50 Million People in Blackout?
The biggest blackout in our history hit last Thursday. According to the media, over 50 million people were denied electricity from some time in the afternoon of 2003 August 14 to some time after that. That is a huge number of people. In fact, I even heard some media say 60 million. That is about 1/6 to 1/5 of the population of our country of over 282 million. If that had happened, it would be a P8 power outage. But did that really happen? I saw a blog from Peter Dutton entitled Jumping to Conclusions that said that the media really hyped up this one. Mr. Dutton said that the figure 50 million is way overinflated, that it was a creation of the media. If so, then media hype strikes again. But was it so?
I did some calculating. I looked up “united states” and “megawatts” on Google™ and found that in 2000, the US used 604,514 megawatts of energy. I heard from Mr. Dutton that the New York Times reported that a total of 61,800 megawatts of energy were lost in the blackout. I divided the 604,514 megawatts by the 2000 US population of 282,421,906 and got that the US consumes this year 2.14046 kilowatts of energy per person. That seems reasonable, since our household consumes 1.5 kilowatts. So I simply divided the 61,800 megawatts by 2.140 and got that 28,872,240 people (or 29 million people) were affected by the blackout. Media hype exposed! So much for the 50 million. This demotes the blackout to P7 and in fact it is not the biggest power blackout in our history. The blackout of 1965 November 9 affected 30 million people in a nation with far fewer people, although that figure could have been hyped also.
Sometimes it pays to check the figures before believing what is in that pile of papers at your doorstep. I thank Peter Dutton of Jumping to Conclusions (like a lemming?) for alerting me to this latest media hype.
By the way, my “P7” and “P8” notation is explained in Logarithms Keep Dr. Brown in Perspective.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2003/08/20
The Great Power Blackouts of 1965 and 2003
On 2003 August 14, I turned on the evening news expecting to hear the weather. Instead I heard that some news outfits, such as NBC, were broadcasting on emergency power and that there was a power outage. I looked on the Internet and sure enough, the big banner headline on CNN’s site was “BLACKOUT”. It had hit New York State, including my birthplace, Ohio, Detroit and parts of Canada, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Connecticut. Terrorism was ruled out. I would think so. To me this blackout reminds me greatly of the 1965 November 9 blackout.
I was a college sophomore at the time in Rochester, NY. I had just came back from a trip to a Niagara Falls military base to get a physical for Air Force ROTC, which I enrolled in the next year. It was 1700, 5 o’clock, so I went to the dining hall to get something to eat. While I was at the table, the lights started going dim and bright over and over again in a sinusoidal pattern. Then they got dim. Shortly afterwards I saw students with candles in their hands. I went back to my dorm to see if what had happened to the power had hit my dorm. It had. There was no power there. My roommate had a radio and was listening to the radio broadcast. It said tghat New York City was hit by the blackout. It said that Buffalo was hit. After a while it said that Boston was hit. It became apparent to us that this was a huge power blackout. I tried to swtudy in the darkness and figure I was going to have to go to bed early, when the power came back on at around 1930, 7:30 pm. I heard later, though, that power did not come on to New York City until the next morning.
The 2003 blackout affected pretty much the same area, except that it hit Detroit and Cleveland but did not hit Boston. People are now saying that we need to replace our antiquated power system. Because of this blackout? In that case, they should have done something in 1965. People are saying this is the worst power blackout in our history, but they ignore the 1965 blackout, which was a near twin of this one. There is a difference between this one and 1965, however. In 1965 energy was plentiful: there was plenty of coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy, and our nation had yet to hit a peak in oil production (1970). Today in 2003 we face a world wide ultimate oil shortage about 2010 or so, an electric power distribution shortage around 2005, and just this coming winter a natural gas shortage that threatens to double prices. Already (because of a pipeline burst) Phoenix is repeating the scenes of 1973’s oil crisis. I hope the Blackout of 2003 alerts the nation and the world to these upcoming shortages so we can do something about them.
On 2003 August 14, I turned on the evening news expecting to hear the weather. Instead I heard that some news outfits, such as NBC, were broadcasting on emergency power and that there was a power outage. I looked on the Internet and sure enough, the big banner headline on CNN’s site was “BLACKOUT”. It had hit New York State, including my birthplace, Ohio, Detroit and parts of Canada, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Connecticut. Terrorism was ruled out. I would think so. To me this blackout reminds me greatly of the 1965 November 9 blackout.
I was a college sophomore at the time in Rochester, NY. I had just came back from a trip to a Niagara Falls military base to get a physical for Air Force ROTC, which I enrolled in the next year. It was 1700, 5 o’clock, so I went to the dining hall to get something to eat. While I was at the table, the lights started going dim and bright over and over again in a sinusoidal pattern. Then they got dim. Shortly afterwards I saw students with candles in their hands. I went back to my dorm to see if what had happened to the power had hit my dorm. It had. There was no power there. My roommate had a radio and was listening to the radio broadcast. It said tghat New York City was hit by the blackout. It said that Buffalo was hit. After a while it said that Boston was hit. It became apparent to us that this was a huge power blackout. I tried to swtudy in the darkness and figure I was going to have to go to bed early, when the power came back on at around 1930, 7:30 pm. I heard later, though, that power did not come on to New York City until the next morning.
The 2003 blackout affected pretty much the same area, except that it hit Detroit and Cleveland but did not hit Boston. People are now saying that we need to replace our antiquated power system. Because of this blackout? In that case, they should have done something in 1965. People are saying this is the worst power blackout in our history, but they ignore the 1965 blackout, which was a near twin of this one. There is a difference between this one and 1965, however. In 1965 energy was plentiful: there was plenty of coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy, and our nation had yet to hit a peak in oil production (1970). Today in 2003 we face a world wide ultimate oil shortage about 2010 or so, an electric power distribution shortage around 2005, and just this coming winter a natural gas shortage that threatens to double prices. Already (because of a pipeline burst) Phoenix is repeating the scenes of 1973’s oil crisis. I hope the Blackout of 2003 alerts the nation and the world to these upcoming shortages so we can do something about them.
I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh
Today, 2003 August 20 0900, I wanted to see if there would be any hurricanes in our future. So I went to Weather Underground’s Tropical Page to see if there were any. There weren’t any. So I went down to near the bottom of the page to the link that has the North Atlantic Tropical Outlook to see if any were going to form. When I clicked on that link, I got “I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh”. That’s right, the answer to the question “Are there going to be any hurricanes soon?” is “I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh”. Well I certainly don’t want any of those affecting my weather soon. Further, the Weather Underground people got it wrong. “I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh” is not a prediction of hurricanes. It is a prediction of where our email system is going. Remember that in an earlier blog that I said that eventually spam would become gibberish. In fact, most email will become gibberish. If indeed a ‘cane is coming, then it is a gibbericane, and I see that it has already hit Weather Underground. Ssleh.
Today, 2003 August 20 0900, I wanted to see if there would be any hurricanes in our future. So I went to Weather Underground’s Tropical Page to see if there were any. There weren’t any. So I went down to near the bottom of the page to the link that has the North Atlantic Tropical Outlook to see if any were going to form. When I clicked on that link, I got “I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh”. That’s right, the answer to the question “Are there going to be any hurricanes soon?” is “I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh”. Well I certainly don’t want any of those affecting my weather soon. Further, the Weather Underground people got it wrong. “I.(?Am?Kdzqh9q)#Zthv+U>!;Ssleh” is not a prediction of hurricanes. It is a prediction of where our email system is going. Remember that in an earlier blog that I said that eventually spam would become gibberish. In fact, most email will become gibberish. If indeed a ‘cane is coming, then it is a gibbericane, and I see that it has already hit Weather Underground. Ssleh.
2003/08/12
The California Alphabet
California has a lot of things. It has energy crises, a governor so bad that he had to be recalled, people taking a cyanide trip to the other side of comet Hale-Bopp, movie superstars that try to outglitter the Milky Way but fail, and so forth. Now in this latest development in their three-ring circus that they call a Recall Election, California now has its own alphabet.
