FSP's recent post reminded me about a post I was going to do. So here it is.
Do you know your Nobel Laureates? Do you know them back to front?
Who is this?
10 points to the winner.
It won't win you anything, but at least you know your famous scientists.
So as those t-shirts say, "My boyfriend went to a conference and all I got was this..."
Meet Ducky. The military rubber duck, 5cm high.
What does RTS stand for?
"Return to Sender", of course.
It started innocuously, when one envelope from a division of the national broadcaster was sent to my humble abode. It was addressed to an unknown male - Mr.X shall we say - who I had no pleasure of knowing. So I sent it back, with the address crossed out, written "Return to sender" in black ink. You know, so that they won't make the mistake of sending the same thing again.
I even got a visit from this Mr.X a few weeks ago. He apparently lives on the same road as me. He assured me then that he had corrected the mistake, and that no more mail will come my way (and that if I had, or ever get any more of his mail, to give it to him. I didn't, since, like a good citizen, I had sent the said mail back through the mail box with RTS on them. And I haven't bothered walking to his place to give him his mail, because (a) I am not wasting my energy on walking 20 metres to deliver someone else's mail, (b) I don't get paid to do it, and (c) I forgot which house number he actually lives in).
I think he has really bad handwriting when it comes to numbers. He must do, since either (1) they couldn't read the address properly, and/or (2) the person putting it in the database made a mistake in reading it.
One month later, I still get the mail for this Mr.X through my letterbox. BTW, this is, like, after a dozen letters have been sent back to them with the RTS.
I am beginning to think that these people really like wasting my time. And the licence-fee payers' money. And possibly my energy (of writing the RTS on the envelope). And my money (gimme back my ink).
Most companies actually do something when they send the wrong stuff to the wrong people. You know, like, amend the details. I think in this case, since Mr.X seems to still work for this particular division, they keep on sending it out. To the wrong address.
I mean, if I was Mr.X, I'd be worried. According to the meagre details on the envelope, the contents of the said envelope seem to involve money (as in pensions contributions, and pay). I guess it is just a letter of confirmation - I doubt anyone pays anyone by cheques through the mail anymore, when you can just do a quick transfer through BACS. And just last week, I got another mail from what I think is the pension scheme company that he is part of - the envelope had a different name for the sendee. Which means that whatever Mr.X's employer is doing, the one thing they haven't done is amended their records.
Which is not my problem.
However, I did wonder about putting some profanity laden message on the next piece of mail that comes through my letterbox addressed to Mr.X, as in:
"Return to sender. ******* addressee doesn't ******* live here. Never ******* has. So can you ********* stop sending your ******* mail to me. It is wasting everyone's ******** time. If I wasn't so morally uptight and proper, I will ******** ******** ***** the next piece of ****** you send me.
Yours sincerely, the suffering occupant of this address"
It's amazing how some drugs' names sound like something from Tranformers. Like:
Ganciclovir vs. Microgynon
Everytime I hear "Ganciclovir" I imagine an evil metallic monstrosity. "Microgynon" sounds a bit like one of those car robot things. (Here's a link to the earlier Citroen ad)
An antiviral vs. an oral contraceptive - should be an interesting fight.
A while ago, someone came up with this brilliant game, whereby you scan in the barcode of anything, and you play it against other barcodes - the Barcode Battler. Someone should come up with a drug name battler. It will be a great hit with us sad scientists.
I was watching tonight's episode of that pitiful excuse for a TV drama called CSI:NY, when I came across this ad, which was a spot for BASF. Yes, the chemical company. I'm afraid the ad is in Spanish, because I couldn't find one in English. But it's exactly the same ad, with the ice climbers, but the comment is in English.
Now, why is BASF doing ads at 10pm? To Joe Public? It isn't like there would be potential clients watching it. Or does that happen?
Does a family guy who is watching CSI:NY because his daughter likes watching Don Flack's fabulous tie collection, sees the ad and goes "hmmm, yes, my company needs a chemical supplier, and maybe I'll talk to my superiors about BASF"?
It's not like they're pushing people to buy a drug or anything. And anyway, those kind of ads (drug ads to the lay person) might be plentiful Stateside, but is non-existent over here...
This the funniest thing ever. And I so totally love it.
Lost titles
Explanation from the creator:
The modern trend for making shows without opening titles really scuffs my nips. we've decided, with the help of Darling, to show J.J Abrams the error of his ways and help him out at the same time with a lovely, theme tuned up, opening. You can use it if you like Mr Abrams.
The previous post has opened up certain bitterness I hold towards others, for better or for worse.
I don't like a lot of women who I have had to work with. Women are crap that way. They like politicking, sticking to groups (why the f$%k do you have to go the goddamn toilet in groups?) and generally bitching or gossiping about everyone. Some have a mentality of an 18-year old, and they are 30. I fucking hate girls.
