I borrowed my grandmother's wildflower book for the Skyline to the Sea hike yesterday, and we managed to identify some pretty cool plants. We found Red Clintonia, Globe Lilies (see photo on right), Giant Wake Robin, and Hairy Star Tulips, among dozens of others. I think I may have been more excited about the names than the flowers. My favorite name was Rattlesnake Plantain, which the book explained was "named for it's discoverer, John Goodyear." What? Was his real name John Rattlesnake Plantain Goodyear? And what do desert reptiles and jungle fruits have to do with the redwood forest? I have yet to figure this one out.
Showing posts with label buck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buck. Show all posts
01 June 2010
How I poisoned four people (and other musings on the epistemology of science)
I borrowed my grandmother's wildflower book for the Skyline to the Sea hike yesterday, and we managed to identify some pretty cool plants. We found Red Clintonia, Globe Lilies (see photo on right), Giant Wake Robin, and Hairy Star Tulips, among dozens of others. I think I may have been more excited about the names than the flowers. My favorite name was Rattlesnake Plantain, which the book explained was "named for it's discoverer, John Goodyear." What? Was his real name John Rattlesnake Plantain Goodyear? And what do desert reptiles and jungle fruits have to do with the redwood forest? I have yet to figure this one out.
04 February 2010
MacGyvering
In the depth of my myrm-mania a few weeks ago, Chris recommended an episode of MacGyver where Mac goes into the jungles of the Amazon to battle an army of flesh-eating ants. I had never seen an episode of MacGyver, but Chris has trouble remembering what he had for breakfast this morning so I figured if he was recounting details of a TV show that hasn't been on the air for twenty years it must be something special. CBS has every episode of MacGyver available to watch streaming on their website so I checked it out. The episode is called Trumbo's World, and when I watched it last week I had no idea what I had been missing. It's like Rockford Files (of which I've seen every episode) meets Bill Nye the Science Guy. The streaming quality was poor so I Netflixed it immediately.
Labels:
ants,
blog zblog,
buck,
chocolate,
formic acid,
MacGyver,
mythbusters,
netflix,
science,
television,
Trumbo,
zoe,
zoe buck
30 January 2010
Freaky Fermentation Saturday
Who needs pets when I have several cultures to feed? After brunch at Walnut Street Cafe with Val and Shirley (Shirley is an Astrophysics post doctoral fellow at Berkeley who was a PhD candidate at Princeton when Val and I were undergrads), Carolina called me and we decided to meet at the West-side farmer's market. Inspired by the Farmhouse Culture sauerkraut booth, we bought two heads of cabbage, two onions and a few tablespoons of carroway seeds and headed back to my apartment to start fermenting some "Liberty Cabbage" of our own. It turns out sauerkraut, although we associate it with the "Krauts" (sauerkraut means sour cabbage in German) was originally of Chinese origin, and probably brought to Europe in the last millennium or so. The Ashkenazim (my people!) quickly adopted it as a staple and probably helped disseminate the deliciousness (and nutrition-ness!) through the rest of Europe. The stuff was especially popular among sailors because it prevents scurvy and keeps forever. What's not to love?
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
25 January 2010
Formica on the Formica: A Reflection on My Week of "Myrmecocinalogical" Exploits
Formica is the Latin word for ant. That's where formic acid gets its name, the main ingredient in bee and ant stings. In fact formic acid was originally isolated by grinding up ants. Formica is also the name of the heat resistant plastic laminate made famous on kitchen counters across the country. How fitting then, that my lovely red Formica counter-top, which so endeared me to my apartment in the first place, should now be streaming with its own homonym.
Labels:
ants,
blog zblog,
buck,
exterminator,
formic acid,
formica,
Them,
zoe,
zoe buck
23 January 2010
Meteorite flies through the roof of Virginia doctor's office
I love these kinds of stories, and I can't believe me it took me almost a week to hear about this! On Monday of last week, a meteorite no bigger than a tennis ball struck the office of family physician Doctor Marc Gullani in Lorton, VA. That's the culprit herself on the right, courtesy of the Smithsonian. Online news source The Post Chronicle reported the story as follows: Flaming Meteor Hits Doctor's Office. (Sigh). Doubtless the meteor was burning up as it passed through the atmosphere over New Jersey (several fireball sightings were reported, most likely corresponding to the VA meteorite hit), but when it hit Dr. Gullani's office not only was it not flaming (at that point it was moving considerably too slow, more like highway speeds) but it was no longer a meteor--it was a meteorite. Honestly it's just a question of linguistics and doesn't mean an enormous amount, but meteorite experts tend to get all up in a huff about these distinctions: in space it's a meteoroid; in the atmosphere it's a meteor; in a Virginia doctor's office it's a meteorite.