In kindergarten and early grade school, we learn the alphabet. We sing, "ABCDEFG…" That is the way we have always recognized the alphabet as being in order. But not in California any more. Due to the desire to randomize the candidates, the people running this Recall Election have invented their own alphabet. This means if you are a child in California, you now sing not "ABCDEFG…" but "RWQOJMV…" The entire California alphabet, in fact, reads:
RWQOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFL
This has some interesting consequences. For example, if you look in an ordinary dictionary to try to find the first and last words, the first word is a and the last word is zymurgy (science of fermentation), or perhaps zyzzogeton (a leaf hopper) if you have an unabridged. But not in California. No, if you look in a California dictionary, you will find the first word to be rorqual, which is a variety of whale. Next comes row, as in rowdy, which is an apt way to describe this election. What's the last word? It is llano, an Argentine plain, just barely beating out llama, the animal.
So many of us are used to the ABC alphabet that we are unaware of some of the other alphabets around. For example, this very keyboard I am typing on generates the QWERTY alphabet:
QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM
Pangrams are sentences containing each letter of the alphabet. A 26-letter pangram contains each letter once and only once, and is scarce. But if you find them, you can use them as an alphabet:
SQUDGYFEZBLANKJIMPCRWTHVOX (Squdgy fez, blank jimp crwth vox!)
CWMFJORDBANKGLYPHSVEXTQUIZ (Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz.)
TVQUIZDRAGNYMPHBLEWJFKSCOX (TV quiz drag nymph blew JFK's cox.)
Or you can reverse the alphabet:
ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
or take the odd letters first, then the even ones:
ACEGIKMOQSUWYBDFHJLNPRTVXZ
or take them by frequency of usage in English- get something like (not sure of the middle letters):
ETAOINSHRDLCUMPGWYFBVKJXQZ
So now we have 7 different ways of ordering the letters.
Actually what they are doing in California is using the RWQ alphabet for District 1, then they shift the R to the end for District 2:
WQOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFLR
and then send the W to the end for District 3:
QOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFLRW
And so forth.
In any case, this thing in California looks like a mess. Talk about confusing ballots! A punch-the-pregnant-chad ballot with 80 candidates, much more complicated than any in Florida in 2000. I hope it works out OK.
California has a lot of things. It has energy crises, a governor so bad that he had to be recalled, people taking a cyanide trip to the other side of comet Hale-Bopp, movie superstars that try to outglitter the Milky Way but fail, and so forth. Now in this latest development in their three-ring circus that they call a Recall Election, California now has its own alphabet.
In kindergarten and early grade school, we learn the alphabet. We sing, "ABCDEFG…" That is the way we have always recognized the alphabet as being in order. But not in California any more. Due to the desire to randomize the candidates, the people running this Recall Election have invented their own alphabet. This means if you are a child in California, you now sing not "ABCDEFG…" but "RWQOJMV…" The entire California alphabet, in fact, reads:
RWQOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFL
This has some interesting consequences. For example, if you look in an ordinary dictionary to try to find the first and last words, the first word is a and the last word is zymurgy (science of fermentation), or perhaps zyzzogeton (a leaf hopper) if you have an unabridged. But not in California. No, if you look in a California dictionary, you will find the first word to be rorqual, which is a variety of whale. Next comes row, as in rowdy, which is an apt way to describe this election. What's the last word? It is llano, an Argentine plain, just barely beating out llama, the animal.
So many of us are used to the ABC alphabet that we are unaware of some of the other alphabets around. For example, this very keyboard I am typing on generates the QWERTY alphabet:
QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM
Pangrams are sentences containing each letter of the alphabet. A 26-letter pangram contains each letter once and only once, and is scarce. But if you find them, you can use them as an alphabet:
SQUDGYFEZBLANKJIMPCRWTHVOX (Squdgy fez, blank jimp crwth vox!)
CWMFJORDBANKGLYPHSVEXTQUIZ (Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz.)
TVQUIZDRAGNYMPHBLEWJFKSCOX (TV quiz drag nymph blew JFK's cox.)
Or you can reverse the alphabet:
ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
or take the odd letters first, then the even ones:
ACEGIKMOQSUWYBDFHJLNPRTVXZ
or take them by frequency of usage in English- get something like (not sure of the middle letters):
ETAOINSHRDLCUMPGWYFBVKJXQZ
So now we have 7 different ways of ordering the letters.
Actually what they are doing in California is using the RWQ alphabet for District 1, then they shift the R to the end for District 2:
WQOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFLR
and then send the W to the end for District 3:
QOJMVAHBSGZXNTCIEKUPDYFLRW
And so forth.
In any case, this thing in California looks like a mess. Talk about confusing ballots! A punch-the-pregnant-chad ballot with 80 candidates, much more complicated than any in Florida in 2000. I hope it works out OK.
2003/08/11
My Third Birthday
Tonight as I was returning from an astronomy meeting I saw the full moon out. Two days from now is my birthday, and I knew that I was born just after a full moon. It was a reminder that today is my third birthday. Not of regular years, but of metonic cycles. The sun and the moon have separate motions in the sky, and we find that there is 11 days of a moon left over after 12 moons to make a full calendar year. That's too bad. Otherwise one could tell the day of the month from the lunar phase. Even after two years, the phase of the moon and the end of the year don't correspond. Not after 3, 4, or 5 years does it correspond, because the sun and moon have periods that have nothing to do with each other. They are worse than irrational, in that we can't even compute beyond about 4-6 decimal places.
But they come really close after 19 years. The link above says that 19 years is only hours removed from being 235 moons. Therefore, lunar phases will repeat approximately after 19 years. This means that since there was a new moon on 1972 July 11, for example, there will be another one on 1991 July 11, 19 years and 235 moons later.
So what is my age in metonic cycles? It is 3. It is also 57 years, or 705 moons. So since the moon was full when I was born, it is full now - it is like a birth moon for me. I wonder if my mother saw the full moon when she was pregnant, and knew she had to go to the hospital - I was coming. It is also interesting that 57 and 705 both have a 5 and a 7 in them. I was a full grown adult on my first birthday in 1965; I was working as a janitor then during the summer while earning a degree at the University of Rochester. At two cycles, I was working as an operations research analyst, constructing models of such things as maintenance and warehousing. It was the Orwellian year 1984. Now it is 2003, and a third cycle has passed. It is interesting to see how the world has changed during these periods. I have things that I could have only dreamed of having in 1984, let alone 1965 or 1946, namely cell phones, PDAs, and a computer in a small piece of luggage many times more powerful than any computer in 1984, even mainframes. The next cycle will be in 2022, when I am 76 years or 912 moons old. If I am still blogging then, I will comment on my reaching the age of 4.
Tonight as I was returning from an astronomy meeting I saw the full moon out. Two days from now is my birthday, and I knew that I was born just after a full moon. It was a reminder that today is my third birthday. Not of regular years, but of metonic cycles. The sun and the moon have separate motions in the sky, and we find that there is 11 days of a moon left over after 12 moons to make a full calendar year. That's too bad. Otherwise one could tell the day of the month from the lunar phase. Even after two years, the phase of the moon and the end of the year don't correspond. Not after 3, 4, or 5 years does it correspond, because the sun and moon have periods that have nothing to do with each other. They are worse than irrational, in that we can't even compute beyond about 4-6 decimal places.
But they come really close after 19 years. The link above says that 19 years is only hours removed from being 235 moons. Therefore, lunar phases will repeat approximately after 19 years. This means that since there was a new moon on 1972 July 11, for example, there will be another one on 1991 July 11, 19 years and 235 moons later.
So what is my age in metonic cycles? It is 3. It is also 57 years, or 705 moons. So since the moon was full when I was born, it is full now - it is like a birth moon for me. I wonder if my mother saw the full moon when she was pregnant, and knew she had to go to the hospital - I was coming. It is also interesting that 57 and 705 both have a 5 and a 7 in them. I was a full grown adult on my first birthday in 1965; I was working as a janitor then during the summer while earning a degree at the University of Rochester. At two cycles, I was working as an operations research analyst, constructing models of such things as maintenance and warehousing. It was the Orwellian year 1984. Now it is 2003, and a third cycle has passed. It is interesting to see how the world has changed during these periods. I have things that I could have only dreamed of having in 1984, let alone 1965 or 1946, namely cell phones, PDAs, and a computer in a small piece of luggage many times more powerful than any computer in 1984, even mainframes. The next cycle will be in 2022, when I am 76 years or 912 moons old. If I am still blogging then, I will comment on my reaching the age of 4.
