today at work i turned my head to look outside, and there was a blimp outside my window! well, not right outside my window, that would be scary. but, in the direction of dc, a big white blimp floated over the building tops, almost blending in with today's gray skies.
the blimp will be hovering over the capitol and pentagon until tomorrow:

Authorities say the airship is equipped with infrared cameras designed to provide real-time images to military commanders on the ground.

considering the great technology they have now, the blimp can probably read what i'm typing right now. somehow, i just don't feel safer with a big military blimp hovering over me. it's very 1940's surreal.
another thought: for those exhibitionists among us, perhaps the blimp provides positive externalities...

Labels: personal

i’ve always been fascinated by the etymology of words. when reading a recent article on flying cars, the author noted that nasa prefers the term “personal air vehicle” to “flying car.” which made me wonder… where does the word “car” come from anyway, and would it be appropriate to call a flying car a car as well or does “car” indicate the primary use of wheels? or, does “flying car” just sound too pedestrian? is nasa just trying to create another acronym?

not knowing they really existed, i looked up “etymology” on google and found an etymology dictionary. car is from words meaning “two-wheeled Celtic war chariot” and “to run”… so, although the word “car” does in a way imply wheels, it is certainly not tied strictly to it’s original meaning, as cars aren’t really chariots. i think we can call them cars very easily and be as true to the word’s roots as we are with today’s station wagons.

my second reaction: i want a flying car! where can i buy one? can i really trust folks who can’t stay between lanes of traffic as it is from knocking me out of the sky?

engineers are addressing this issue:

...[H]e would have to make it elementary enough for the average commuter to master without full pilot's training. Here again, technology is paving the way. With radar, automatic transmissions and Global Positioning System navigation, there's no reason a flying car can't be as easy to handle as any VW, maybe even easier: your car can't help you merge on the freeway, but according to Andrew Hahn of NASA, most flying smart cars will be controlled by a simple joystick and come preprogrammed with anticollision technology and self-correcting flight controls.

COOL.

this must be my online test day...

check out the hilarious quiz from matt parker and trey stone. although i am a:

no comment...

Labels: personal

a test at harvard's "project implicit" website allows you to detect your burning, latent, -ist (ageist, sexist, racist, etc) attitudes . tolerance.org says about the test:

Studies show people can be consciously committed to egalitarianism, and deliberately work to behave without prejudice, yet still possess hidden negative prejudices or stereotypes.

excuse me, is egalitarianism not a bias? not to tolerance.org, i suppose - but anyway...
there are hidden bias tests for gender, race, weight, age, and more. i took the gender test, which tested how much one associates males with science or females with the humanities. turns out, i'm the reverse of the stereotype. my result came back as:

Your data suggest a moderate association between science and Female relative to Male

this means i responded faster when associating female and science words than when associating males with science words. i suppose this makes some sense because i studied science in college (ah, organic chemistry, how i made sweet love to you!), and am a female, and that most of my classes were at least half female. of all respondents online, the site indicates that 47% show a moderate to strong bias in the opposite direction - strongly associating males with science. forty-eight percent, however, showed a slight bias or none at all, which is exciting news.
but my results are peculiar. all my societal cues would point otherwise as a child. my father was an engineer and my mother stayed home until i was in junior high. they raised me in a traditional rural area and went to a socially conservative university. i was subjected to the same media and societal pressures and influences as everyone else. however, my results are the opposite of what one would expect, likely because my direct experience with the question at hand pointed otherwise. amazing, the human mind...

Labels: ideology, misc. psych

the wsj writes that although oprah's car give-away was well-intentioned, it may wind up costing recipients around between $6,000 and $12,000 in extra taxes this year, and:

"even if Pontiac were to pay not only the sales tax but all the various income taxes that the recipients will owe on the value of their new cars, there would be taxes due on the value of any 'free' tax payments too, a calculation known as a gross up."

although oprah's liberal views would, under normal circumstances, likely fall in favor of the gift tax, in this case she probably laments the unfairness of the situation... but alas, we can't have it both ways.

