Cohorts, Decimate, and the Roman Legion

When I was a first year teacher, there were some freshmen kids talking in the back of class. So I called out "Hey, John - could you and your cohorts keep it down back there?" To which one of his friends tentatively asked "Mr. Rideout, what's a cohort?" I handed him a dictionary silently and a few minutes later he looked up and asked "Why would you call us a tenth of a Roman Legion?"

(image from http://www.natashatynes.org/gallery/)

A few years ago, Jan Freeman had an article in her newspaper column, The Word, on the word decimate. Her basic premise (one I agree with) is that English is a living language and the definitions of words evolve with the times and we can't get mired in the original intent of the word all the time. So she basically says, get over it, and allow everyone to use decimate to mean massive destruction rather than the more precise and antiquated "a loss of 1/10" (Apparently, the Romans would kill 1 in 10 soldiers in a mutinous legion). She cites William Safire's examples of honeymoon (it should last a month!) and journal (must be daily!) as additional evidence that english users should (and usually do) take a chill pill on the narrow use of decimate.

Here's a problem that she ignores: the prefix "deci" is enshrined in the metric system and those who are literate in modern science know and recognize that prefix to mean precisely "one tenth". So, I am holding out hope that decimate may be one of the few words to go from an old narrow definition to a broad, sweeping one and the back again to the narrow one.

I propose we redefine the word decimate to mean "a loss from every cohort." How's that for original intent?

Stars; Entertainment vs. Art

Between goodreads and netflix, I am always battling the dreaded "2, 3, or 4 star?" dilemma. (the one or five star books and movies are usually less problematic). The minor issue is binning your feelings about a work into only 5 states, but the bigger issue for me is one that I have been battling since before the 1-5 star rating system of the internet: Is it Art or is it Entertainment?

Without getting into the nuances, what I mean by "Art" in this context is a work that inspires, provokes, stretches, or raises questions that stay with me beyond the experience of the book, movie, painting, etc. itself. "Entertainment" is a work that is like a roller coaster ride: I had fun while in its embrace, but am left unchanged (except for maybe being happier) after the experience.

Lately I have been reading some definite

"entertainment"-only books, and wound up giving it 3 stars on goodreads. I felt I had to give it three stars because I read two of the books cover to cover, was turning the pages like a harry potter novel (another entertainment only series), and had trouble putting it down. The guilt of putting three stars on such non literary writing brought back a scathing indictment from a friend of mine who saw that I had only given three stars to formative books to us both like The Hitchhiker's Guide and Fahrenheit 451.

The solution might be to have two side by side 5-star ratings: "as entertainment" and "as art". Then I could go back and give the an unqualified "5 stars as entertainment" while only "3 stars as art" for the Star Wars movies. Hiroshima Mon Amour and The Magic Mountain could get the rare "1 star as entertainment while 5 star art" from me. (whereas the recent fantasy escapist books I've been reading could get the opposite rating from me - with perhaps an optional "check this box if you are embarrassed by this rating" under the entertainment stars)

The two 5 star ratings now gives me 25 bins to put my ratings into so the minor problem of squeezing feelings into only 5 states is alleviated as well.

Now, I am considering, which books or movies would get the coveted double five-star rating? Can't put it down and changes my outlook on life at the same time...

It's All About Relationships

(image from http://www.getentrepreneurial.com)

What is the size of a single electron? How about a photon of light?

Try to look them up and you will quickly become frustrated. Sure, you can find the size of orbitals that electrons travel in or the wavelength of a certain frequency of light - but these are not the size of the particles themselves. The electron itself is somewhere within the orbital and the wavelength of light is an emergent property of many photons travelling through space...

Now try finding the size of a neutron or proton. Easy - you find definite numbers right away!

The difference between the two cases is this: Electrons and Photons are fundamental particles: meaning they can not be broken down into smaller pieces. You can destroy them or create them but you can not break them down into smaller pieces. Atoms, protons, and neutrons are aggregate particles and can be further broken down (atoms into electrons,protons, & neutrons; protons and neutrons into quarks and gluons).

Fundamental particles have no size in and of themselves (they are dimensionless). It is only in their relation to one another that a definite size is created. Each individual quark may have no defined size by them self, but put three of them together to make a proton and you will have constructed an object that DOES have definite size.

(image from Jefferson Lab)

So the stuff we deal with in our daily lives (light & matter) is all made out of smaller things (photons, electrons, quarks & gluons) without shape or size. It is only by their interaction with each other than anything definite is formed. Out of nothing comes something.

"The world is a network of relations not an assembly of things" - Carlo Rovelli

Best Worst Translation Ever

I've come across some bad english-french, french-english, and chinese-english translations in my day, but today, on the back of a chinese DVD I found lying around the house, I discovered the all time champ:

"In the world most the participate type movie of the stick, make with the person the expects of eight high appearance in floors, 12000 digital sound effect in times, takes you in to imagine through the IMAX technology. Only there is the technology of IMAX can make you feeling to attend personally the spot experience personally."

Health Insurance vs. Taxes

What with all the talk of health insurance reform, I decided to do a simple calculation:

Average teacher salary in Massachusetts: 56000

Average annual family health insurance premium: 12600

Say the average town pays 75 % of the premium and the

teacher pays the other 25 %, that means the difference between what the town pays (teacher salary + .75 x insurance premiums) and the teacher takes home (salary - .25 x insurance premiums) is 20%. I realize this number may be too low since insurance is more expensive in MA than the average state, so I ran the numbers with the insurance offered by my employer and came up with 26 percent. This doesn't even include co pays and other out of pocket expenses.