2003/08/10
If I were Governor of California
Well, now they are in. Over 100 candidates (the link requires that you fill in certain data) have filed for the recall election to replace Gray Davis as Governor of California. This is democracy in action. You don't have to choose between two candidates. You can choose from among a hundred of them. And it is not that hard to have filed for candidacy. All you need is 65 friends and $3,500, and, of course, be a resident of California. If you are on a third party ticket, you may just get by with 150 friends and $0.
Some of the candidates are interesting. Many play the same old banal lines, that they will cut the budget, that they will put good government back into California, and so forth. One of the more interesting ones said, "If I'm supposed to run for this office, please let there be some sign. At that very instant, this giant comet streaks across the sky and the comet is as bright as can be for five seconds OK, thank you, I got the message." This one would need some education. Comets don't streak across the sky. If he really wanted a comet to tell him to run for office, he should run for President in 2004. In 2004 a really bright comet is supposed to arrive (Comet NEAT).
One candidate is 100 years old. She will be 104 when her term ends. Two candidates are running because they believe that marijuana laws should be eased or eliminated. One of these is a disabled Vietnam veteran who has been jailed on marijuana charges. Several candidates say there should not be a recall, and at least one says he should not be the next governor. So there are some candidates that shoot themselves in the foot.
What would I say if I were running for governor of California? Here is what I would say: "The foremost problems in California are balancing the budget and straightening out the economy. But another problem is looming for California that affects both the budget and economy, and we had a precursor of it in 2000. There is going to be a natural gas shortage in California, and indeed in our entire nation. I would take steps right now to prepare for this crisis - encourage conservation, seek alternative sources of energy, especially hydrogen generated by sunlight, and encourage industry to reduce their dependence on natural gas. By taking these steps early, a huge energy crisis will be prevented or eased, one that could turn whoever is elected into the next Gray Davis."
Well, now they are in. Over 100 candidates (the link requires that you fill in certain data) have filed for the recall election to replace Gray Davis as Governor of California. This is democracy in action. You don't have to choose between two candidates. You can choose from among a hundred of them. And it is not that hard to have filed for candidacy. All you need is 65 friends and $3,500, and, of course, be a resident of California. If you are on a third party ticket, you may just get by with 150 friends and $0.
Some of the candidates are interesting. Many play the same old banal lines, that they will cut the budget, that they will put good government back into California, and so forth. One of the more interesting ones said, "If I'm supposed to run for this office, please let there be some sign. At that very instant, this giant comet streaks across the sky and the comet is as bright as can be for five seconds OK, thank you, I got the message." This one would need some education. Comets don't streak across the sky. If he really wanted a comet to tell him to run for office, he should run for President in 2004. In 2004 a really bright comet is supposed to arrive (Comet NEAT).
One candidate is 100 years old. She will be 104 when her term ends. Two candidates are running because they believe that marijuana laws should be eased or eliminated. One of these is a disabled Vietnam veteran who has been jailed on marijuana charges. Several candidates say there should not be a recall, and at least one says he should not be the next governor. So there are some candidates that shoot themselves in the foot.
What would I say if I were running for governor of California? Here is what I would say: "The foremost problems in California are balancing the budget and straightening out the economy. But another problem is looming for California that affects both the budget and economy, and we had a precursor of it in 2000. There is going to be a natural gas shortage in California, and indeed in our entire nation. I would take steps right now to prepare for this crisis - encourage conservation, seek alternative sources of energy, especially hydrogen generated by sunlight, and encourage industry to reduce their dependence on natural gas. By taking these steps early, a huge energy crisis will be prevented or eased, one that could turn whoever is elected into the next Gray Davis."
2003/08/07
California's weird election
I see now that Gray Davis now has to go through a recall election. The laws of California say that all you need to run for Governor is to be a resident of California, pay $3,500, and get 65 signatures. A K2 person can easily run for Governor. (K2 means that the person knows or is known by between 31 and 316 people; the notation is logarithmic and is explained in "Logarithms keep Doc Brown in Perspective"). Most of us are K3 (between 316 and 3,162 people), so most of us could run for governor, and a lot of people are. I hear that there are 352 candidates for governor now, and the number is likely to rise. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arianna Huffington, and Larry Flynt are among the candidates. So also is Bridget O'Reilly, who has been unemployed for three years and thinks of this as another job she is trying to get. She will get fame and notice out of this, and that may help her to get another job.
But with so many candidates, we could wind up with a winner with only 5.2% of the vote, say, but leading all the 351 others by a wide margin. And perhaps those 5.2% are a fringe group that the other 94.8% don't believe in at all. You get one of those as governor and almost everyone will be unhappy. So this could get wild. If they are going to do this, they need a runoff election, or several runoff elections, to eliminate the fringes and get at the candidates that are rated in the top 10% or so by everyone.
This may even hurt Bush's chances of getting reelected next year. I thought at first of an Arnold Schwarzenegger challenge to the Republican Party's nomination of Bush, but he is foreign-born. Still, this could be a place where people voice their discontent, and maybe a governor will be elected who will be emboldened by this either to challenge Bush for the Republican nomination or run as a third-party. If either of these succeed, Bush loses a Lichtman key and perhaps the election.
I see now that Gray Davis now has to go through a recall election. The laws of California say that all you need to run for Governor is to be a resident of California, pay $3,500, and get 65 signatures. A K2 person can easily run for Governor. (K2 means that the person knows or is known by between 31 and 316 people; the notation is logarithmic and is explained in "Logarithms keep Doc Brown in Perspective"). Most of us are K3 (between 316 and 3,162 people), so most of us could run for governor, and a lot of people are. I hear that there are 352 candidates for governor now, and the number is likely to rise. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arianna Huffington, and Larry Flynt are among the candidates. So also is Bridget O'Reilly, who has been unemployed for three years and thinks of this as another job she is trying to get. She will get fame and notice out of this, and that may help her to get another job.
But with so many candidates, we could wind up with a winner with only 5.2% of the vote, say, but leading all the 351 others by a wide margin. And perhaps those 5.2% are a fringe group that the other 94.8% don't believe in at all. You get one of those as governor and almost everyone will be unhappy. So this could get wild. If they are going to do this, they need a runoff election, or several runoff elections, to eliminate the fringes and get at the candidates that are rated in the top 10% or so by everyone.
This may even hurt Bush's chances of getting reelected next year. I thought at first of an Arnold Schwarzenegger challenge to the Republican Party's nomination of Bush, but he is foreign-born. Still, this could be a place where people voice their discontent, and maybe a governor will be elected who will be emboldened by this either to challenge Bush for the Republican nomination or run as a third-party. If either of these succeed, Bush loses a Lichtman key and perhaps the election.
Googlisms
Recently I found out about a googly type site on the Internet. It is Googlisms. No, this is not Google&tm;. It is a site set up by an Australian in which you type in a name, click a radio button labeled "who", "where", "what", or "when", and submit, and the result is a list of quotes from the Internet concerning the name you submitted. For example, if you submit "bill gates", you get things like "bill gates is satan conspiracy theory", "bill gates is the pope" and so forth. So I experimented with it. I submitted my name and got nothing. I submitted the names of some people I know, and I got some items on some of them. I then tried dates and organizations such as the Astronomical League and got lists of items describing them. I tried "blogtrek" and got "blogtrek is getting out". I don't want to see that. I looked "blogtrek is getting out" in Google and got one of my previous pages in which I find that other bloggers are listing a link to my Blogtrek. I wrote "I am glad to see that word of Blogtrek is getting out." As you can see, Googlisms took that phrase right out of context. That is not what I meant at all. I found an even more egregious case when I looked up "toastmasters". I got "toastmasters is only for professional speakers". Whaaa?? The whole purpose of Toastmasters is to give people new to public speaking or afraid of it a chance to get better with speaking. It is not just for professional speakers. I looked up the phrase in Google and got from the site http://www.portlandtn.com/toastmasters.htm the quote "Some might think Toastmasters is solely for professional speakers. It is not. Toastmasters come from a variety of occupations and backgrounds.". By taking the phrase out of context, Googlisms completely reversed the meaning of this quote!