Labels: ideology

one of the american psychological association (APA)’s monthly publications, monitor on psychology, reports this month on a recent – and somehow surprising – research finding from carnegie mellon university:

"The research shows that… people are capable of understanding risks and making decisions in their best interest"

this result is in the context of subjects’ assessment of sexual, vaccination, and terrorist threat risks, and flies in the face of current psychology dogma and other recent research, but only kind of. the one caveat to their finding is that people can only make these "rational" decisions when given full and unbiased information. another recent study shows that when people receive written information they tend to make more cautious decisions. however, when given only partial information, people tend to realize they’re trying to be persuaded and disregard all information from that source altogether.
charts, graphs, and anecdotal stories all are effective ways of communicating decision-making information. research points to the importance of anecdotes particularly, likely because of their emotional appeal. and when authorities don’t know the risk (e.g., the safety of flying on an airline directly after 9/11), they should admit it:

…government spokespeople should admit that they simply do not know what the risk is…. Research shows that the public is unlikely to panic, unless they lose faith in their own authorities….

this is heartening information i hope the government heeds: instead of feeding us propagandistic public service announcements, mandatory programs, etc., opting for a more unbiased approach yields better results. what a disaster that would be for prohibition.

Labels: decision making

wired.com points to a counterintuitive phenomenon: content widely available for free on the internet still racks up sales in the bookstores.

'The conventional wisdom was, of course, if I give it away for free no one's going to buy it,' said Peter Watts, a biologist and writer who attempted unsuccessfully to persuade his publisher, Tor Science Fiction, to let him put his novels online for free.
Watts, who does publish free short fiction on his website, disputes that notion. If people get free access to a novel, they're more likely to begin reading it. And once they begin reading, provided it holds their attention, they'll probably buy the book.

this may change as technology for transportable and markable ebooks become more popular. but i, for one, prefer to have paper in front of me to hold and highlight.

update: wired.com reports on this phenomenon in the music world, featuring an interview with wilco frontman jeff tweedy.

according to the hawaii aclu via the honolulu star-bulletin hawaii news, since 2001 fifty people have been killed from taser guns. for that reason, the aclu is pushing the state to use the guns only where lethal force is justified. the aclu's claims are disputed by other sources, including the gun manufacturer. on further investigation it seems there have been no studies as to a taser gun's safety or effect on the body, but i did find several articles linking taser usage to deaths.
no information on the taser issue is available on the aclu hawaii website, but in the rhode island aclu is advocating similar measures. their report states that perhaps police are more likely to use tasers because they believe the guns are safe, which seems likely.
my initial reaction was that the aclu is overreacting and putting police in danger by limiting the weapons they can use. however, after reading more, i must say kudos to the aclu for bring this issue to light and forcing police to acknowledge the dilemma. police should be made aware of it so they will use them more sparingly, and researchers should continue to search for safer weapons.

a book i’m reading now, the paradox of choice by barry schwartz, discusses two types of consumers. his theory contends that there are those who must find the best possible item at the best possible price (“maximizers”), and those who take a more measured approach by settling on a “good enough” item because they don’t want to waste their time analyzing seemingly infinite alternatives (“satisficers”). after reading this, i began to think about my last post on shopping around, i thought i’d bring a bit of it to bear on the subject.
the ncc laments that many poor people cannot afford to be maximizers, searching for the best price to cut costs. however, schwartz suggests that this strategy may not be psychologically rewarding. he cites studies backing up his claim that maximizers “get less satisfaction out of” and “feel less positive about” their purchases than do those who look at few options. one study indicates that the more options we examine, the less satisfied we are with our final choice. interestingly, but not surprisingly, maximizers are also less satisfied with life in general and tend to be more depressed.
i’m not going to claim that being poor increases happiness, but i am going to suggest that perhaps having to choose among fewer options may not be as bad as it may seem, and is not necessarily something society needs to fix.

Labels: economics, well being

the uk's national consumer council (ncc) has just released a report claiming that the impoverished pay more for their goods than do the well-healed. they claim that:

The poor pay more because life on a cash budget is more expensive. You pay more if you can't bulk buy or afford a weekly shop. And if you can't get around because of a disability or limited transport, you can't shop around for the best deal.

although intuitively it makes sense that those with the luxury to bargain-hunt will get better prices, it may not play out that way in most cases. from my experience, few people actually go to several grocery stores to compare the price of asparagus. on large purchases such as cars and appliances wealthier consumers may actually spend the time and money to shop around, but on general items i doubt they do – they may have the time but value it more than the extra dollar they’ll save.
even when one wants to comparison-shop, there are many ways to do so other than physically driving from one store to the next, something many cannot do. with everyday items as well as larger ones, prices are listed in a number of publications accessible to both the rich and poor alike, and many listings come directly to those with mailboxes or doorsteps. prices are also a phone call or internet café away, and word of mouth is another important method to discovering the cheapest vendors.
even in cases where the very poor and very rich pay different prices for the same goods, what is a “fair” price is determined solely by the amount one is willing to pay, and that is perhaps a different price for different classes of people. we live our lives by comparison; because one person is getting a better deal, others feel cheated, but in reality if you’re paying what it’s worth to you, you’re getting the best deal possible.

