and they're 3rd and goal. The center snaps the ball to the quarterback. The receivers hightail it into the end-zone--that is, all except one. He just stands there and waves his hands in disgust. He doesn't even try!
So, if you're watching this scene unfold, you would probably be pretty ticked off. What a defeatist attitude! Sure, the team is losing big, but you have to at least try! You might even have a chance for a big comeback. Of course you're going to lose with an attitude like that.
So, did you vote on Tuesday? Or did you allow your inaction to strengthen the votes of those with whom you disagree?
In the last couple of years I've heard a number of people complain about how "voting just doesn't make a difference." Yet they, in their absence of action have literally made a difference: they have helped their opponents--they are supporting the very people they say they disagree with. By not casting their vote into the pool, they increase the relative percentage of those with whom they disagree. So those who do not vote can congratulate themselves for all the victories of the opposition--because they, themselves, helped make it possible.
Dave's blog post got me thinking about education. Since I'm a graduate student, I've been thinking about my own education quite a bit. I also have the opportunity to work with undergraduates, so I get to think about their education too.
Ideally the process of learning is something one engages in for their own personal benefit. Either one is internally motivated to learn because they recognize the benefits of learning, or one is externally motivated to learn because another (in authority) had decided what is "good" for that one. I think every educator's ideal is internal motivation because the student recognizes the need to learn and is actively participating, but external motivation is not necessarily a bad thing.
For a particular subject matter, there are two cases that require external motivation: 1) lack of awareness of the need to be educated and 2) disagreement with the asserted need to be educated. If the need to be educated, in a particular subject matter, is a valid need, the first case amounts to individual ignorance and the second case amounts to personal rebellion. The ignorance may be overcome by demonstrating the validity of the need, and presumably, one can win over the individual into the "self motivated" camp. If one understands why he should be educated but just doesn't want to be, one in authority can force the individual to engage in the activity because it is good for him whether the individual likes it or not. Likewise, as a parent, I compel my children to do certain things to help them grow and establish good habits. This is a proper role for me since I am in authority over my children and I seek the best for them.
The issue gets thorny when considering a perceived but invalid need for education in a particular subject matter. In this instance, both case #1 and #2 unfairly characterize the individual as ignorant or rebellious even though the individual is neither. Instead, the individual is making a good decision.
This leads us to the strategy for educational lobbying. First, assert that one can "never get enough education" and therefore "education is always good for you." This creates a penultimate need for education--the need is never invalid. In that context, anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant (case #1) or some kind of rebellious social dissident (case #2). And you and all the other "educated" people can pal around and feel good about yourselves since you aren't ignorant or anarchists like the people who just don't "get it."
Of course, this discussion begs the question of *what* one *needs* to be educated in. I think everyone agrees that some form of education is absolutely necessary, but everyone has their own opinion on what that form should be. And, fundamentally, no one is able to determine some kind of optimum level of education that everyone should receive--one can only aim for baselines and not optimums.
Since the need is clearly a difficult thing to establish, this brings us to the question: Who establishes the need? Should it be parents? the kids themselves? the government? a panel of HR representatives from the strongest American corporations? And so we fight and fight and fight.
Personally, I like the idea of fundamental to advanced levels of education in all sorts of subject matters being attainable for all Americans. It sounds so egalitarian--it's very "American" in that sense. I'm not sure how economically sound it is, but I like the idea. I don't like the idea of forcing individuals to get education they don't want. So, I see education as a smorgasboard of opportunity for those who want to dine. If you are full, go away happy. Once education no longer serves to benefit you, but you are subject to it for the sake of itself, who is it helping?
I just finished reading a conference paper submission written by a graduate student. His writing was simply impeccable if you ignore his inability to construct sentances, use english grammar, and weave a clear thought through the entire text. How does this happen? I suppose the answer is obvious. Bad writing is American.
First, we teach our kids that they only need one language in life: English. Then we fail to teach them how to use their one-and-only language since they might feel bad about themselves when they make mistakes. Finally, we treat them like two year-olds their entire life by innundating them with media written at the level of intelligent slugs.
So maybe bad writing is inherent in being American? But I would rather like to blame public school. After all, what successful system gives institutions money before they do their work and provides no measure of accountability to those it claims to serve? And the media? Just an inevitable product of those schools.
Nate's post on Donald Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" inspired me. I started writing a comment and figured out that I needed to blog. I suppose trackback is good for this sort of thing, but I've never taken the time to figure out how it works. (Maybe someone could tell me.)
It amazes me how poor design permiates so much of the world around us. Why is this? You would think businessess would figure out that bad design cost them money: either through lost productivity or lost sales.
Don't businesses realize how much money they are losing when their "in-house" application has a bad user interface? Shouldn't they force their development team to take a user interface (UI) design class--or better yet--hire someone with human-computer interaction (HCI) experience.