I did some more "googlisming" and concluded that it looks for your search term plus "is" (not "are", not "was"; if you try a plural noun, you may not get any hits) plus a phrase that lasts until something other than a letter, number, sharp, or space is found. No wonder we get out-of-context returns. "of" phrases can easily change radically in meaning: "A daughter of Mary is a kindergartener." to kindergarten together" becomes "Mary is a kindergartener." Googlisms will make the mother go to school too.
Therefore I consider this site dangerous. Using "is" as your verb is said to be bad form, and it does not occur that often. Therefore, most of the people I know get no hits, even though they occur frequently on the Web. You now have to be careful how you use "is" because Googlism will pick it up and chop your sentence to pieces. Googlisms may be fun, but don't take it too seriously. Take everything in context.
Recently I found out about a googly type site on the Internet. It is Googlisms. No, this is not Google&tm;. It is a site set up by an Australian in which you type in a name, click a radio button labeled "who", "where", "what", or "when", and submit, and the result is a list of quotes from the Internet concerning the name you submitted. For example, if you submit "bill gates", you get things like "bill gates is satan conspiracy theory", "bill gates is the pope" and so forth. So I experimented with it. I submitted my name and got nothing. I submitted the names of some people I know, and I got some items on some of them. I then tried dates and organizations such as the Astronomical League and got lists of items describing them. I tried "blogtrek" and got "blogtrek is getting out". I don't want to see that. I looked "blogtrek is getting out" in Google and got one of my previous pages in which I find that other bloggers are listing a link to my Blogtrek. I wrote "I am glad to see that word of Blogtrek is getting out." As you can see, Googlisms took that phrase right out of context. That is not what I meant at all. I found an even more egregious case when I looked up "toastmasters". I got "toastmasters is only for professional speakers". Whaaa?? The whole purpose of Toastmasters is to give people new to public speaking or afraid of it a chance to get better with speaking. It is not just for professional speakers. I looked up the phrase in Google and got from the site http://www.portlandtn.com/toastmasters.htm the quote "Some might think Toastmasters is solely for professional speakers. It is not. Toastmasters come from a variety of occupations and backgrounds.". By taking the phrase out of context, Googlisms completely reversed the meaning of this quote!
I did some more "googlisming" and concluded that it looks for your search term plus "is" (not "are", not "was"; if you try a plural noun, you may not get any hits) plus a phrase that lasts until something other than a letter, number, sharp, or space is found. No wonder we get out-of-context returns. "of" phrases can easily change radically in meaning: "A daughter of Mary is a kindergartener." to kindergarten together" becomes "Mary is a kindergartener." Googlisms will make the mother go to school too.
Therefore I consider this site dangerous. Using "is" as your verb is said to be bad form, and it does not occur that often. Therefore, most of the people I know get no hits, even though they occur frequently on the Web. You now have to be careful how you use "is" because Googlism will pick it up and chop your sentence to pieces. Googlisms may be fun, but don't take it too seriously. Take everything in context.
2003/08/05
The Mystery Man of Carly Simon
I heard in a news story yesterday; for example, in USA Today, that Carly Simon sold at an auction for $50,000 the identity of the mystery man in the song You're So Vain. The winner of the auction had to promise Carly that he would never give away the identity of the vain man. Lots of legends have built over the 30 years since the song came out about just who this vain man with the apricot scarf was. Some say it was Warren Beatty, others Cat Stevens, and Kris Kristofferson and Mick Jagger have been mentioned as well.
The song is interesting in many respects, and it is somewhat vain itself and certainly it contradicts itself, rather like a snake eating its own tail. The picture that it paints is certainly a vain one. This guy saunters out onto a dance floor wearing an apricot scarf, which normally would be found on a woman. He cocks his cap a certain way, strategically. Interesting. He doesn't boogie on the dance floor. He doesn't salsa, waltz, swing, or rock either. He gavottes. He is pretty, prim and proper about it, just like the type of dance the gavotte is. He is looking in the mirror to see how pretty he is. Well hasn't everyone from time to time? And certainly if all the people of the opposite sex wanted to be with you, that would make you feel good, wouldn't it? I certainly would if I had women pursuing me left and right. Sadly, most of my life has not been like that at all, although for a few precious times it has.
So this is a pretty vain cat, whoever he is. Some other aspects of this song interest me as well. For example, She sings "then you flew your Lear jet to Nova Scotia to see a total eclipse of the sun". She means the 1972 July 10 total eclipse of the sun in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Gaspe. I saw that eclipse from Prince Edward Island, but I took the train, not a Lear jet. I wasn't that vain. Besides, a 25-year-old brand new math PhD does not have that kind of money. It got really DARK when I saw that eclipse on Stanhope Beach. I tried to take a picture of it with an Instamatic but it did not come out. I resolved right then and there to see another one with proper equipment.
So I went to Mexico on 1991 July 11 to see it. I had a 4-inch telescope and a camera and took a good photo of that eclipse, the longest in our lives (see My Astronomy Page for my photo of that eclipse). If the Carly Simon song had come out then, it would have said, "took your Lear jet to Cabo San Lucas to see a total eclipse of the sun...".
But talking about my rather huge web site sounds pretty vain in itself, so I will come back to Carly. Some other interesting words in the song are "clouds in my coffee", as though your inner weather is determined by the weather in a cup of holy brown liquid; "some underground spy or the wife of a close friend"; well certainly I would not want to deal with any spy, let alone an underground one; I don't know about the close friend's wife. She said she was quite naïve. Well, everyone is when they are young.
But the thing that really gets me going about this song is that it contradicts itself. She sings, "You're so vain." OK. This guy does sound pretty narcissistic. But then she sings "You think this song is about you, don't you?" She implies by her tone of voice that this song was not written with this vain guy in mind, that it was one of those parts of her life that don't concern him at all. But look again at the lyrics. Just about every word in the song talks about this mystery man. It is about him, isn't it? Isn't it? Isn't it? The song contradicts itself; it is essentially an embellishment of the sentence "This sentence is false."
Besides there is something vain about the idea of writing about a mystery person. It gives you a certain sense of price to know that you sang about a person that nobody knows who it is. I know, for I have written such a song. Go to jimvb.home.mindspring.com/music2002.htm and you will see some of the lyrics of a song I wrote about someone. No, I am not going to tell anyone who this is. In fact, I am displaying only four lines of the lyrics of the song. Perhaps I will tell when Carly Simon tells me who she's singing about.
I heard in a news story yesterday; for example, in USA Today, that Carly Simon sold at an auction for $50,000 the identity of the mystery man in the song You're So Vain. The winner of the auction had to promise Carly that he would never give away the identity of the vain man. Lots of legends have built over the 30 years since the song came out about just who this vain man with the apricot scarf was. Some say it was Warren Beatty, others Cat Stevens, and Kris Kristofferson and Mick Jagger have been mentioned as well.
The song is interesting in many respects, and it is somewhat vain itself and certainly it contradicts itself, rather like a snake eating its own tail. The picture that it paints is certainly a vain one. This guy saunters out onto a dance floor wearing an apricot scarf, which normally would be found on a woman. He cocks his cap a certain way, strategically. Interesting. He doesn't boogie on the dance floor. He doesn't salsa, waltz, swing, or rock either. He gavottes. He is pretty, prim and proper about it, just like the type of dance the gavotte is. He is looking in the mirror to see how pretty he is. Well hasn't everyone from time to time? And certainly if all the people of the opposite sex wanted to be with you, that would make you feel good, wouldn't it? I certainly would if I had women pursuing me left and right. Sadly, most of my life has not been like that at all, although for a few precious times it has.
So this is a pretty vain cat, whoever he is. Some other aspects of this song interest me as well. For example, She sings "then you flew your Lear jet to Nova Scotia to see a total eclipse of the sun". She means the 1972 July 10 total eclipse of the sun in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Gaspe. I saw that eclipse from Prince Edward Island, but I took the train, not a Lear jet. I wasn't that vain. Besides, a 25-year-old brand new math PhD does not have that kind of money. It got really DARK when I saw that eclipse on Stanhope Beach. I tried to take a picture of it with an Instamatic but it did not come out. I resolved right then and there to see another one with proper equipment.
So I went to Mexico on 1991 July 11 to see it. I had a 4-inch telescope and a camera and took a good photo of that eclipse, the longest in our lives (see My Astronomy Page for my photo of that eclipse). If the Carly Simon song had come out then, it would have said, "took your Lear jet to Cabo San Lucas to see a total eclipse of the sun...".