Complex mobile phone and utility price packages are also cited as being particularly difficult for many poorer Britons to understand.

i’m not quite sure what the ncc’s prescription is. complex matters, as many financial affairs are, are by definition difficult to understand. first, it’s insulting to equate being poor with being unable (or unwilling) to understand complex matters. second, i hate leaving this with “well, that just life” but it’s true; those unable to comprehend the complexities of the world will pay more, and likely that’s the least of their troubles.

Labels: economics, well being

i'd like to welcome the enigmatic and charming amanda brand to flying hedgehogs. this philosophy whiz is always discovering fascinating articles on politics and the mind for me. her posts are guaranteed to be intruiging... stay tuned!

past posts originating with tips from amanda include bad moods are better and rational revenge.

about a week ago my dad and i decided to take a quick trip up to connecticut to visit our cousins in east haddam. this trip will begin (and end, at least for a while) with a brief foray into photoblogging...

the first picture i took no longer exists, and caused me a brief but exciting altercation with our friendly tsa. we flew out of dulles airport and, at the security checkpoint, i thought that a picture of the security checkpoint search and shuffle would be interesting and an important historical document. besides, i was fidgeting while waiting for a tsa agent to inspect my dad's suspicious velcro shoes. so, i point and snap. immediately i see a tall, concerned tsa agent approach like i just pulled a gun out; i know what's coming. the interaction was surreal:

him: excuse me, ma'am, you have to delete that picture. (in a tone implying i should have known better)
me: why? (i'm caught off guard)
him: because you have to (he's upset i'm asking)
me: why? i mean, i'm deleting it. but seriously - why?
him: because you do
me: why?

i notice another tsa agent putting dad's walmart shoes into a black metal box...

him: because

although i'm beginning to realize my efforts are getting me nowhere, the other guy's still inspecting dad's shoes, so why not? plus, i don't see any reason why i can't take a picture of the checkpoint.

me: but why?
him: because
me: why?
him: because

we go back and forth some more, but i won't try your patience. other passengers are starting to watch. he ignores me and pretends to be distracted by another tsa agent, and then rushes over to help someone with dad's shoes. now they're examining each one very carefully by (wisely) gloved hand. as he meanders over towards me again, i can't resist:

me: excuse me, sir? are you saying you don't have an answer for me?

i figure he's new. it's also possible no one's been weird enough to want to take a picture of the screening area before or weird (stupid?) enough to argue with him about it.

him: because of the x-ray, okay?
me: (i'm thinking "what?!") but sir, that doesn't make any scientific
sense!

he walked away, and, sadly, refused to argue further. i didn't push it, particularly becuase i haven't the slightest clue about x-rays, or his authority to ground me, for that matter. and thus concludes the story of why my first picture disappeared. i'm definitely on someone's list. my cursory internet search for the damaging effects of photo flashes on x-ray machines turned up nothing (except some fascinating articles on high-resolution x-ray photography). of course, he was just making something up, i realize. but he could've done better than that! he could have even justified the rule using passenger privacy concerns.

but, on the bright side, they let me fly again on sunday. so whatever list i'm on, it's not ted kennedy's no-fly list! phew!

"somehow, 'funky' just doesn't cover it"

after getting our rental car we drive down to east haddam and find our lodging: the klar crest resort. my cousin (once removed, as i learned this weekend) gale had described it as a "funky old resort with a big pool" so we decided to give it a try. as we pull up, it looks like a run-down house. a man and a woman are sitting in lawn chairs in the yard, looking curiously, and there's no parking lot. just a yard. they wave.

i look around for the pool. directly behind where we parked (in the yard) there sits a big, peeling, empty pool. after meeting with the folks in the front yard, who turn out to be the proprietors, the man, who looks like jerry stiller's long-lost twin, brings us in to a "front desk." flashbacks to summer camp. he cautions that if we have cell phones, they won't work, but that we should feel free to use the phone at the front desk. so, clearly, no phone in the room. he tells us to get in our car and follow him back to our "cottage."

