If you like this book, you might hate this one...

Courtesy Gazebo, I just found out about LibraryThing's UnSuggester. If you enter a book you have or have read, then (provided at least 75 people have listed it), you'll be given a list of books that you definitely shouldn't read because you'll probably hate them.

For example, if you like the Feynman Lectures on Physics (approximate title), then you shouldn't be reading anything by Stephen King.

Or if you like Oxford's new annotated bible, there are a number of fantasy/sci-fi authors you should avoid.

2006 MLB Rookies of the Year

I'm two for two in baseball award predictions so far, as Hanley Ramirez won the NL Rookie of the Year and Justin Verlander won the AL one. ESPN's article, which includes the vote tallies, is here.

Absolutely Fabulous

I saw the Pet Shop Boys in concert on Thursday. (If you don't know why the entry title goes with this, your homework is to do some googling.)

The concert, which was the last one on their US tour, was awesome! The Pet Shop Boys have always been one of my favorite bands, and I finally had a chance to see them in concert. Add in the fact that it helped take my mind off things (which is something I've needed the last few days) and that one of my problems got solved while I was at the concert (though I found out only upon my return) and that I had another idea for how to mostly solve another one during the concert (it would turn out to work as well) and Thursday was a good night (though there is still one other thing about which I'm gnawing at myself constantly).

There was no opening act. Instead, the Pet Shop Boys played slightly longer than they otherwise might have and had an intermission. They did a really good job with their special effects, which included a very brief glimpse of George Bush II on-screen during the song "I'm With Stupid" and a background with lots of tanks and stuff during "The Sodom and Gomorrah Show." These two songs are both on the new album, Fundamental, which goes back to the Pet Shop Boys' new wave roots more than most of their recent albums. I suppose I should have reviewed that album here at some point---in general, it's very good and has several very strong tracks (a couple in particular), but it doesn't really have any truly spectacular songs. Arguably the coolest song on the album is the "duet" with Elton John called "In Private." The Pet Shop Boys have done some pretty funky collaborative songs before (such as one with Liza Minelli), and this one is also special.

Anyway, back to the concert... There were a number of songs from the current album, a lot of really old songs, and a few "in between" ones as well. The two most notable absences, among songs one might expect them to perform (so deep album cuts that happen to be awesome don't count here, though there were obviously song of those I would have loved to hear), were "Being Boring" (I really wish they sang that) and "What Have I Done to Deserve This." The other mild disappointments were that the version of "Opportunities" they sang was somewhat abbreviated (it would have been nice if they included all the verses) and they sang a remix of "So Hard" which though cool was not as cool as the original. As they sometimes do, they changed the words to one or two songs slightly. ("Left To Our Own Devices" had some minute changes that come to mind.)

One of the things the Pet Shop Boys did exceptionally well was segue from one song to another and at a couple points, the riff to one song included parts of another song (or 3-4 in the case of the ending part of "Go West," which was very appropriately the last song of the show). These also tended to be songs that go well together (thankfully). Unsurprisingly, the biggest cheer was for "West End Girls," which was their first single---it originally came out in 1984 but it was the second version of the single, released at the end of 1985, that became their first and still biggest hit. (Actually, I like the original version of the single better because the pace is faster. My brother owned it on record, though it was lost years ago. I have yet to be able to find this version of the song online.) I agree the song is awesome, but it probably doesn't even rank in my top 10 list of Pet Shop Boys' songs because they have recorded so much good stuff. (For what it's worth, wikipedia claims that this song is the first UK #1 single that was rapped rather than sung.) The song that highlighted my evening was "It's a Sin." I love that song, and they performed it especially well on Thursday!

One last thing worth mentioning: At one point, somebody from the audience tossed something on-stage that appeared to be some sort of underwear. Once the current song was over, lead singer Neil Tennant picked it up, smiled, gave the audience a thumbs up in the general direction from whence the article of clothing was tossed, and handed it to somebody offstage. My point here is that unlike, say, Madonna, some artists actually roll with the punches instead of having hissyfits.