But talking about my rather huge web site sounds pretty vain in itself, so I will come back to Carly. Some other interesting words in the song are "clouds in my coffee", as though your inner weather is determined by the weather in a cup of holy brown liquid; "some underground spy or the wife of a close friend"; well certainly I would not want to deal with any spy, let alone an underground one; I don't know about the close friend's wife. She said she was quite naïve. Well, everyone is when they are young.
But the thing that really gets me going about this song is that it contradicts itself. She sings, "You're so vain." OK. This guy does sound pretty narcissistic. But then she sings "You think this song is about you, don't you?" She implies by her tone of voice that this song was not written with this vain guy in mind, that it was one of those parts of her life that don't concern him at all. But look again at the lyrics. Just about every word in the song talks about this mystery man. It is about him, isn't it? Isn't it? Isn't it? The song contradicts itself; it is essentially an embellishment of the sentence "This sentence is false."
Besides there is something vain about the idea of writing about a mystery person. It gives you a certain sense of price to know that you sang about a person that nobody knows who it is. I know, for I have written such a song. Go to jimvb.home.mindspring.com/music2002.htm and you will see some of the lyrics of a song I wrote about someone. No, I am not going to tell anyone who this is. In fact, I am displaying only four lines of the lyrics of the song. Perhaps I will tell when Carly Simon tells me who she's singing about.
The Tri-City Tornado of 1993
Storm after storm after storm this spring. At least it wasn't as bad as 10 years ago here. On 1993 August 6 an F4 tornado tore through Old Town Petersburg, Virginia and a Wal-Mart in Colonial Heights causing four deaths and property damage so bad that some of it still hasn't been repaired. The strange thing about this for me is that first of all I was not at work but I was on RDO ("regular day off"); for the people at work, it was "not a RDO", which if you rearrange the letters thereof, you get "tornado". Everyone should have taken that Friday off. In fact, I think it would do this country good if everyone would take every Friday off and do what they feel like doing; make every Friday a SUUSI.
The other strange thing is that I had a dream about tornados two nights previous. Here is the text of part of that dream:
I was in a large parking lot. I was with another group of people, but the lot was nearly empty. There was supposed to have been some sort of workshop (or worship?) here. I had heard earlier of some approaching thunderstorms. Then I heard thunder.
I looked up and saw a threatening sky in front of us, quite black. I did not want to go anywhere, however. We were discussing some sort of deal. "We" consisted of me, Anne, and some friends of ours, and a group of people from elsewhere that we had known earlier. I heard you should go inside in case of tornadoes striking. I tried to keep attention but I turned around and I saw two tornadoes coming out of the blackness. They were small in diameter, frizzly, and as black as the clouds. They came right at us. We did not do anything but wait and see where they would go. They side-swiped us to the right, and I could feel the high wind from them even though they did not strike us headon. The tornadoes also went up in the air slightly. After they left, I saw things were apparently OK. But I saw more tornadoes coming.
It startled me when I had that dream, and then the real thing struck two days later. It came close to the church I went to but did not quite hit it. Predictive dream? At that time even ABC was interested in my story, but they rejected it. I suppose it was because I concluded that the dream was caused not by the tornado of August 6 but by the storms of August 2, which caused four power outages at my house.
But still that tornado devastated the community, especially Petersburg (Wal-Mart came out of it OK - they replaced the destroyed store with a Sams and built an even bigger Wal-Mart a mile down the road) and it gave pause to me - some day this could happen to my house, to me. We are not the master of nature.
Storm after storm after storm this spring. At least it wasn't as bad as 10 years ago here. On 1993 August 6 an F4 tornado tore through Old Town Petersburg, Virginia and a Wal-Mart in Colonial Heights causing four deaths and property damage so bad that some of it still hasn't been repaired. The strange thing about this for me is that first of all I was not at work but I was on RDO ("regular day off"); for the people at work, it was "not a RDO", which if you rearrange the letters thereof, you get "tornado". Everyone should have taken that Friday off. In fact, I think it would do this country good if everyone would take every Friday off and do what they feel like doing; make every Friday a SUUSI.
The other strange thing is that I had a dream about tornados two nights previous. Here is the text of part of that dream:
I was in a large parking lot. I was with another group of people, but the lot was nearly empty. There was supposed to have been some sort of workshop (or worship?) here. I had heard earlier of some approaching thunderstorms. Then I heard thunder.
I looked up and saw a threatening sky in front of us, quite black. I did not want to go anywhere, however. We were discussing some sort of deal. "We" consisted of me, Anne, and some friends of ours, and a group of people from elsewhere that we had known earlier. I heard you should go inside in case of tornadoes striking. I tried to keep attention but I turned around and I saw two tornadoes coming out of the blackness. They were small in diameter, frizzly, and as black as the clouds. They came right at us. We did not do anything but wait and see where they would go. They side-swiped us to the right, and I could feel the high wind from them even though they did not strike us headon. The tornadoes also went up in the air slightly. After they left, I saw things were apparently OK. But I saw more tornadoes coming.
It startled me when I had that dream, and then the real thing struck two days later. It came close to the church I went to but did not quite hit it. Predictive dream? At that time even ABC was interested in my story, but they rejected it. I suppose it was because I concluded that the dream was caused not by the tornado of August 6 but by the storms of August 2, which caused four power outages at my house.
But still that tornado devastated the community, especially Petersburg (Wal-Mart came out of it OK - they replaced the destroyed store with a Sams and built an even bigger Wal-Mart a mile down the road) and it gave pause to me - some day this could happen to my house, to me. We are not the master of nature.
The size of hailstones
I have been hearing reports in the media and from NOAA and other weather people about hailstorms. In these reports they describe to us how big they were. They don't say "13 mm" or "1 inch" because most of us don't have a feel for how big that is. Instead, they say things like "golf-ball-sized hail", or "quarter-sized hail". I tried doing a Google&tm; game on that. I Googled for "sized hail". I got these sizes: pea, nickel, quarter, dime, golf ball, tennis ball, baseball, grapefruit, softball, soccer, and volleyball. Volleyball-sized hail? That would really be apocalyptic. Good thing I got no basketball-sized hail.
But what is of more interest to me is the object that people use to compare hail with. Most of the time it is either a monetary coin or a ball from a ball game of some sort. Does the selection of such words reflect our society? Is it mainly interested in money and sports? It would appear that way, when football and basketball stars earn tens of millions of dollars a year. Suppose people were more interested in gardening instead. Then we would see "petunia-sized hail" or "dandelion-sized hail"; something like that. A person in the medical field might say "fingernail-sized hail" or "kneecap-sized hail". The fact that hail is either dime-sized or tennis-ball-sized tells me something about our society. Namely, that we are gaga about moolah and sports.
I have been hearing reports in the media and from NOAA and other weather people about hailstorms. In these reports they describe to us how big they were. They don't say "13 mm" or "1 inch" because most of us don't have a feel for how big that is. Instead, they say things like "golf-ball-sized hail", or "quarter-sized hail". I tried doing a Google&tm; game on that. I Googled for "sized hail". I got these sizes: pea, nickel, quarter, dime, golf ball, tennis ball, baseball, grapefruit, softball, soccer, and volleyball. Volleyball-sized hail? That would really be apocalyptic. Good thing I got no basketball-sized hail.
But what is of more interest to me is the object that people use to compare hail with. Most of the time it is either a monetary coin or a ball from a ball game of some sort. Does the selection of such words reflect our society? Is it mainly interested in money and sports? It would appear that way, when football and basketball stars earn tens of millions of dollars a year. Suppose people were more interested in gardening instead. Then we would see "petunia-sized hail" or "dandelion-sized hail"; something like that. A person in the medical field might say "fingernail-sized hail" or "kneecap-sized hail". The fact that hail is either dime-sized or tennis-ball-sized tells me something about our society. Namely, that we are gaga about moolah and sports.