This probably stems from some bullying I received when I was younger - and it was always girly groups that did it. Don't you just hate them? I do. I think they are pathetic, but unfortunately, group dynamics dictate that a black sheep is ostracised.
I don't understand this "men only - women only" divide that occurs in this country. In a social setting - no, let me define this. In a group of couples comprising mainly of British people, the group often segregates into "men only" or "women only" sections. They don't mix.
This came to light when I went to dinner with such a group one evening, and ended up sitting on a long table. I always thought it was good social manners to mingle, so that the person sitting directly next to you and opposite you are of the opposite sex. And so on, so you have, on one side of a table, m-f-m-f-m-f-m-f-m seating arrangements. This didn't happen. All the girls sat on end, and all the boys on the other, like m-m-m-m-f-f-f-f. Like, what is this, the sixth form prom or something?
And you know what these people talk about? The boys - they talk about football, rugby, drinking. Girls, they talk about makeup, fashion, and gossip. There is no witty banter, no intellect at all. What irks me more is that these people are actually "intelligent" people (so-called due to their having a postgraduate degree of some kind).
I hate people who are indecisive with a capital I. I know someone like that; you probably do to. You know, the kind of person when you take them to a new restaurant, they take 15 minutes to decide on the menu. Hell, by the time they've decided, I've decided on my 3-course meal, wine, ate the bread and the starter. It's just fucking food. Get over it. You won't get food poisoning if it is a restaurant worth their salt.
It's like...they can't bear to decide, just in case they make the wrong decision. To the detriment of anyone else on the effing table.
I hate people who don't take responsibility for what they say. People who think they can joke about a sensitive topic, because "everyone else does it" or "I thought you could take it". Can these people not take a hint? Or just have manners?
It's amazing how it is these exact people think they have manners and are witty conversationalists, when all they are are just irritating pricks who other people tolerate rather than enjoy. You'd think they would get the hint, but oooooh no, they have their heads so stuck up their own backside that they are oblivious to them.
Grrrrr. Rant o-ver!
Scientists and tats.
If I ever had one, I think I'll go for a big biohazard logo on my back. I think the sign is pretty cool. Hazard symbols in general are good. The detail lin European explosives is cool.
I have a softness for the solidness of the radiation warning sign; reminds me of Henry Rollins' neck tattoo of the Black Flag logo, which I like (the tattoo, not the band).
From the great YouTube, here is something that should get kids excited. Or adults.
Pitagorasuicchi (Wiki entry here)
The mini version, which is shorter.
And the impressive, expensive, and more famous Honda Accord ad "cog". More information on the how, and a Wiki entry.
Pythagora-switch (pitagorasuicchi - a coined word by adding Pythagoras and switch, Pythagoras is pronounced with a "pee" not "pie") is a segment of a show airing on NHK-Educational TV, the smaller of the two channels from the national broadcaster of Japan. Similar in scope to BBC2, I guess.
I only started looking for this on YouTube because I wanted to watch the "Scone" ad (the product is not a scone, but a snack). I was surprsed to learn that the creater of that ad, as well as the "Polinky" ad (again, an ad for a snack), was the same guy behind PythagoraSwitch - Masahiko Sato. The ads were his creation!
It's interesting to note that he studied mathematics at University, then went on to work for an ad agency. According to Wiki, he only become a creative director at the age of 33 after passing a test within the agency for transferring into a more creative role (he was initially in sales). Seems he has won numerous awards for his ideas, and I can attest to his fame in Japan - I never lived long in the country, but I remember the TV ads he created. And that surely is the best compliment ever for an ad creator, that a passing uninterested observer remembers your creation for years afterwards - as in the "Scone" ad.
PS - another cute one, the "tricks of the sugar cubes".
Following on from my post on ocular dominance, here is another random thought on handedness.
I read somewhere sometime ago, that being right-handed in a left-lane driving society is not good for the passenger of a car. Let me explain.
In a left-hand driving society, such as that of the United Kingdom, the driver's seat is on the right of the car. The front passenger seat is therefore on the left of the car.
So when a driver is faced with a possible head-on collision, I am guessing the first instinct is to swerve to avoid the oncoming object. And as most people are right handed, and the quickest flight-or-fight instinct is to pull towards you (I guess...), I assume that the driver will pull towards/down using the right hand.
Which will make the car turn to the right, hence the passenger on the seat to the left is more exposed to a sideways collision than the driver.
So it is safer as a right-handed human to be driving in a right-hand lane country, like the States. (However, Wikipedia states that ocular dominance has something to do with it too)
This might be completely untrue, of course, and judging the amount of crap that is in my brain, I wouldn't be surprised.