This means, that for every dollar the towns of Massachusetts pay for their teachers, a quarter goes out for health insurance premiums. For comparison, the average teacher only pays about a dime of every salary dollar in taxes!

Since part of the cost in paid by the employer and part by the employee - the pain is shared, but the money was spent! If you don't think health insurance in America is in a crisis, then wake up!

Evolution of a Dessert

9:00 AM : Decide to take chance on a yellowish banana

9:03 AM: Yuck! Banana is not ripe enough

9:30 AM: Guilt struck at seeing banana lying there, tuck it under the peel

9:35 AM: Remember substituting green bananas for plantains in a recipe years ago

10:21 AM: Thinking of fried plantains

2:41 PM: Banana no longer causing guilt, proudly announce "I'm gonna make dessert with that there banana!"

3:18 PM: Pull out can of chocolate cocoa

4:59 PM: Find bottle of triple sec in basement

6:15 PM: Slice banana thinly, put into hot pan with smidge of oil

6:16 PM: Lightly pepper and sprinkle cocoa on top of banana slices in pan

6:17 PM: Drizzle triple sec over frying bananas, get giddy with glee over the aroma

6:18 PM: Flip banana slices and turn off heat

6:19 PM: Put once small scoop vanilla ice cream into 5 bowls

6:22 PM: Carefully transfer 3-4 slices of banana from pan to ice cream bowls

6:25 PM: Finish eating banana

Bad Breath and Neuroscience

I have, for years now, noticed my own bad breath (hey it happens!) most prominently when conversing with others. At first, I used to always think it was the other person. Then, I thought I must have some psychological problem whereby I don't want to admit that I had the bad breath.

But lately I've been thinking that there is something about the way our brains are wired up at work here. Today I confirmed by simple experiment (the Holden Caulfield method) that I could not smell my own bad breath this morning before and after talking to someone, but while talking to them I was pretty confident I had it.

My theory is that, when I am on my own, my brain has no cause to worry about bad breath and does not (sometimes can not) detect it. However, when I am talking to someone my brain registers the bad breath which I sometimes misidentify as coming from the other person. Am I subconsciously being more discriminating about odors now that I am in a social context? A quick internet search does support my theory that psychology plays a major role in self-perception of bad breath. The researchers were focused on general self-image correlating to the perception issue rather than a changing context, but I think I am on to something.

Our sense of smell is our most primitive sense (first to evolve, most deeply buried in the brain, least regulated by our active consciousness) so our actual perception of smells are very contextual and individual. (I often have early memories or emotional states brought up from the depths of my mind by certain rare odors).

Perhaps I have finally learned how to acknowledge the plank of an odor in my own mouth rather than point out the speck of bad breath in my neighbors? (apologies to Matthew)

Cast no shadows on the Sun

The recent Solar Eclipse visible from Asia got me thinking about the Lunar Eclipse that my lovely wife took photos of from our backyard a few years ago.

Lunar Eclipses (Earth in between the Sun and the Moon) are easier to see because the Earth's shadow is large and the moon is small.

Solar Eclipses (Moon in between the Sun and the Earth) are rarely seen because the moon's shadow is small and the Earth is big.

(click on picture for a good explanation of lunar eclipses; photo from that site)

People always get things mixed up about these eclipses. I recently read a news report about the solar eclipse that contained the statement: "The eclipse started with the moon's shadow creeping across the face of the sun." Well now - you can't actually cast a shadow on the Sun can you?

The 27-Oct-2004 Lunar eclipse from the Riddy backyard

8:49 PM9:11 PM

9:31 PM

11:16 PM

11:34 PM

Notice the time lag of the moon being eclipsed - it is in shadow much longer than it take to become eclipsed. Why it that?

It doesn't show well here but the moon actually looks red at the beginning and ending of the total eclipse portion. Why is that?

(I will give my answers in the first comment)

Misconceptions about Bonds

The AP chem teacher was telling me the other day that one of the most persistent misconceptions in chemistry is that breaking molecular bonds can release energy. Of course all bonds require energy to be broken (think of two items glued together - no matter how they are glued, it takes energy to separate them!)

The reasons for this misconception is because most people don't understand energy and its relative nature. The misconception persists because people know:

1. That chemical reactions can release energy (e.g. exothermic reactions)
2. That energy can be released by 'splitting the atom' (e.g. the fission of U-235)
3. ATP is used for energy production in cells (biologists sometimes will incorrectly say "energy is released when ATP loses a phosphate group")

What these have in common is that they have a nice image: picture breaking open something and watching the goo come out (the goo seems like energy). This is completely wrong (energy is a complete abstraction - it is not something physical like goo) but I think this is what people picture and leads them to misconceptions about energy and bonds

1. Chemical reactions can absorb energy (e.g. endothermic reactions)
2. Nuclear reactions can absorb energy (e.g. the fission of most elements lighter than iron)
3. It takes energy to rip the phosphate group off of ATP

So what really counts is not the breaking or splitting, but the relative bond energies before and after.

1. WRONG: Chemical energy was stored in the bond and then released

CORRECTED: Energy was required to break the bond, but more was released when the new one was formed.

2. WRONG: Nuclear energy came from the breaking of the strong nuclear bonds

CORRECTED: If the nuclei in the end have less mass than in the begining then energy was released

3. WRONG: ATP --> ADP + energy

CORRECTED: The phosphate group falls into a stronger bond with the surrounding water than it had with ADP and therefore releases energy overall ( as in #1 above)

A graphic indicating that ALL bonds are negative energy situations!