yes, apparently, no phone. in fact, not much of anything in the room. the room turns out to be half of a cottage reminiscent of a 1950's summer camp and smells like an old book. jerry says "oh, let me get your key" after showing us all the room has to offer (walls, ceiling, bathroom). he brings back a padlock.

our cottage's name is "blueskies," which is appropriate because inspection of our room and ceiling shows we may be seeing that sky if a strong wind comes along.

after jerry takes of in his '89 shadow, dad sums up the whole experience with
one compendious quip: "somehow, 'funky' just doesn't cover it."

klar-security.

the bathroom "door." my question: where's the doorknob? oh, and that sliding
lock didn't work either.

this may have been why our "cottage" leaned downhill.

i must say, however, that it was an interesting, amusing experience and that despite my whining, i enjoyed it! it was entertaining, especially when i wandered upon jerry taking off his pants, i assume to wade around in what was left of the pool water.

and now for the point...

we live in a world of imperfect information. if we'd have done more investigating, we'd have discovered that the klar crest wasn't exactly our kind of place. had we more time or patience, we could have looked at an aaa guidebook or questioned gayle further. risking sketchy accommodations instead of spending an additional half an hour on research was a tradeoff. in the end, i wish my dad had chosen the other end of that tradeoff when reserving lodging, but it didn't turn out too badly... luckily.

another point... argue with the tsa, or any government agency, as far as you can get away with it. not only is it amusing, it also forces agents to justify their actions. i'm always amazed how people just go along with whatever someone in a government uniform tells them to do. uniforms lend authority and credibility, and we need to remember that it's not absolute.

so people really are taking this the quarter-life crisis concept seriously... i haven't decided whether this is a new phenomenon or just an new term for the unsettled nature of the exit from adolescence. more of us are prolonging adolescence by going to college and marrying later in life, so it could be this phenomenon is not new, but the age at which we experience it is. perhaps it used to occur at 18 and now it occurs at 25 - and since 25 year olds tend to have a bit more "clout" as it were, their adolescent whinings are a more prominent part of the culture.

hat-tip to john skovran for the link

next time you're making a critical decision, try to work yourself up into a really foul mood (from Yahoo! News):

"A positive mood is likely to trigger less careful thinking strategies,' Professor Joseph Forgas said in a prepared statement. He said the findings make evolutionary sense. 'This supports the idea that mood states are evolutionary signals about how to deal with threatening situations. That is, a negative mood state triggers more systematic, more attentive, more vigilant information processing,' Forgas said.

studies indicate that depressed individuals tend to see the world - and themselves - in a more realistic light, whereas happy folks tend to have inflated ideas of themselves and unrealistically optimistic views of the world around them. a negative mood perhaps works in the same way to not only allow better critical thinking skills, but also to assess the situation more accurately to begin with.

via amanda brand

Labels: decision making

i was reading hayek today, and came across this great quote that speaks to my post on wednesday:

What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. If all the means of production were vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.
From: Road to Serfdom

what a smart guy.

at cafe hayek, don boudreaux explains my sentiments better than I ever could:

Too many people, including otherwise very smart people, believe in secular magic. They believe that words written on paper by people, each of whom receive a majority of votes on certain days of the year of adult citizens living in certain geographic areas, and who utter ritualistic pronouncements under marble domes in buildings conventionally called "capitols," are somehow endowed with greater understanding of society's complexities and with superhuman capacities to care about the welfare of strangers. These priests preach devotion, dedication, and sacrifice to the One True State (your own government), even while each recognizes that legitimate disputes about the details of the dogma divide various cliques of the secular clergy. When they speak and act in their official roles, they expect - usually correctly - that the laity pay their words special heed as if these words have extraordinary power.

he goes on to wonder why people find a president's expression of empathy toward tragedies more comforting than the sentiments of a leader in the private sector. he proposes that it's this same mysticism that endows government officials with magical powers. i'd also add that these figures are looked up to in almost a parental, unifying, way, so their expressions of empathy mean even more. it's our president, but it's not our president of microsystems, inc. the president has a direct influence on us all, but the president of microsystems, inc. doesn't necessarily.
it's amazing to me that the same people who see greed and selfishness as having the power to subjugate and destroy in the private sector don't necessarily follow this skepticism into the public sector. the alternative to having human nature run affairs in the private sector is having it run things in the public sector, but this time with the police behind it.