the capabilities of the free versions which are available.  And now I have found LibreOffice, which the article suggests is much better than the OpenOffice I've been using.  (We'll see whether that holds true.)

I think it's wonderful, to be honest.  If people had to pay for software before they could try new things, think of the creativity that would be stifled.  I appreciate the fact that we can have so many tools at our fingertips, without having to limit ourselves to the applications we know that we will use enough to justify the expense.  This is a part of the computing experience that I truly hope we don't lose ... because I know that I have tried things (and actually succeeded at a few of them!) that I never would have attempted had I needed to buy a software package before it could be done.

Writing and Thinking

I've heard that writing is closely related to the process of thinking.  Thus, when language instructors teach us to write ... with drafts and revisions and editing ... they are ultimately teaching us to think.

I wonder whether anyone has studied how thought processes have changed with technology, though.  I'm old enough to remember feeding a sheet of paper into an Underwood typewriter, where pages sometimes had to be typed multiple times before all of the footnotes ended up where they were supposed to be.  We had to think ahead and plan our writing back in those days.  Drafts and outlines were crucial, because failing to carefully plan meant that the work would never be produced.

Computers have changed the practice of writing.  We can easily rearrange text by cutting-and-pasting.  The machine does many things for us, like editing our spelling and grammatical errors, aligning those pesky footnotes automatically, and inserting page headers and footers with no added exertion on our part.  It's true that these advances in technology mean that we don't have to think about the production of our work, freeing us to focus on the content.  But does that mean that we are not thinking about the process of writing in the same way?  I suspect so.

What leaves me wondering, I suppose, is the fact that we are increasingly encouraged to "write" in short bursts -- 140 characters or less -- easily and quickly posted for all the world to see through our mobile devices.  Our "writing" is increasingly focused on status updates and off-the-cuff comments.  Are these posts carefully composed? edited? revised? Are we thinking about things?  Or have we become a society where we forget to think, because we forget to take the time to write?

Descartes gives us the famous line, "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito, ergo sum).  Perhaps we would do well to consider a revised version of the idea:  "I write, therefore I think."  The world could use a little more thinking, in my estimation.  So I write ...

Introduction

I have written a blog before.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to locate it, and it appears the name I was using has since been taken by someone else.  And that's okay.  I had abandoned the project, largely because I had no particular direction.

I realize that the same could be true this time around.  Do I have a direction?  There are certainly plenty of things which leave me scratching my bald spot.  Being able to write about them ... searching for a way to make sense of it all ... will be therapeutic, if nothing else.  If my ramblings give someone else a flash of insight -- or a chuckle -- well, all the better.

So here I am with my bald spot shining.  Here's hoping that you don't get blinded by the glare!