This kind of stuff happens more often than one would assume. There is a lot of stuff out there in space, and we carve out a good volume of space every year (back of the napkin calculation just for fun, please let me know if I'm wrong here I haven't multiplied in years: radius of the earth about 6400 km, distance from sun is about 150 million km. so the surface area of the circle formed by the earth is about (6400)^2*pi=~130 million km. and the circumference of the earth's orbit is 2*150 million*pi=~900 million km. So if I multiply those two I get about 1E17, or one hundred million billion cubic kilometers of space). In 1992 a meteorite hit a Chevy Malibu parked in Westchester County, NY, and just last summer a German teenager was struck on the hand by a small meteorite just before it made a foot wide crater on the sidewalk next to him.
The following list of meteorite near-misses in the last century and a half is borrowed from the story about the German kid on WIRED.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
22 January 2010
How to Freak Out Ants with Cinnamon
It's raining here in Santa Cruz, has been for a couple of days. When I woke up yesterday morning a colony of ants had decided to seek shelter from the storm in my kitchen, and I was not cool with that. I killed them, and stuffed up the hole with bleach soaked paper towels. I also contacted my landlord and asked him to fill the hole they were coming in through. He hasn't responded yet (grrr grr).Well this morning they were back, so I decided to try using cinnamon, an organic remedy that a woman from my PhD cohort recommended to me on the bus yesterday. And they freaked out! A sprinkling of cinnamon could completely trap an ant who was undeterred by bleach and vinegar. I ended up going a little overboard and covering my entire kitchen in cinnamon (see the picture). We'll see if they come back now BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Labels:
ants,
blog zblog,
buck,
cinnamon,
kitchen,
rain,
santa cruz,
zoe,
zoe buck
21 January 2010
Curing novel-phobia through systematic desensitization--The Help
I just finished reading (well, listening to) The Help by Kathryn Stockett. I highly recommend it. A few of the characters are cardboard cutouts (especially the big bad Southern belle racist biatch who serves as the story's super villain) but other than that, I had a good time. I even cried.
I was hesitant to shell out the 20 bucks for the audiobook because the last novel people were recommending to me so highly was The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd. And I really did not enjoy that book, or think it was worth the buzz (no pun intended on the the buzzing bees thing). They made it into a movie last year apparently. So lame. The book said absolutely nothing to me...about women, about relationships, about race, about love, it said nothing.
I don't buy novels very often. In fact I think the only novel I read in 2009 was the rough draft of my dad's noir mystery thriller (coming soon, don't miss it!). It's just difficult for me to get past the fact that everything is made up. I'm afraid I'm wasting my time. In college I became addicted to the not-so-new "new journalism" and the wonderful world of long-form non-fiction. If I want pure pointless entertainment I'll read David Sedaris. But every time I read a book like The Help, which is both thoughtful and entertaining, I am reminded that a novel can be good and rich and valuable. It's no Dorian Gray or Ulysses or The Invisible Man (when pressed for my top ten those three would be up there) but it's worth 20 bucks.
Maybe if I keep reading good modern novels I can get over this odd fiction phobia of mine. A regimen of systematic literary desensitization. I'm looking for treatment recommendations...
P.S. I may have listed three novels above and claimed they are some of my favorites, but don't ask me to elaborate. I can't stand when I am asked to list my favorite books music and movies. Ugh. Pet peeve.
P.P.S. I put science fiction in a different category, by the way. Not sure why. I have the same misgivings about the being all made up part but somehow sci-fi feels like a valuable warning about human nature, if done right. In 2009 re-read Player Piano (Kurt Vonnegut) and I also read a Thomas Disch book that my eighth grade social studies teacher Glenn recommended to me--Camp Concentration. Both brilliant. Through the lens of educational theory (the lens I seem to be wearing all the time nowadays), Player Piano was a book about the culture of testing gone to far (NCLB!), and Camp Concentration was a reflection on the true meaning of "genius," and the lengths to which we will go to cultivate it.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
20 January 2010
Back from DC!