Borat

Well, let's keep to the subject of being offensive.

I have a bunch of movies (and one extremely awesome concert!) I've meant to discuss since I returned home and I'm actually not even done with my Oxford blogging, though I have recently been waylayed by other things, such as party changes in the House (and sort of in the Senate, as Justin reminded me) and my own little impersonation of John Kerry. (I guess I also figured out that a few people are actually reading my blog. I wonder about that sometimes, and I'm curious if that type of tripping is similar at some level to the insecurities I feel in my social interactions. A major difference is that my blog is also in large part for me---in that I gain a very nontrivial benefit just from forcing myself to write stuff down regularly---and wondering whether anybody has read my posts when I don't see a comment for a while is a lot less stressful than wondering if not getting a response to an e-mail or two means I've done something wrong without realizing it. I just wish this kind of stress wouldn't make me lose my appetite for days at a time.)

Before I get to the movie that I'll discuss in this post (which is actually the most recent one I've seen), I wanted to interject one more thing. I watched an episode of Star Trek: TNG tonight for the first time in quite a while. (I started by wanting something on tv while I ate in the hopes that I would eat more than a few mouthfuls. Sadly, that didn't work. By the way, this is one reason I try to grab others to go to dinner and especially do so in a "bursty" manner---if I feel a certain way, I need to have others sharing a meal with me to even get myself to eat. For some reason, though, I don't have this problem when it comes to consuming coffee.) This episode, which I may have seen years ago but didn't actually remember at all, is notable in that it's the one in which the Borg is first introduced (I suppose 'first introduced' is redundant). I was intrigued enough at the beginning to watch the whole thing and postpone reading the article on my plate until later in the evening. (I actually did some work tonight. I'm extremely "dedicated.")

Anyway, back to the movies...

When I first saw the trailer for Borat, I was intrigued. I figured the movie would either be really good or really bad, but it looked interesting and I wanted to see it. Then the movie came out and while the articles I read warned about one particular gross-out scene (and with good reason, I'll add!!!!), the reviews were positively glowing. The movie also got a very high score on IMDB and Lemming heard positive reviews from individuals. So I thought I was in for a satirical treat. I let my expectations get really high.

OK, so what happened? Well, some idea of what I'm about to write can be predicted easily enough by a combination of knowledge about me and the Borat wikipedia entry. (Lemming seemed to react in a similar manner to me but not as strongly.) Let me first say that there are times when the movie nails things right on the head the way I was expecting. In these moments, "Borat" (Sacha Baron Cohen) is just talking and getting other people to admit to very unpolitically correct beliefs---such as executing homosexuals, doing bad things to Jewish people, talking about the confederate flag as part of their "heritage", etc. Some of people's beliefs that are revealed (and we all know that they're there, but it's still rather different to see how little it takes for them to come to the surface and to see people talk matter-of-factly about such disgusting beliefs) really drive the social criticism home, and many of these partial scenes are done in a very humerous manner. (I really liked the one with Congressman Bob Barr, for instance. That was priceless!)

Now, most of the film was done with unwitting participants, so the major problem for me arose when "Borat" starts doing things that cause people damage. That's just not cool at all. In general, I'm really hard to offend in the sense that in the vector space of words and deeds, I have very few basis vectors along which I am offended. However, when somebody does an action that has a nonzero inner productive with one of these vectors, I get really offended almost immediately. (Or, if you want me to be less nerdy, I have very few buttons but when one of them is pushed, I have a tendency to go from "calm" [or whatever I possess that passes for calm] to berzerk almost immediately.) In one seen, "Borat" destroys the property in an antique shop. Most of the stuff in there might be complete garbage, but there was absolutely no need for this. And it doesn't even further the points about US attitudes that I thought he was trying to convey! It's acting like an ass for the sake of acting like and ass and causing problems for other people. In another scene, he is making a fool of himself on TV. In the movie, it may not have seemed horrible, but then I read on the wikipedia entry how the person who booked him got fired over that. This is doing serious damage to somebody's life, and that's just not acceptable! (That person has sued. Actually, I just read a few minutes ago that the frat boys have also sued, although that part didn't bother me.)