But then I got thinking. What happens if you are truely ambidextrous? What would determine which hand would take dominance in an emergency situation? And anyway, even if you are ambidextrous, there must be some handedness for various activities - like you might prefer writing with your right hand, but you can use chopsticks with your left. You might prefer catching with your right hand, but bat left-handed.
Does it matter? Does anyone care? Do I not have anything more interesting to blog about?
The depth of human stupidity knows no bounds. Who would have thought that Viagra would make you see blue. Of course, such a startling discovery was published in that pinnacle of scientific journalism, the Daily Mail. *snigger*
I wonder if there is a medical condition that turns vision into a certain shade - I mean, I've heard of colour-blindedness, but blue-shadedness?
Shame the guy isn't into Arsenal or Man Utd. That would've been funny. Can you imagine supporting the Canaries?
On my trips down to the Big Ol' City, I always try to go to the Lab to grab a drink...
A bar which I was introduced to about a decade ago, and still going strong in Soho. The prices of the drinks haven't changed, but it was outrageous in the first place.
On this occasion, we were treated to a great show by the two bartenders behind the counter (I was drinking at the upstairs bar). They were like two little terriers, or rather, ferrets. Squeezing and jumping and laughing and mixing. Watching them two were decidedly worth the money.
Not to mention the care and attention, as well as that serious look in the eye one of them had whilst slicing half an apple for the decoration on my Colraine Cooler. The slices were all the same thickness, mind you, and it was far better than what I could have done with a knife.
These guys, they know their stuff. Having bartenders who do not need to look at the cocktail menu to mix them, especially when the cocktail menu is a booklet 20-pages long, is properly professional, and is an eye-opener when you are more used to student part-timers whose idea of a cocktail is "JD and Coke".
The proprietor of this fine establishment has a cocktail book out himself. You might have to remortgage the house to just buy all the liquers and spirits mentioned in the book, but it is a worthwhile investment - even just to look at it.
There is something wrong when you get this Flash animation as a second proper entry when you put in "pork" in a Google search (UK version).
I think this is a great hit from Weebl. They are back to form now, "Pork" is up there with "Magical Trevor" and "Kenya". I can see this animation and song being picked up by the national farmers' union (or whoever is the biggest pig farmers' union) to advertise the greatness of pork.
At the gym pool yesterday, I saw 4 pieces of white chewing gum (chewed) on the bottom of the pool.
What, don't people chew bubblegum anymore?
I don't know what was worse. The fact that people actually try to chew gum when they are doing sport where breathing is like, life or death. Or that I found it all funny and not disgusting (until I came home and told OH about it).
I was randomly thinking about snipers, as you do, and this naturally led to scopes and shoulders.
So if you are a right-handed person, you pull the trigger with your right hand. If you have a rifle, the butt is on your right shoulder. So you aim using your right eye. If you are using a scope, it will be on your right eye.
Anyway, in that sense (of handedness and ocular dominance), I am cross dominant. That sounds slightly kinky. Well, I am right-handed as most people are, but my dominant eye is my left eye. So does that automatically make me bad as a sniper, unless I trained myself to be comfortable with my right eye? Which, by the way, makes sense, as most weapons are made for right-handed people.
I guess that for handguns, it doesn't matter which hand you hold it and which eye you shoot it with, as you have some flexibility in the position of the firearm when in front of your body.
Food for thought.
BTW, I use my left ear to listen to the phone. The simple reason is, that you can hold the phone in your left hand, whilst taking notes with your right. And if you pick up the phone with your left hand, you don't have to switch hands halfway through (hence saves time).
I wasn't like that before. I changed when I read something about taking notes over the phone, when I was a teenager, and stuck with it since. So I guess I am naturally right-eared, but have taught myself to be left-eared. Now, when someone gives me an earpiece to listen to, I put it to my left ear as I have had more experience listening to something using my left ear.
While looking for sites which detailed the plastic surgery history of one actress, I (or should I say my laptop) downloaded something which my anti-virus didn't like, I clicked on something which I shouldn't, and my laptop started taking 15 minutes to boot up.
So I reformatted everything to its original state.
Anyway, things are a lot quicker now, I am happy, and should get back to normal...
Read this on the BBC.
What do these people get paid for?
But I guess it won't show up on an X-ray, and maybe the kid had a wonky ear canal that made it difficult to see inside (BTW, I have a rather straight ear canal, according to a doc who saw it).
And I kinda like the kid's response.
I'm a foreigner, working in an English society, where my language of work(place) is English. I speak English very well thank you, and I have a mid-Atlantic accent. No one has complained of not being able to understand my spoken English.
Anyway, when I get tired and lazy, I start making mistakes in the grammer.