I spent an excellent five days in Washington, DC. While there I got a chance to explore Hyattsville, see the new Newseum, and watch the Wizards beat Portland. The Wizards game was especially fun because we got to hang out in the family lounge (very upscale with free food and soft drinks) and check out some of the things going on behind the scenes. We even got to play some basketball in the Wizards practice court (that's me dribbling in the light blue shirt). Chris knew the guy throwing out the little gold basketballs (the other picture) but we ended up giving it away to the much more deserving baby in the row in front of us.The Newseum was very cool. The exhibit technology is cutting edge, from Minority Report style drag-and-drop no-touch screens to interactive Pulitzer photo displays. There was even a "4-d" movie, although that was somewhat of a let down after Avatar. Chris couldn't see the 3-d anyway, so he didn't care.
The weather was perfect the whole time (mid fifties in the day, only a few hours of drizzle one day), and I was sad to leave the sunshine and return to cold, rainy California (sigh). But I'm back in Santa Cruz, and now it's back to work.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
12 January 2010
Pool, Billiards and Mathmagicland
Justin and I have been playing some pool lately at places like the Rush Inn and the Catalyst (free if you go the right nights). Neither of us are spectacular but it's fun to play a game that I don't totally suck at (i.e. darts, or bowling). There are a lot of angles involved, and it got me thinking about Donald in Mathmagicland, a 1959 Disney movie that I hadn't watched since middle school. In it, Donald goes on all sorts of mathematical adventures, including a visit to a billiard table. The man playing billiards is apparently very good, although I don't know how to play billiards so I wouldn't know. According to Donald's narrator-friend, the formula for hitting the balls is very simple, and involves subtraction of the diamond where the cue is from the diamond where the cue ball is. That number tells you what diamond to aim at on the other side of the table in order to hit the two other balls (which I guess is the point...)
Here's the video. Compared to, let's say 3 is a Magic Number by Schoolhouse Rock (really not the way to learn what 3 means), it presents mathematics in a very endearing way, not as numbers and equations but as thought experiments, embedded in every day life. Well done Disney. Modern math curricula that focus on memorization could take some cues from Donald's adventures.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
Crackers
I was given the task of providing snacks for class this week, and was told by my prof that he would prefer them to be "healthy" snacks. I decided to make some hummus and bring carrot sticks to dip in it (healthy as it gets) but today I decided I would take a step further by making some yummy crackers to go with the hummus. I've always wanted to make crackers but never really found the occasion. Kind of takes away from "healthiness" requested by Jerome but everything is homemade so doesn't that make up for the fat and carbs?
I followed a super simple recipe but made everything smaller because my class is comprised of four students. The crackers have about 3/4 cups of flour, 3/4 cups of semolina flour, 1/2 cup of water, 1/6 cup olive oil, and are sprinkles liberally with salt and pepper. I rolled them out and baked them on a floured baking pan until they were golden. The result reminds me a little of Spanish tortas de aceite, but thinner. Look how good they look! And they taste good too. My new-to-me rolling pin (thanks to my parents!) worked out very well, and the dough rolled out easily super-thin. Next time I might put some shredded cheese in the dough for some extra decadence.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
11 January 2010
Welcome to ZBlog 2.0!
This is the new home of my blog because its old home (sites.google.com/site/zbuckster/zblog) is a Google site, and Google sites do not have an intuitive way for people to leave comments. I know my following is like four people at the most, but still, I want those people to be able to tell me stuff when they get excited about something on my blog without having to remember to email me about it later. Because obviously everyone who reads this knows my email because they are all either members of my nuclear family or have known me so long they might as well be. But anyhow, I really want comments to be a part of the blog, because that's kind of like what makes a blog a blog. SO I am proud to unveil....the new, improved ZBLOG 2.0 WOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
A few of the older posts from the other blog have already been moved over (I've tried to keep the dates they were posted somewhat accurate). The old blog is still here. And of course my website, with clippings, writing samples, research updates etc will still be at sites.google.com/site/zbuckster. Google still refuses to index it (Google I have been so good to you. I have sung your praises. Why do you hurt me so?), so if you have a place to post things do me a favor and post a link so that some day I will be searchable.