The aspect on which I believe Lemming and I differ is the scenes in which "Borat" and "Azamat" were, um, "enjoying" each other's company. I was just grossed out by that.

It may seem like I just totally trashed this movie. I don't think it's without value and when I left the theatre, I told Lemming that if I had to judge both the positive (there were some shining moments, as I mentioned) and negative (there were a lot of "anti-moments"). I wasn't in a great mood before I saw the movie and this is the type of movie that after seeing malicious acts against unwitting people in the name of entertainment actually put me in a worse mood than before I saw the movie. Also, as I find out more and more behind some aspects of the movie, the taste in my mouth just gets worse and worse. I was going through my mental list of friends briefly trying to think if there was anybody (not counting those who already saw the movie) who I think would actually enjoy the movie and not just be utterly pissed off by certain things in it, and nobody came to mind. (I was thinking at first that there might be a subset of people among my peeps for whom I could be confident that this would be a great movie and that I wouldn't have to "worry" about them getting offended by it. I couldn't think of a single person, and then I realized that I'm really glad that I couldn't think of a single such person among my friends.)

Let me summarize. The Aristocrats, considered by many to be utterly offensive, was brilliant! Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic, also considered by many to be extremely offensive, was brilliant! Borat, although it has several really great moments (maybe we should watch the 25 minute version?), really leaves a sour taste in my mouth because of other cirumstances behind the movie and it's really hard for "satire" (is it fair to call this satire?) to truly make me react that way. (I typically love satire---especially the extremely harsh variety.) The major difference between this and things other people find offensive: People were hurt.

"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."

This is the first line in the recent article in Caltech's Engineering & Science about work with which I'm involved. I have previously provided links to other publicity that we've seen as well as to the article itself, so I'll just mention that there is also a reference to Dr. Evil in the article and leave it at that.

Mea culpa

I just deleted a post. (Aside from accidental duplicates, I think this is the first time I've done this.)

So, in my usual lack of filtering way (because I really do almost always speak/write before I think), I made a joke which intended to have losers like me as the target. I believe that all I did in the process was piss off people who read the comment (at least one I know and one I don't), prove my point that I'm a loser, and give Lemming a good laugh (which I suppose is equivalent to the second point I just made).

After I got the first comment (the second arrived while I was answering the first), I reread the actual text of what I wrote and certainly saw other ways to read the comment than what I intended.

So, the best I can do is remove the post, apologize again, hope that my friends are all still my friends, and hope that people who I don't know who read that (and don't have all those other wonderful interactions with me upon which to draw) don't think I'm a complete waste of carbon.

The post was meant to be provocative---but what I wanted to do was discuss the abstract and why that guy was questioning "self-evident" things (his quotes because he was questioning them) that I do consider self-evident.

While I already know my abilities to see things through others' eyes are really poor, perhaps they are even poorer than I thought.

I'll be happy to provide further explanations (and copies of the comments people put on the post) in private discussion.

Democrats win the Senate too!

Fuck yeah!

Not that I'm a great fan of the Democrats, but this is the best political news in over a decade! Maybe now this country can start improving again for a change...

(Also, I solved one of my problems and have an idea that may provide a reasonable solution to a second one. I have found out that there is funding to extend my Caltech job through the end of September, so I no longer have to figure out what to do this summer. The fact that I have no travel money left isn't completely solvable. However, I already planned to attend one conference out of pocket, and I am seeing whether I can use my Oxford travel funds for the secone one---I would just have to wait a few more months before I'm reimbursed.)

