I’d like to take a moment a list a few things that I’ve concluded are just not worth the bother anymore. Frustratingly, for most of these, I have to bother anyway.

Desks without cable management

Okay, okay, I know, some desks never have electronics on them. I just don’t know of any personally. It’s a few extra bucks, sure, but I’d be willing to pay for it. What I’m not willing to pay for is a high-end desk just so I can get a feature that many, if not most, desks need. Aside from the clutter that cables around normal desks cause and the ad-hoc management–and slightly less ugly separate “wire managers”–cables are safety hazhards. If they’re inside the the cable path built into the desk, the problem can largely disappear.

And let’s note that desks ought to have at least an intended place for at least one surge protector (I’d prefer one included), and that means space for a protector that gives enough space between the plugs to accomodate the coverters. Speaking of which…

Power bricks

Seriously, if one of the selling points of so many electronic items today is low space and portability, massive power converters (different for each one) defeat the purpose. Okay, yes, I understand the converters are needed, and I understand that I’m not an electrical engineer and no doubt what I’m asking is difficult. And you know what? I don’t care.

Non childproof electric sockets

Sorry, I guess I’m on an electric kick. But that kick makes sense. We’re an electricity centric society, but we keep banging our collective heads against the accessories. Every building has sockets, but they’re treated as afterthoughts. All new residences, at least, should be required to have childproof sockets installed (pick your preferred method). Why can’t we simplify safety a bit? I mean, the LATCH system can be a pain on occassion, but it’s there, in just about every car. I appreciate that. Why can’t we do that for our homes? (Actually, I think there may be some childproofing with the power sockets in the home my family just moved into. So maybe this is happening.)

CRLF

By which I mean Windows style newlines. I’m just saying.

Lack of clarity about how long to keep financial records

I realize Congress’ power to regulate commerce…among the several states has been thoroughly abused. But how about defining how long financial records need to be kept? Ask Google this question, get a thousand answers. And always with the “but your state may have different requirements.” Let’s make it clear and make it known to every high schooler.

College education

Yeah, I have another article maybe coming about this. I will clarify that a college education is beneficial to many, including me. But not to the extent that it’s marketed. More important is that the culture around college largely prohibits just going to a few classes to learn, whenever.

Weak Conclusion

Hey, I have a blog. I can use it to randomly complain, right?

On the discussion of useful laws ¹, here’s one I’d like to propose:

For any organization that 1) delivers–unsolicited–advertising mail, phone books, or, well, anything else; and 2) includes on said material a notice informing the recipient that he or she should recycle when done with that material–

1. Such organization shall be required to fund forty hours of environmental research for every such item delivered.
2. The officers of such organization shall be flogged ².

Thinking out loud here, so to speak. Proposal for thought:

Science is the process of turning magic into reason

For example, many people joke that computers operate by magic. Of course, this is not true, but then again, for many individuals, it might as well be. When one supposes that the rains come from a magical incantation, then later learns the processes of clouds and dew points and such, has anything happened to the rain? Of course not. But the perception has changed from magic to reason. Scientific study is responsible for this alteration.

I mention this in respect to the Biblical prohibitions against practicing magic. Consider Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (CEV):

When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to

imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

The immediate reaction of many Christians is to reject anything that our culture throws into the concept of magic. At any rate, this is a prohibition that I don’t think is harmful. And while I also don’t think reading fantasy novels should be rejected out of hand for this reason, I understand when a Christian makes that choice.

I rather have another point that I think is worth considering. Instead of reading “do not…[engage] in witchcraft,” read instead (for the purposes of this article) “do not engage any power which you do not understand.” Because you may be engaging a power which is antithetical to God’s work and holiness. In this case, the prohibition would become much larger, if we give the name “magic”–and we often do–to anything that does not seem understandable. But it also allows an additional path. Prohibitions need not be permanent, but to lift them requires understanding the power behind the operation and asserting that it is not something against God and his work.

I acknowledge that these thoughts may be misguided and incomplete, but I think it’s worth at least a few moments of consideration.

Ah, yes, I live in Oklahoma. And most of my co-workers are very much into college football. I, for one, enjoy watching the game, but don’t have a particular attachment to any team. But since most people I know do so, I tend to root for OU (I suppose then, if I have a bias in this article, it’s in favor of OU). So, anyway, naturally I’ve heard some of the recent debate/fiasco over the Big 12 method of deciding the division championship in the case of a round-robin three-way tie. I actually have a few comments on that method as opposed to the SEC method (eliminate third in the standing, then take the head-to-head winner of the other two) as I’ve listened to the discussions.

Problems with Elimate-the-Last method

My understanding of the SEC method may be incorrect, as I’m not interested enough in this thought problem to actually research it, so I’m examing what I understand to be the process (as noted parenthetically above). It has some problems.

1. The team that has the best (point wise) round-robin victory is very likely to lose the division championship, and the team with the least impressive point wise victory is likely to win. Because the team with the most significant loss (unless all games were pretty close) is probably going to be ranked third in the polls of those teams, and it’s likely that loss was to the top-ranked team. Guess who wins the division? The team not involved with the most lopsided game. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s likely.
2. A team is punished for winning a lopsided victory. Because the loser is of that game is likely the one to be elimated (in essence, this is just a different angle of considering point #1).
3. In a round-robin tie, there’s no way to logically use head-to-head victories as a metric. They’re all in the same boat. Eliminating a team using polls is not inherently different than choosing a winner based on polls (The poll voters essentially choose the winner in either case).

So, I think the SEC method is problematic, but what about the Big 12 method. Well, obviously, it’s not satisfactory to everyone. But at least it leaves the voters and computers trying to choose the best team of the three instead of the worst. The reality, though, is there’s just not enough games to come up with a non-controversial strategy. Some 120 teams with each team playing only 10% of the others. I imagine it’s simply not possible to effectively judge between them all. Even within a division, the teams play each other only once. There’s just enough games to ensure that every weakness will show up once, but not enough games to determine which weaknesses are general and which are one-time.

To me, the most sensible approach to a round-robin tie is point spread. Compare the margin of each team’s victory minus the margin of it’s defeat. After that, let the polls decide.

But, it must be acknowledged that determining clear champions in college football is a losing battle.

Beware the…

1970-01-01...2038-01-19

…EPOCH-ELLIPSE!