2003/08/03
Anaphylactic Shock
This weekend while running through the woods, I hit a wasp nest and got stung four times. It seems to be OK now but it did hurt at first. The sting puts in a "peptide" which has no lasting effect but it does cause the area to swell at first. My main fear was "anaphylactic shock". I looked this up and found that it was the immune system reacting or overreacting to the attack by the wasps. This can cause much worse problems than the original stings - it can cause shortness of breath and in some cases death. That is why some people when they go out in to the woods must carry an antidote kit with them in case this happens.
When I found out about this, I thought of another case which could be called anaphylactic shock, namely Planeattack, the terrorist attacks of 2001 September 11. They were devastating, especially to some people, but as a whole it just hurt a bit and the nation continued to function after about two months. Sort of like the wasp stings. However, the aftereffects of this attack are still continuing to be fought. There are much tighter restrictions on air travel now. Access to military bases is much stricter. There is a national alert system, and the Patriot Act, which throws a lot of constitutional provisions out the window, was passed. I wonder if this is a case of national anaphylactic shock. I hope not, but certainly the Patriot Act needs to be repealed.
This weekend while running through the woods, I hit a wasp nest and got stung four times. It seems to be OK now but it did hurt at first. The sting puts in a "peptide" which has no lasting effect but it does cause the area to swell at first. My main fear was "anaphylactic shock". I looked this up and found that it was the immune system reacting or overreacting to the attack by the wasps. This can cause much worse problems than the original stings - it can cause shortness of breath and in some cases death. That is why some people when they go out in to the woods must carry an antidote kit with them in case this happens.
When I found out about this, I thought of another case which could be called anaphylactic shock, namely Planeattack, the terrorist attacks of 2001 September 11. They were devastating, especially to some people, but as a whole it just hurt a bit and the nation continued to function after about two months. Sort of like the wasp stings. However, the aftereffects of this attack are still continuing to be fought. There are much tighter restrictions on air travel now. Access to military bases is much stricter. There is a national alert system, and the Patriot Act, which throws a lot of constitutional provisions out the window, was passed. I wonder if this is a case of national anaphylactic shock. I hope not, but certainly the Patriot Act needs to be repealed.
2003/07/31
Blogger is weird tonight
When I just tried publishing the blog on trust to my site tonight with Blogger on Internet Explorer, it started going click...click...click... for an infinite number of times. I checked the page and found that the blog had not been published. So I went to Opera. It gave me a weird display with everything huge and few of the buttons I was familiar with. So I quit Opera and went to Netscape. Netscape gave me that same strange display. So I tried posting to it. It gave me a long list of stuff and squawked about some error. To me that tells me that Blogger is going wacky tonight. The first requirement for a blogging system is that it gives me a reasonable display to blog from, and it did not do that tonight, not at any time, not at any place, not with any browser.
Oh finally, I tried Internet Explorer again. This time it clicked twice and then said that my post was successful. So it looks like Blogger came to its senses. But too many of these cuckoo spells and I will be looking for another blogging system.
When I just tried publishing the blog on trust to my site tonight with Blogger on Internet Explorer, it started going click...click...click... for an infinite number of times. I checked the page and found that the blog had not been published. So I went to Opera. It gave me a weird display with everything huge and few of the buttons I was familiar with. So I quit Opera and went to Netscape. Netscape gave me that same strange display. So I tried posting to it. It gave me a long list of stuff and squawked about some error. To me that tells me that Blogger is going wacky tonight. The first requirement for a blogging system is that it gives me a reasonable display to blog from, and it did not do that tonight, not at any time, not at any place, not with any browser.
Oh finally, I tried Internet Explorer again. This time it clicked twice and then said that my post was successful. So it looks like Blogger came to its senses. But too many of these cuckoo spells and I will be looking for another blogging system.
Trust: interesting article
In this blog before I mentioned that frequently when a politician or other important figure makes a statement, it is false. In fact, I even developed a logic out of it in which the hypothesis are assumed to be false and the conclusion is then to be proven true. An example would be Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook." I said this means he is a crook.
Today an Leonard Pitts entitled "A matter of trust and the truth" says that this is taking skepticism as a default position. It is assuming that a statement is a lie until proven otherwise. He cites many examples of it including the enduring belief that astronauts really didn't land on the Moon. He says that the Internet makes things worse by letting any blowhard say that anything in the world is false or is a Communist or government plot or CIA plot or something. He even mentions the belief that blue is not blue but is instead a US Government ploy.
If things get this far, trust and communication break down. Each of us has to depend on ourselves, for we can't depend on each other. Mr. Pitts says we need to come back again to a common language and common ground that allows us to disagree and still come together to achieve things collectively.
I say it is more than that. It seems that there have been so many injuries to our sense of trust, including Watergate, statements about weapons of mass destruction, statements about what happened with that intern in the White House office, and so forth that societal trust has broken down. According to The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe, a major societal crisis is needed to build a new world order and bring trust back. Perhaps this is what is needed. In the meantime, we will have to do our best to determining what in the media and other high places is true and what is not.
In this blog before I mentioned that frequently when a politician or other important figure makes a statement, it is false. In fact, I even developed a logic out of it in which the hypothesis are assumed to be false and the conclusion is then to be proven true. An example would be Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook." I said this means he is a crook.
Today an Leonard Pitts entitled "A matter of trust and the truth" says that this is taking skepticism as a default position. It is assuming that a statement is a lie until proven otherwise. He cites many examples of it including the enduring belief that astronauts really didn't land on the Moon. He says that the Internet makes things worse by letting any blowhard say that anything in the world is false or is a Communist or government plot or CIA plot or something. He even mentions the belief that blue is not blue but is instead a US Government ploy.
If things get this far, trust and communication break down. Each of us has to depend on ourselves, for we can't depend on each other. Mr. Pitts says we need to come back again to a common language and common ground that allows us to disagree and still come together to achieve things collectively.
I say it is more than that. It seems that there have been so many injuries to our sense of trust, including Watergate, statements about weapons of mass destruction, statements about what happened with that intern in the White House office, and so forth that societal trust has broken down. According to The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe, a major societal crisis is needed to build a new world order and bring trust back. Perhaps this is what is needed. In the meantime, we will have to do our best to determining what in the media and other high places is true and what is not.
2003/07/30
Singing advice causes mondegreens
Last week I attended a workshop on improving my voice quality presented by Amy Carol Webb and learned a lot about how I can improve my speaking and singing voice. It is a matter of opening up the mouth and breathing below the diaphragm. But I heard a tip there that may not work out. I had heard it before. There are certain vowels that one should not sing long on, because they don't sound well. One of these is long e (in English), as in Bees. My instructor said to sing "biii…" with i as in "bin". This reminded me of advice I had received much earlier in a vocal group. Don't sound the vowel "ir" or "r" as in "bird". In other words, sing "gloooooory", not "gloerrrrrrry", which does not sound as well. This improves the vocal quality of a song.
Unfortunately it can also cause trouble. For example, in "I Come From Woman", one of Amy's songs, she sings "women of tears". Following the advice, she does not sing the "er" vowel at the end. But this leads to a mondegreen; that is, a misheard song lyric. She came out singing "women of tease", which is not what she meant at all. When I heard it, it sounded like "women of cheese", which is also not what was intended. In other words, if you alter vowel sounds to make songs sound better, you will be misunderstood. Sometimes, you need to make consonants clear; for example, pronouncing "t" forcefully with the tongue against the teeth. For example, I also heard "Women who pass this course for me." Sounds like cheating, but she really intended "Women who passed the torch for me."
As one can tell from the link on "mondegreen", which by the way is a web site whose name is a mondegreen (www.kissthisguy.com), many, many singers make mondegreens. How can they avoid it? Here's what I say:
1. Make your voice clear - voice from the abdomen, clear pronunciation, and clearly understood vowels.
2. Don't alter a vowel if it will change the meaning. Sometimes you have to sing "teaerrrrrs".
3. Make your voice substantially louder than the instruments or singers who accompany you.
4. Avoid phrases that sound like other phrases. For example, don't sing "the sky", for it sounds like "disguise" and "this guy".
5. Some lyrics don't make sense grammatically or in meaning. Sometimes this is part of being poetic. Imagine Lucy being up in the sky with diamonds. But the meaning of this is so off-beat that the mind wants to find a more usual meaning for it; for instance, "Lucy met this guy; he's dying". If you must sing unusual lyrics, you need to be especially clear, with faint accompaniment.