I mix up my prepositions.
I know it is lazy, and it's because I can't be bothered to think about the correct one. There is also an assumption that the person listening to me, will be able to understand what I mean, even if the preposition is incorrect. I mean, most people can understand what another native speaker is saying, even if the preposition is incorrect. One preposition does not make a wrong sentence.
And nothing makes me more infuriated, than people who actually point them out to me (with a snicker of laughter). It might be funny for them, and something to pull one's leg, but it. is. not. funny.
It is patronizing. It smacks of English superiority. Especially when it comes from a non-scientist, but that is an aside. Scientists should know better than to make fun of foreigners (especially moi, who can speak it well), when a higher percentage of the workforce is made up of foreigners than the national average (okay, maybe that's not true anymore in the UK).
This patronizing attitude is something I am very sensitive about, because of how I grew up. You know, a Jack of all trades - being sort of fluent in two languages, but not a master of either one.
And, no one has the right to be treated like that just on the basis of language. I think the UK is very good about it, all across the board (of class, I may add), probably because it has a history of immigrants. But they do tend to be more patient.
But some assholes that irritate me immensely...
I was trawling through the blogosphere and came across this post in Dr.Shellie's blog. I was reading through the comment from the particular reader, and...I'm appalled.
I have to applaud Dr.Shellie's response though.
So many points about the comment makes me worried.
(1) This is a parent, looking for a Ph.D. studentship for his/her daughter.
Um, whatever happened to free will for the child? Shouldn't a child of (I'm guessing) age 22 or over be able to decide on where and what to do for Ph.D. herself? As a person who has been through a Ph.D., and have seen a few quit, I don't think a strong parental pressure (or expectation) is good for the child. It's a good few years of slogging and hard-work. It takes at least three years (usually four) in the UK, where you can get a Ph.D. pretty fast. Across the pond, I hear it's longer.
(2) The person is looking for a female PI for his/her daughter, in a male-dominated field.
That's sexist. Just because the PI is female doesn't necessarily mean that she'll play the "girl club" game and be sympathetic to a female student. And male PIs can be just as (or even better than) female PIs. I don't think gender has anything to do with how good a mentor a PI can be. And it's dangerous to decide like that. Personality, yes. Gender, let's not go there.
On top of that, as a parent, if you have that kind of biased attitude, doesn't that give a bad example to your kid?
(3) The afore-mentioned field is in fact, life sciences.
The last time I checked, in a life sciences department, there ratio of male to female students tend to be around one. Yes, hard to imagine to the outside world, but it is more close to one than two. Maybe not biochemical engineering, but life sciences with no engineering components? I don't think it is male-dominated.
Now, even if the parent is talking about the number of female PIs to male PIs, I still think life sciences have a "fairer" ratio than any engineering.
(4) And the daughter has a biochemical engineering/biology degree.
What kind of "life sciences" is the daughter exactly interested in? Life sciences is a wide wide field. I don't think a biochemical engineering degree is a bad thing per se, just that life sciences is a big, all-encompassing net.
(5) The daughter wants to do "meaningful" research.
What-ever (readers, can you sense that I am getting frustrated with this?). What does meaningful mean anyway? Curing cancer? I automatically think "disease related!" because that grabs headlines (and money). And cancer is not an easy target.
Anyway, any research, is meaningful to the student. It has to be.
(6) The daughter can get letters of recommendations from foreign researchers who are difficult to reach.
It's the 21st century. All researchers, if in an academic institution, will have e-mail. Email is the way to go. And if not, I am sure you (the parent) can cough up a few dollars for an international phone call. Or fax. Or courier.
Man, I was shocked to read the comment, I tell you. And more shocked that this was a parent of a prospective Ph.D. student, let alone an undergraduate...
I hold a morbid curiousity about major, mutli-billion dollar frauds carried out by (supposedly) one person. FT.com has kindly written a timeline of corporate fraud scandals (not all done by one person).
I remember the "Mr. Five Percent" - I really could not imagine what it was like to actually garner that much power single-handedly in the market. Anyway, follow the Wikipedia link for a more detailed look at what went on behind the scenes.
And the Mizuho bank "incident" in 2005 was the funniest one I read. I couldn't believe it when I saw it in the news. I know it's not funny, but if you think about it, and for an outsider like me, it is.
In fact, my morbid curiousity does serve its purpose for me - it did make me interested in the financial markets and economics. Actually, I f%&king hated any human sciences in school, and out of principle never took classes in economics or business studies. I always held the idea that natural sciences are better, because there are no fluctuation in rules and laws due to human nature, and there is always one answer.
As I got older, I have become a bit soft, and have begun to think that economics is like a science that man built. There are certain rules that the market follow, but is not exact, because it involves humans.