A few of the older posts from the other blog have already been moved over (I've tried to keep the dates they were posted somewhat accurate). The old blog is still here. And of course my website, with clippings, writing samples, research updates etc will still be at sites.google.com/site/zbuckster. Google still refuses to index it (Google I have been so good to you. I have sung your praises. Why do you hurt me so?), so if you have a place to post things do me a favor and post a link so that some day I will be searchable.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
How to Prepare for the Cloud Revolution
So I made a very intricate chart on my last blog (on Google sites, which DOESN'T ALLOW COMMENTS) about how specifically I will let go of all the hardware and software I depend on now. But I can't seem to paste it easily and I haven't got the time to figure it out. If you're interested the link is here.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
Teaching Math to Preschoolers
My grandmother sent me a New York Times clipping this week about preschool math education based on cognitive neuroscience. I know, sending cut out pieces of newsprint through the mail, how quaint. Yet somehow comforting. Maybe I'm biased, but I just love the smell and feel of newsprint. Unfortunately my selfish sensory desires won't save the trees. Or the newspaper industry. Or journalistic integrity. Sigh.
Anyhow, as I was saying before I got distracted. The article, entitled "Studying Young Minds, and How to Teach Them," profiles a math curriculum at the Stanley M. Makowski Early Childhood Center in Buffalo. Above the headline, three adorable four-year-olds in matching green sweatshirts organize the numbers 1-5 printed on sets of green cards. Reporter Benedict Carey (per the byline) describes a program called Building Blocks, which makes no assumptions about at what age children are "wired" to learn certain concepts. This whole idea flies in the face of the traditional Piagetian stages of development. It also seems to lean toward what has traditionally been associated with behaviorism: in particular drills, drills drills. But the drills are not designed to help children memorize multiplication tables. Instead they are designed to encourage certain connections in the brain. Very cognitive science. For example, the teacher shows the children a paper plate with three dots on it, and then covers it quickly. She wants the students to be able to recognize the number three without counting. In my opinion this reeks of associationism (which fits neatly into behaviorism). But it's definitely not traditional associationism. Instead of training children to produce the correct responses to a very narrow set of questions, Building Blocks is training children to think about numbers and patterns in a certain way, which will allow them to think about questions in a better way, and formulate mathematically accurate responses. Very constructivist in this light. Building Blocks is also said to incorporate games, play and artwork into the math curriculum. Very Vygotsky. The curriculum, although clearly based on the vocabulary of cognitive neuroscience, appears to incorporate smart methodologies from the whole gamut of learning theories.
According to the article, the method has been extremely successful, as measured by tests of simple arithmetic skills (addition, subtraction, and number recognition). After participation in Building Blocks, children scored on average 26 percentile points higher than their non-Building Blocks peers (the test was graded on a curve, so do the math).
If nothing else, stories like this one make me happy that people are rethinking teaching math. Math is a lovely thing, and should not be reserved for graduate students. Of course, these preschoolers are not creating proofs, but it sounds like some of what they do without ever touching a pencil to paper is a lot closer to real math than what can go on in the classrooms of children twice their age. Despite highly public complaints that we are falling behind in math and science education, we are getting better, and programs like this one prove that it is possible to bring untraditional programs into the classroom. Hope for the future! Woohoo!
Here's the link, in case your grandmother doesn't send you clippings.
Anyhow, as I was saying before I got distracted. The article, entitled "Studying Young Minds, and How to Teach Them," profiles a math curriculum at the Stanley M. Makowski Early Childhood Center in Buffalo. Above the headline, three adorable four-year-olds in matching green sweatshirts organize the numbers 1-5 printed on sets of green cards. Reporter Benedict Carey (per the byline) describes a program called Building Blocks, which makes no assumptions about at what age children are "wired" to learn certain concepts. This whole idea flies in the face of the traditional Piagetian stages of development. It also seems to lean toward what has traditionally been associated with behaviorism: in particular drills, drills drills. But the drills are not designed to help children memorize multiplication tables. Instead they are designed to encourage certain connections in the brain. Very cognitive science. For example, the teacher shows the children a paper plate with three dots on it, and then covers it quickly. She wants the students to be able to recognize the number three without counting. In my opinion this reeks of associationism (which fits neatly into behaviorism). But it's definitely not traditional associationism. Instead of training children to produce the correct responses to a very narrow set of questions, Building Blocks is training children to think about numbers and patterns in a certain way, which will allow them to think about questions in a better way, and formulate mathematically accurate responses. Very constructivist in this light. Building Blocks is also said to incorporate games, play and artwork into the math curriculum. Very Vygotsky. The curriculum, although clearly based on the vocabulary of cognitive neuroscience, appears to incorporate smart methodologies from the whole gamut of learning theories.