Hopefully these pointers will prevent future singers from finding their lyrics on www.kissthisguy.com.
Last week I attended a workshop on improving my voice quality presented by Amy Carol Webb and learned a lot about how I can improve my speaking and singing voice. It is a matter of opening up the mouth and breathing below the diaphragm. But I heard a tip there that may not work out. I had heard it before. There are certain vowels that one should not sing long on, because they don't sound well. One of these is long e (in English), as in Bees. My instructor said to sing "biii…" with i as in "bin". This reminded me of advice I had received much earlier in a vocal group. Don't sound the vowel "ir" or "r" as in "bird". In other words, sing "gloooooory", not "gloerrrrrrry", which does not sound as well. This improves the vocal quality of a song.
Unfortunately it can also cause trouble. For example, in "I Come From Woman", one of Amy's songs, she sings "women of tears". Following the advice, she does not sing the "er" vowel at the end. But this leads to a mondegreen; that is, a misheard song lyric. She came out singing "women of tease", which is not what she meant at all. When I heard it, it sounded like "women of cheese", which is also not what was intended. In other words, if you alter vowel sounds to make songs sound better, you will be misunderstood. Sometimes, you need to make consonants clear; for example, pronouncing "t" forcefully with the tongue against the teeth. For example, I also heard "Women who pass this course for me." Sounds like cheating, but she really intended "Women who passed the torch for me."
As one can tell from the link on "mondegreen", which by the way is a web site whose name is a mondegreen (www.kissthisguy.com), many, many singers make mondegreens. How can they avoid it? Here's what I say:
1. Make your voice clear - voice from the abdomen, clear pronunciation, and clearly understood vowels.
2. Don't alter a vowel if it will change the meaning. Sometimes you have to sing "teaerrrrrs".
3. Make your voice substantially louder than the instruments or singers who accompany you.
4. Avoid phrases that sound like other phrases. For example, don't sing "the sky", for it sounds like "disguise" and "this guy".
5. Some lyrics don't make sense grammatically or in meaning. Sometimes this is part of being poetic. Imagine Lucy being up in the sky with diamonds. But the meaning of this is so off-beat that the mind wants to find a more usual meaning for it; for instance, "Lucy met this guy; he's dying". If you must sing unusual lyrics, you need to be especially clear, with faint accompaniment.
Hopefully these pointers will prevent future singers from finding their lyrics on www.kissthisguy.com.
2003/07/29
Planning a Planeattack
I heard on the news today that terrorists may be planning another planeattack, similar to the Planeattack that occurred on 2001 September 11 claiming 3,000 lives. In my opinion, this is now much less likely to happen, due to changes since the 2001 Planeattack. So what must a terrorist do to conduct a planeattack? There are certain steps and requirements he has to follow, and these have become much harder to crack due to increased security measures and a changed attitude of the public. Here is what he is up against.
First, he has to get some buddies. A single person cannot conduct a planeattack. It's only one of him against the 3 person crew of the airplane. At least five hijackers are required to bring it off. Since any reasonably minded pilot will resist an order to fly the plane into a building, one of the hijackers must take flying lessons. The flying schools are all aware of what happened on 2001/9/11, and they will be suspicious of people wanting to learn how to find jetliners. But suppose one of them can fly the plane. They have to get on the plane with weapons. But they can't use knives or box cutters, because security screeners will now catch them and take them away. They have to use other objects (a camera was mentioned in the news) or even their fists, and that may not be as successful. When they are on the plane and attempt to take it over, they will now face a reinforced cockpit door and much stiffer resistance. The crew will counterattack, and may even have guns, legal or not. A charge of the cockpit may net a bullet hole in the head. The passengers may attack; this has already happened with United 93. Even if they incapacitate the crew and take over the airplane, the plane will fly in a strange direction and air traffic controllers will pick it up, regardless of whether transponders are on or not. And if they start heading for a building, the chances are more likely now than before that a military jet will be there to shoot it down, killing all aboard the plane but saving an entire building of occupants.
For these reasons, I am not concerned that another planeattack will occur. Terrorists ensured that when they conducted the 2001 Planeattack, making the public much more aware of these threats.
I heard on the news today that terrorists may be planning another planeattack, similar to the Planeattack that occurred on 2001 September 11 claiming 3,000 lives. In my opinion, this is now much less likely to happen, due to changes since the 2001 Planeattack. So what must a terrorist do to conduct a planeattack? There are certain steps and requirements he has to follow, and these have become much harder to crack due to increased security measures and a changed attitude of the public. Here is what he is up against.
First, he has to get some buddies. A single person cannot conduct a planeattack. It's only one of him against the 3 person crew of the airplane. At least five hijackers are required to bring it off. Since any reasonably minded pilot will resist an order to fly the plane into a building, one of the hijackers must take flying lessons. The flying schools are all aware of what happened on 2001/9/11, and they will be suspicious of people wanting to learn how to find jetliners. But suppose one of them can fly the plane. They have to get on the plane with weapons. But they can't use knives or box cutters, because security screeners will now catch them and take them away. They have to use other objects (a camera was mentioned in the news) or even their fists, and that may not be as successful. When they are on the plane and attempt to take it over, they will now face a reinforced cockpit door and much stiffer resistance. The crew will counterattack, and may even have guns, legal or not. A charge of the cockpit may net a bullet hole in the head. The passengers may attack; this has already happened with United 93. Even if they incapacitate the crew and take over the airplane, the plane will fly in a strange direction and air traffic controllers will pick it up, regardless of whether transponders are on or not. And if they start heading for a building, the chances are more likely now than before that a military jet will be there to shoot it down, killing all aboard the plane but saving an entire building of occupants.
For these reasons, I am not concerned that another planeattack will occur. Terrorists ensured that when they conducted the 2001 Planeattack, making the public much more aware of these threats.
2003/07/28
Astrology does have its uses
The ancient discipline of astrology claims that the motions of the planets determine the course of our lives. For example, Mercury in opposition is said to cause accidents, and Neptune is said to influence aviation. There is no evidence supporting this, and indeed there is a whole list of personal characteristics of all kinds that have been shown by statistical means to be independent of the Sun sign. So why do people continue to believe in it? Why are there about 20,000 professional astrologers and only 2,000 professional astronomers?
To me it seems that astrology does not have much use. But wait. It does have a use, because people believe in it. For example, the Reagans have been said to use astrology to select propitious times to do things. This means one can use astrology to predict other people's behavior. For example, many people read the horoscope in the morning paper. If you know the Sun sign of someone, and they read the horoscope, you can figure out how they will behave. For example, for today it says for Libra, "Important news reaches you. You're on top of the world. A new endeavor catches your imagination." Libra, according to traditional astrology (but not astronomy!) is Sept 23-Oct 22. If you know someone with one of these birthdays, and you have something important or big to tell them but are waiting for the moment to do so, now may be the time. Also, if you are looking for ideas for a big project, a Libra would be the one to ask today. If that Libra believes in astrology and reads the horoscope page, they may be listening to their imaginations and capturing new ideas more than usual. You might not want to attract people by this method. If a horoscope for Scorpio reads "Possible chance meeting with the person of your life today." and you are a man who knows a woman Scorpio that looks interesting, today would be the day to ask her for the date or to get intimate with her. However, if you do that, you will wind up with a romantic relationship with someone who believes in astrology, which may not be in your best interest.
But one can predict people's behavior by this method, as long as people fall for the non-scientific advice of astrologers. For example, by studying these columns and horoscopes in the 1980s, one could have predicted many of Ronald Reagan's actions and have taken advantage of them.
The ancient discipline of astrology claims that the motions of the planets determine the course of our lives. For example, Mercury in opposition is said to cause accidents, and Neptune is said to influence aviation. There is no evidence supporting this, and indeed there is a whole list of personal characteristics of all kinds that have been shown by statistical means to be independent of the Sun sign. So why do people continue to believe in it? Why are there about 20,000 professional astrologers and only 2,000 professional astronomers?