The market rewards businesses who spend the time to develop good user interfaces. Just look at iPod versus just about any other portible MP3 player. Also, look at experience provided by video game consoles versus computer games. The consumer can easily figure out how to use the console game, the consumer can simply "install" the game by placing the game inside the console ("uninstall is just as easy"), and once "installed", the game will "just work" and "look great." Computer games are a bigger risk--the consumer doesn't necessarily know that he can get game to work with his system. It seems that computer games have become more and more niche to compete with console games (RTSes, super high-end graphics, online-gaming). Even Microsoft realizes this. MS could leverage their desktop OS monopoly to push their own games, but instead they dove into the console business. Microsoft, of all businesses, has the most control over the variables involved in ensuring a game will work for a computer system, but even Microsoft can't get deliver the consistent user experience via the PC like the consoles provide by avoid the PC.
Why don't businesses realize that good UIs give them a competative advantage and spend the extra money to get ahead? Some businesses may be able to get away with bad UIs because consumers don't realize just how much their product stinks until they have already paid for it. But with greater access to product reviews via the Internet, consumers can make even more informed choices than before. Why don't companies realize good interface design will give them that coveted word-of-mouth advertizing?
On another note, I think anyone who is responsible for creating a user interface (not just software UIs) should take an UI design class. Particularly computer science programs should require their students to take an HCI class. Sure, some of those students will go out into industry and create software components without ever touching the software's UI, but most every CS grad that I know has worked on a project where they have influenced in the UI. If people just had enough training to see the problem, bad design might bother them enough that they wouldn't churn out horrible interfaces.
There is something about kneeling in front of the toilet puking your guts out that reminds you of your place in the world. No matter how great or small, we are all human and vulnerable. While we often like to impress ourselves with our greatness, we often forget how weak we really are.
I spent the better part of this morning throwing up. Somewhere between heaves, I realized how insignificant schoolwork seemed in light of my recent circumstances. No amount of success in my work made me more or less vulnerable to being sick. And while I am thankful that I'm much better now, I can't help but remember the fragility of being human.
I know I serve a loving God who has a purpose for my life. Though I'm powerless to prevent myself from becoming grievously ill, God, through his sustaining hand prevents or allows this. I don't have to worry about the future because I know that God has a purpose in what He does and allows.
Job's example rings clear with me. Job says, in Job 1:21:
"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
and naked I will depart.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised."
Lisa heard an interesting blurb on NPR about blogging. You can find the clip here, on NPR's web site. It's about 5 minutes. You need RealPlayer to hear it.
I was talking with Joey Lawrance during Professor Paul Cull's "coffee hour" today. We got off on the subject of what science can and cannot prove. It came up during the discussion that axioms, by definition, cannot be proved. A scientist must simply accept them to be true. In a certain sense, this is an act of faith--the scientist must believe in something they cannot prove. So, even a so-called "rationalist" must have some kind of faith.
Ironically, rationalists will claim that they don't know anything for certain, and therefore they don't trust anything. But to cope with day-to-day life, rationalists act on their beliefs with certainty. Essentially, they become trapped by philosophical skepticism.
I find this paradox interesting. Skeptics act with faith, but will not admit that it is faith. And, although skeptics can not prove their strong faith in science, they still trust it for answers.
In reponse to feedback, criticism, and mocking about his book, "The End of Science", John Horgan wrote an excellent article for IEEE "Computer" entitled "The End of Science Revisited." He makes some excellent points in a hysterical way! I would say this is a "must read". Grab the PDF (it's pretty and easy to read), or if you prefer, check out the HTML version. It's a short read, so just go for it.
Without spoiling too much, I would have to say this is my favorite quote:
"Chess, with its straightforward rules and tiny, Cartesian playing field, is a game tailor-made for computers. Deep Blue, whose five human handlers included the best chess programmers in the world, was a prodigiously powerful machine, capable of examining hundreds of millions of positions each second. If this silicon monster had to strain so mightily to beat a mere human at chess, what hope is there that AI engineers will ever create HAL, the lip-reading killer in the film 2001?"
Like most wacky thoughts I have, this one started in the shower. Maybe it's because I have one foot in dreamland and another in reality, or maybe it's because I haven't eaten for ten hours. Whatever the cause, I got to thinking, what if Santa were real? At least real enough to make the news. Imagine Santa on CNN, Fox News, even the Wall Street Journal.
If Santa were real, I think we could expect headlines like this:
"Homeland Security Ellicits Santa's Aid In War On Terror"...Known for his state-of-the-art survellance equipment, Santa is the latest world-power to join the War On Terror.
"Santa Accused of Favoring Judeo-Christian Ethics"...In a suprise move, Scientology officials accused Santa for favoring those considered "good" by Judeo-Christian ethics. The officials demanded more representation for Scientology and other world religions in Santa's moral classification.
"ACLU Sues Santa For Alleged Widespread Privacy Violations"...Warning that Santa is a widescale privacy threat, the ACLU has sued Santa in an attempt to prevent him from using survellance or monitoring equipment within U.S. borders.
"Santa Switches To Immitation Coal"...After terror groups used the carbon-rich coal delivered to their stockings to make bombs, Santa decided to switch to "immitation" coal to prevent further problems and to "promote a healthier, cleaner environment."
The opposite of "on" is off, and vis-versa. So if something is not "on", it's "off". So why do we say "not on-time" instead of "off-time" or "do not have time-off" instead of "have time-on"? And why do "on-time" and "time-off" have nothing to do with each other?
Strange...very strange....