According to the article, the method has been extremely successful, as measured by tests of simple arithmetic skills (addition, subtraction, and number recognition). After participation in Building Blocks, children scored on average 26 percentile points higher than their non-Building Blocks peers (the test was graded on a curve, so do the math).
If nothing else, stories like this one make me happy that people are rethinking teaching math. Math is a lovely thing, and should not be reserved for graduate students. Of course, these preschoolers are not creating proofs, but it sounds like some of what they do without ever touching a pencil to paper is a lot closer to real math than what can go on in the classrooms of children twice their age. Despite highly public complaints that we are falling behind in math and science education, we are getting better, and programs like this one prove that it is possible to bring untraditional programs into the classroom. Hope for the future! Woohoo!
Here's the link, in case your grandmother doesn't send you clippings.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
I don't want to do this...
but Google has forced my hand. I have a site, with a blog, but it's on Google sites and Google will not let people who aren't collaborators post comments! So frustrating. They blatantly have the technology...as obvious from THIS HERE RIGHT NOW. Sheesh.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
29 December 2009
A Brief History of My Relationship with Food
My mom's friend Laurien gave me the new book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer over winter break. Reading it has forced me to re-examine what I thought I believed about why I eat what I eat. I first began thinking about my own consumption as an ethical issue in my sophomore year of college in Peter Singer's class Practical Ethics. I had always considered myself an "ethical" person, despite not being a religious person by any means, but it wasn't until Singer's course that I encountered different systematic approaches to personal decision making. My college boyfriend fancied himself a deontologist and I fancied myself a rule utilitarian and we would argue for hours. Based on my rule utilitarian analysis of the world coupled with a heavy dose of Peter Singer, I became a strict vegetarian for a few months, eventually expanding my eating to animals that were "ethically treated," an ambiguous phrase that I wasn't even sure how to define myself.
In my junior year of college that deontological boyfriend gave me my first Michael Pollan book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I devoured it. I went on to read The Botany of Desire and In Defense of Food and began to revise my definition of what it meant to eat ethically. I became obsessed with factory farming, corn and sustainability and decided that there were a number of factors that would impact my decision to eat meat. In In Defense of Food I learned the word "flexitarian" and adopted it for myself. Venison and other wild game became my meat of choice.
In my senior year of college I visited several farms for my journalism courses, including Bobolink Dairy. The owners of Bobolink, Jon and Nina White, were generous hosts and showed me what a farm could look like. Both Jon and Nina knew most of their cows by name, and could point them out to me from across snowy fields. They introduced me to a newborn calf named Beltane, and then invited me back in a few months for the festival of Beltane, when they would eat him. In those few months before the festival, I thought long and hard about what it meant to be eating an animal that I had met and been literally introduced to. Did it make it more wrong, or more right? Should it matter?
One of my biggest pet peeves is people who will eat absolutely anything unless it has eyes, or a beak, or some other feature that is a reminder of the animal the meat comes from. I used to be like that as a child, covering my eyes in front of the fish counter at Ralph's or while walking by the hanging ducks in the window of the Asian grocery. But this ickiness feeling is a construction of our culture, not a part of human nature, and a harmful construction in my opinion. Are we really so disconnected from the origins of what we put in our bodies that we can't deal with anything that reminds us of the fact that these animals were once alive? If we can't deal with the fact that these animals were once alive do we have a right to eat them? I say no. With this in mind I set out to catch a fish in Yosemite this last summer and insisted that the ranger who lent me his equipment let me kill it. It was hard, and there was a little ickiness in my stomach, but I did it and felt good about it because it didn't last long (and also the trout up there are not native). I breathed a sigh of relief and ate the trout for dinner (that's me on the left eating my trout). I have never felt so connected to what I was ingesting and it felt awesome. I can't wait to be in a place in my life where almost everything I put in my mouth was harvested or killed by my own hand or that of someone else I know.Anyhow the point is I ate Beltane the calf and I liked it, and I felt better about it than any bovine I had ingested before or have ingested since.