To me it seems that astrology does not have much use. But wait. It does have a use, because people believe in it. For example, the Reagans have been said to use astrology to select propitious times to do things. This means one can use astrology to predict other people's behavior. For example, many people read the horoscope in the morning paper. If you know the Sun sign of someone, and they read the horoscope, you can figure out how they will behave. For example, for today it says for Libra, "Important news reaches you. You're on top of the world. A new endeavor catches your imagination." Libra, according to traditional astrology (but not astronomy!) is Sept 23-Oct 22. If you know someone with one of these birthdays, and you have something important or big to tell them but are waiting for the moment to do so, now may be the time. Also, if you are looking for ideas for a big project, a Libra would be the one to ask today. If that Libra believes in astrology and reads the horoscope page, they may be listening to their imaginations and capturing new ideas more than usual. You might not want to attract people by this method. If a horoscope for Scorpio reads "Possible chance meeting with the person of your life today." and you are a man who knows a woman Scorpio that looks interesting, today would be the day to ask her for the date or to get intimate with her. However, if you do that, you will wind up with a romantic relationship with someone who believes in astrology, which may not be in your best interest.
But one can predict people's behavior by this method, as long as people fall for the non-scientific advice of astrologers. For example, by studying these columns and horoscopes in the 1980s, one could have predicted many of Ronald Reagan's actions and have taken advantage of them.
2003/07/27
Clue to speaking success?
I haven't blogged in some time. This is because of several trips, including SUUSI and an astronomy convention in Nashville. In that last trip, however, I think I may have found a clue to a frustration in my life - not being able to win speech contests. In evaluations in Toastmasters, I keep getting things like "mumbled", "too unclear", "could not understand", and so forth. I looked up in Toastmaster manuals to find out more about this. The Speechcraft manual touches on it some. It says that I should keep my mouth open, so that the words can come out clearly. It may say the same in the manual "Your Speaking Voice". But other than that, few if any Toastmasters manuals and almost no evaluations explain why I mumble.
But I found out how at SUUSI, in a workshop entitled "Empowering your Voice" by Amy Carol Webb. Yes, she is a folk singer, and one of the most popular at SUUSI. She told me that the reason why my voice was not coming out is that I don't open my mouth enough. She said to stick three fingers in my mouth. That is how open it should be. I tried it for the rest of the week, and my voice does seem to come out clearer, although not necessarily louder - I find I can do this and speak softly, but it will sound breathy. This is good in some occasions. But will this advice help my public speaking? Hard to say. I will have to try it out on Toastmasters clubs and in the upcoming humorous speech contests.
Of course there are other factors - being prepared, not saying "ah" and the like, and whether the audience considers what I say funny. Further I don't know if this will slow down my talking - evaluators say I talk too fast. I will have to try it out - of course this causes a Hawthorne effect so that I may improve in the other areas too. But I would like to find out if this is the cause of my not winning speech contests. I will have to await what happens.
I haven't blogged in some time. This is because of several trips, including SUUSI and an astronomy convention in Nashville. In that last trip, however, I think I may have found a clue to a frustration in my life - not being able to win speech contests. In evaluations in Toastmasters, I keep getting things like "mumbled", "too unclear", "could not understand", and so forth. I looked up in Toastmaster manuals to find out more about this. The Speechcraft manual touches on it some. It says that I should keep my mouth open, so that the words can come out clearly. It may say the same in the manual "Your Speaking Voice". But other than that, few if any Toastmasters manuals and almost no evaluations explain why I mumble.
But I found out how at SUUSI, in a workshop entitled "Empowering your Voice" by Amy Carol Webb. Yes, she is a folk singer, and one of the most popular at SUUSI. She told me that the reason why my voice was not coming out is that I don't open my mouth enough. She said to stick three fingers in my mouth. That is how open it should be. I tried it for the rest of the week, and my voice does seem to come out clearer, although not necessarily louder - I find I can do this and speak softly, but it will sound breathy. This is good in some occasions. But will this advice help my public speaking? Hard to say. I will have to try it out on Toastmasters clubs and in the upcoming humorous speech contests.
Of course there are other factors - being prepared, not saying "ah" and the like, and whether the audience considers what I say funny. Further I don't know if this will slow down my talking - evaluators say I talk too fast. I will have to try it out - of course this causes a Hawthorne effect so that I may improve in the other areas too. But I would like to find out if this is the cause of my not winning speech contests. I will have to await what happens.
2003/07/16
A Trip to Nashville
I have not been blogging for a while because I have been on the road - first to Charlotte, and now to Nashville. Next week it will be Blacksburg, Virginia. I attended the Astronomical League Convention last week, giving me a big dose of astronomy and a little bit about Nashville. The main points I got out of the convention were that charged coupled device (CCD) astronomy is revolutionizing amateur astronomy, allowing amateur results as good at times as the professionals', light pollution, threatening our view of the night sky for all, and outreach - ensuring that astronomy education reaches our children. Some of the highlights included a trip to the local observatory and a demonstration in which someone made a comet in our meeting room, using dirt, water, and liquid nitrogen.
I have not been blogging for a while because I have been on the road - first to Charlotte, and now to Nashville. Next week it will be Blacksburg, Virginia. I attended the Astronomical League Convention last week, giving me a big dose of astronomy and a little bit about Nashville. The main points I got out of the convention were that charged coupled device (CCD) astronomy is revolutionizing amateur astronomy, allowing amateur results as good at times as the professionals', light pollution, threatening our view of the night sky for all, and outreach - ensuring that astronomy education reaches our children. Some of the highlights included a trip to the local observatory and a demonstration in which someone made a comet in our meeting room, using dirt, water, and liquid nitrogen.
Googlefeiting
This is the name I give to counterfeiting Google™ search results and putting them on the Net. The idea is this. Suppose you are upset with all these computerized voice menu systems that have been appearing when you call a store on a phone. So you want the user of Google to, when he enters "recognize speech" into Google and hitting the search button, to get "wreck a nice beach", or even "oil spill" instead. Just simply doing it when the user hits search won't work. You get a long column of results that is difficult to replicate. Further, Google determines the results. So you work with the "I'm feeling lucky" button instead. When the user hits that, he gets not a Google listing but the actual page of the number 1 page he would have gotten had he hit search instead. That's the page you can control. So you construct a copy of a Google page that has the entered term "recognize speech" in it, and have it say underneath "do you mean 'wreck a nice beach'". You then put "recognize speech" all over it and ask your friends to link to the page, thus raising its Google score. If your page gets to the number 1 spot, then when the user enters "recognize speech" and presses "I'm feeling lucky", he will get "do you mean 'wreck a nice beach'" instead. That would be funny.
Well it happened. A site called albinodarksheep constructed a page so when you enter "French military victories" and click the "I'm feeling lucky" button, you get "do you mean 'French military defeats'". This morning I read in CNN where now when you enter "weapons of mass destruction" and feel lucky, you get an error page saying that these weapons of mass destruction can't be displayed, and suggesting a number of remedies, such as regime change. This page looks just like a usual "page not found" message, but the wording is all different.
Well now we have a new Google game. Maybe I'll try it some time. Googlefeiting.
This is the name I give to counterfeiting Google™ search results and putting them on the Net. The idea is this. Suppose you are upset with all these computerized voice menu systems that have been appearing when you call a store on a phone. So you want the user of Google to, when he enters "recognize speech" into Google and hitting the search button, to get "wreck a nice beach", or even "oil spill" instead. Just simply doing it when the user hits search won't work. You get a long column of results that is difficult to replicate. Further, Google determines the results. So you work with the "I'm feeling lucky" button instead. When the user hits that, he gets not a Google listing but the actual page of the number 1 page he would have gotten had he hit search instead. That's the page you can control. So you construct a copy of a Google page that has the entered term "recognize speech" in it, and have it say underneath "do you mean 'wreck a nice beach'". You then put "recognize speech" all over it and ask your friends to link to the page, thus raising its Google score. If your page gets to the number 1 spot, then when the user enters "recognize speech" and presses "I'm feeling lucky", he will get "do you mean 'wreck a nice beach'" instead. That would be funny.
Well it happened. A site called albinodarksheep constructed a page so when you enter "French military victories" and click the "I'm feeling lucky" button, you get "do you mean 'French military defeats'". This morning I read in CNN where now when you enter "weapons of mass destruction" and feel lucky, you get an error page saying that these weapons of mass destruction can't be displayed, and suggesting a number of remedies, such as regime change. This page looks just like a usual "page not found" message, but the wording is all different.
Well now we have a new Google game. Maybe I'll try it some time. Googlefeiting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)