October 2013 Archives
What do London Underground stops taste like? - Telegraph
Mornington Crescent tastes like fruit flan. Bond Street tastes like hairspray. Acton Town tastes like Ritz crackers. Highbury & Islington tastes like Dr. Pepper. Burnt Oak tastes like roast chestnuts.
"James Wannerton tastes words when he reads or hears them thanks to a neurological condition called synaesthesia that links senses which are normally experienced separately.
"He first noticed each Underground station created a distinct taste aged four when travelling to school with his mother from the family home near Willesden, north London.
"Since then Mr Wannerton has continued to keep notes and make special trips to London after leaving the city to complete his 'taste map' of the Tube. The 49-year project was finally completed earlier this year. "
Not Just AstLinux Stuff: Packets of Death
Intermittent problems are the toughest to diagnose. It takes persistence and perspicacity to pursue a bug with no apparent pattern and run it to ground. Here is an impressive technological detective story of deep debugging: How Kristian Kielhofner discovered that a certain value at a certain byte offset in an internet packet can disable the widely used Intel 82574L Ethernet controller and the tools he created to help you discover and diagnose similar problems.
Not Just AstLinux Stuff: Packets of Death
Intermittent problems are the toughest to diagnose. It takes persistence and perspicacity to pursue a bug with no apparent pattern and run it to ground. Here is an impressive technological detective story of deep debugging: How Kristian Kielhofner discovered that a certain value at a certain byte offset in an internet packet can disable the widely used Intel 82574L Ethernet controller and the tools he created to help you discover and diagnose similar problems.
In Conversation with Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine
Fascinating, quotable interview with the jurist who has brought originalism and textualism back to a degree of respectability.
"Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn't change. I mean, the notion that the Constitution should simply, by decree of the Court, mean something that it didn't mean when the people voted for it--frankly, you should ask the other side the question! How did they ever get there?"
"What I do wish is that we were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we're doing when we interpret the Constitution. I mean, that's sort of rudimentary. It's sort of an embarrassment, really, that we're not. But some people think our job is to keep it up to date, give new meaning to whatever phrases it has. And others think it's to give it the meaning the people ratified when they adopted it. Those are quite different views. "
"A lot of stuff that's stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says--Whack! [Pounds his fist.]--STUPID BUT ÂCONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT ÂCONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! ÂSTUPID BUT ÂCONSTITUTIONAL ... [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one."
"You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn't happen very much anymore. ... What he's doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He's much more successful that way.... He got wilier."
"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil."
On whether it's easier to be close to a colleague who is ideologically different:
"There may be something to that. If you have low expectations, you're not disappointed. When it's somebody who you think is basically on your side on these ideological controversies, and then that person goes over to the dark side, it does make you feel bad."
"My tone is sometimes sharp. But I think sharpness is sometimes needed to demonstrate how much of a departure I believe the thing is. Especially in my dissents. Who do you think I write my dissents for? [Law students.] Exactly. And they will read dissents that are breezy and have some thrust to them. That's who I write for. "
Back to School | The Weekly Standard
Yale computer science professor David Gelernter calls on his fellow conservatives to lead the reinvention of higher education: "This is the future: The Internet can be an international gossip machine, or it can be a switchboard for connecting pairs or groups who could never otherwise have come together. The most important aspect of the university of the near future is not the Internet per se; it's the distribution of university functions throughout the educated population. Engineers and industrial scientists, retired schoolteachers, journalists, combat veterans, economists, housewives, MDs, diplomats, businessmen, musicians, and many thousands of others across the globe are potential teachers or (just as important) one-on-one tutors in science, mathematics and engineering, music and the arts, and​--​the university's most important mission​--​in how to read and write like a grown-up. Some humanities fields will continue to require heavy assistance from academia. Some areas in the social sciences will disappear. And easily 90 percent (maybe 95) of existing U.S. colleges and universities could be gone within 15 years. "
Heritage Foundation: What is Marriage? The Future of Marriage
A long but thorough and comprehensive policy analysis by Ryan T. Anderson: "Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It." Here is the abstract:
"Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society's least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage--monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence--the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage."