Eating Animals takes a stance that is a lot more hard-core than Pollan's philosophy. Although Foer praises Pollan's writing, he implies that the author has not gone far enough in his recommendations. Foer is convincing, describing the horrors of factory farming in far gorier detail than Pollan or Food Inc. But I am halfway through the book and he has yet to address the possibility that one can eat eggs, dairy and meat responsibly. I am not going to give up my flexitarian status yet, but I am going to be a lot more discerning about food labels that claim things like "cage free" or "organic." I've also given up a lot of seafood. If Foer's statistics are correct, it is almost impossible to find real food out there from real farms. However, it is out there--I've seen it in New Jersey--and I can probably find it in Santa Cruz. That makes me happy.
24 December 2009
An Apology for All Equations (and my addiction to them)
My father pointed out that in my last post I went on and on about the virtues of presenting science as accessible, and then included in my postscript the derivation of a rather formidable looking thermodynamics equation. Am I a hypocrite? Maybe a little bit. I'm definitely guilty of having used the word "nerdy," which associates an interest in science with images of pocket protectors, skinny white boys and all things "uncool."
As for the equation, don't be intimidated. Rho is density,a is radius, c is heat capacity and kappa is thermal conductivity. If this is unfamiliar, that's probably because it is presented in the specialized lingo of the discipline of thermodynamics. But basically, the equation relates specific qualities of the egg, such as temperature and size, to how long you need to cook it for. Lingo and symbols can make smart people fear physics principles that are deceptively simple. My favorite example is F=ma: Newton's second law. As I see it, F=ma is basically just a brilliant restatement of the obvious. It's a giant DUH: when you make something move, it moves. That's it. A force (F) is something that makes something move, the mass (m) is the something, and the acceleration (a) is the moving.
My definition of moving, by the way, does not include traveling at a constant speed in the same direction. An object will do that on its own, no force required.
Anyhow, the point is that we need equations in order to make doing science a lot easier, but that doesn't mean that when an equation is involved the concept should be lost. Behind every physics equation is something real, something physical. That's what makes it physics.
As for the equation, don't be intimidated. Rho is density,a is radius, c is heat capacity and kappa is thermal conductivity. If this is unfamiliar, that's probably because it is presented in the specialized lingo of the discipline of thermodynamics. But basically, the equation relates specific qualities of the egg, such as temperature and size, to how long you need to cook it for. Lingo and symbols can make smart people fear physics principles that are deceptively simple. My favorite example is F=ma: Newton's second law. As I see it, F=ma is basically just a brilliant restatement of the obvious. It's a giant DUH: when you make something move, it moves. That's it. A force (F) is something that makes something move, the mass (m) is the something, and the acceleration (a) is the moving.
My definition of moving, by the way, does not include traveling at a constant speed in the same direction. An object will do that on its own, no force required.
Anyhow, the point is that we need equations in order to make doing science a lot easier, but that doesn't mean that when an equation is involved the concept should be lost. Behind every physics equation is something real, something physical. That's what makes it physics.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
zoe,
zoe buck
How to Boil and Accessorize Eggs
I have continued to obsess over soft boiled eggs (I'm making one RIGHT NOW). Yesterday I went to Koontz Hardware in West Hollywood while I was waiting for my friends and they had a pathetic selection of egg cups. So I went to Etsy which sadly didn't have the selection I dreamed it would. But there were a few awesome handmade egg cups, and also several people making custom knitted "egg hats," or "egg cozies." The hats keep your soft boiled egg warm in its egg cup until you are ready to eat it. Naturally I need one. I plan on hitting the yarn this afternoon (an egg hat seems easy enough, right?). My egg is ready.
Mmmmm, yum. So on another note, I was looking up soft boiled egg suggestions this morning and I got to a blog called "Ask Mr. Breakfast Mr. Breakfast blogged the following:
"I'm not a scientist, in the pompous go-to-science-college sense of the word, but I have a theory. Egg shells are what those fancy scientists call "porous". Basically, that means it has tiny microscopic holes that allow the egg to absorb air. I believe that the air that enters the egg over time creates - what I call - "a little wall of air" between the egg and its shell. Super fresh eggs have hardly any little wall of air at all. Therefore, the egg is all smooshed up against the shell. In the end, it's like a shoe. A tight shoe is hard to remove. A shoe with some room slips right off. Wow, maybe I am a scientist. Is there a test I can take?"
This really got my hackles up. Is that what some people see as science? A "pompous," "go-to-college" thing? I mean nothing against college, I think a higher education is something to be valued, but that's not what science is. Nor is there some "test" that makes one a scientist. As long as science is used in everyday conversation to mean something separated from what we do every day, something associated with old white men in lab coats who are "pompous" something is definitely wrong.
Jay Lemke, a prominent science education researcher with a PhD theoretical physics, puts it this way:
"Why does this mystique of science exist in our society? Whose interests does it serve to maintain that science provides absolute, objective truths whose proofs are accessible only to experts who are much smarter than the average person? I have already suggested that it is not just scientists themselves who benefit from this image. Those I have called "technocrats," professional managers and decision makers who justify their own preferences with selective interpretations of "the facts" and "expert knowledge," benefit far more and are far more dangerous to society. They are dangerous because they disguise their own privileged interests as objective public and institutional policy. They tell us that something must be done because the facts require it. The facts, they say, are provided by the experts, the scientists, and no one who is not a qualified expert has the right to dispute them. In this way, narrow interests are made to seem objective necessities, and policy debate excludes most of the people whose lives will be affected by a decision. That is dangerous. A complex society is headed for disaster when its basic decisions are made solely within the frame of reference of a small elite (From Talking Science, 1990, Ablex Publishing, pg 148)."
P.S. A fresh egg is difficult to peel due to the higher acidity of the egg. Because the egg shell is porous (well done Mr. Breakfast, that is indeed what the "fancy scientists" call it) it loses some of the carbon dioxide in the white over time as air passes through the pores. Less carbon dioxide means lower acidity (corresponding to a higher pH) meaning that the white is less likely to stick to the shell and the egg is easier to peel.
Also check out this formula for soft boiling eggs from the University of Exeter School of Physics
For those who are as nerdy as I am, the derivation is here.
23 December 2009
The End is Near
The end of traditional computing that is. Since my disastrous crash I've remained obsessed with getting as much stuff off of hardware and into the "cloud" as possible. For example I got the beta version of Google Chrome so that I can download extensions. The extensions allow me to make Gmail my default mail application, and seamlessly integrate mail collection into my browsing experience. Goodbye email client! One less thing to crash. I also got an extension that opens an Internet Explorer tab in case I ever get to a page that can only be viewed properly in IE. Goodbye Microsoft proprietary programs that are totally unstable and clunky and I hate them!
I feel like I'm one of those people in the sixties who built underground bomb shelters filled with canned food to protect against the inevitable Russian attack and the end of the world. But seriously, I'm totally going to be ready for the revolution, and it's going to be awesome. Meanwhile I'll sit here with my canned corn and my wireless radio and use up the air in my bunker.
My dad is wary of my enthusiasm, arguing that the internet is not reliable, and that he needs to be able to access his data and emails offline. Good point, but Google is working on it (and others too I'm sure). With Google Gears (built into Chrome, downloadable for Mozilla and IE, don't know about Safari or Opera), Google automatically synchs my Gmails to my hard drive, and if I'm offline I can interact inside a Chrome window with the saved emails as if nothing was wrong. Of course I can't send or receive email when I'm offline, but I can write messages that are queued on my hard drive and then sent automatically when I reconnect to the web.
I feel like I'm one of those people in the sixties who built underground bomb shelters filled with canned food to protect against the inevitable Russian attack and the end of the world. But seriously, I'm totally going to be ready for the revolution, and it's going to be awesome. Meanwhile I'll sit here with my canned corn and my wireless radio and use up the air in my bunker.
Labels:
blog zblog,
buck,
cloud computing,
google,
zoe,
zoe buck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