News from the arXiv

Here is a paper that was recently revised:


Paper (*cross-listing*): quant-ph/0605021
replaced with revised version Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:20:44 GMT (12kb)

Title: Monogamy inequality for distributed Gaussian entanglement
Authors: Tohya Hiroshima, Gerardo Adesso, and Fabrizio Illuminati
Comments: 4 pages, no figures. Several improvements, proof made more
transparent, conclusions enriched
Subj-class: Quantum Physics; Mathematical Physics; Statistical Mechanics;
Optics
\\ ( http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0605021 , 12kb)



First, I am rather curious what exactly constitutes "enriched" conclusions in a "monogamy inequality," especially when "distributed entanglement" is involved. Second, I totally dig the third author's last name. :)


In other news, I got an e-mail this evening indicating that I've already overspent my academic funds. This is bad news, because if this is accurate, I will need to pay for two conferences entirely on my own. D'oh! I wonder if I screwed up a calculation somewhere... I was thinking I would have to do one on my own and would have enough funds for almost all of the other one. Well, I can't get out of the earlier of these two, but I may end up having to bail on the second of these even though that is my most important conference. Damnit. Well, I just have to cross my fingers and hope that this is somebody else's error rather than mine... If I can't get Caltech to pay me this summer (my job expires in mid June, but I'll still be paying rent here for a while after that), I'm going to take a serious financial hit. I'll survive without a problem, but I will be losing a hefty sum from my bank account.

The hits just keep on coming

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be resigning today. (Thanks to Lemming for pointing me to this graphical depiction.)

Democrats take the House!

Here's yet another thing to celebrate!

Wow, there's really been a lot of great news in my life during the past several weeks! (That doesn't stop me from feeling grumpy when I have the flu or when Matlab has a hissyfit, but this is an issue of major good news versus comparitively minor day-to-day annoyances.)

Here is what Gazebo writes about this victory.

New laptop...

(Attempt 2 on this post... Safari crashed on me in the middle of the last post and also crashed earlier today. Damnit.)

I just bought a specific new laptop today!

You know what that means? It's time to come up with a harddrive name! Any ideas?

The early lead is "Vecna" because my backup harddrive is already named "Phylactery." I think that's a decent choice, but I'd like to do better. Admittedly, it is better than my current one, called "Death From Above." Previous ones have included "Duende," "Phlegethon" (which I ironically forgot for a few minutes! If you don't see why it's ironic, look up Phlegethon right now), "Valykrie," and "Forgotten Realm." (I think that covers all the laptop harddrives. A couple of times, I had to replace harddrives that died, so I renamed things when that happened. I think "Duende" is the one that only lasted a few months [so the replacement was free], which is also kind of funny.) My current iPod is called "Chotchke" and my original one (which I still have, but the maximum battery life has decayed quite a bit) is called "Hoopak."

Anyway, let me know your ideas for harddrive names.


Here are the specs for my new preciousssssss:

MacBook Pro, 15-inch, 2.33GHz
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 6x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
Accessory Kit


I also bought AppleCare and a power adaptor for airplanes.

Does anybody know if Civ IV is out for the Mac? I need to get that asap...

If you die in the game, you die for real

Courtesy Lemming, here is an amusing picture.

While the depicted game is solitaire, it reminds me of a certain ridiculous comic strip that was produced by anti-D & D people. It depicted somebody who was ostracized by the rest of the people in her party (in real life) because her character died, and at least in some versions, her suicide was also involved. Actually, the strip is funny because of its sheer absurdity even though its producers were being serious. Of course, the first clue that it's completely unrealistic is that the depicted campaign has two female players... (Let me know if you find such a campaign, however, because I want to join it.)

On another note, I briefly caught the following on the news: Apparently, some dumbass got arrested this week in a short chain of events that started when during a game of Truth or Dare, he was asked about the stupidest thing he had ever done, and he answered that he had shot someone. Brilliant. Maybe now that's the second stupidest thing he's ever done...

Baseball awards: Here's who should win

NL MVP: Ryan Howard deserves by a hair over Albert Pujols (who would have deserved it if not for the DL time). Several others--including Miguel Cabrera, Matt Holliday, and Lance Berkman--also had outstanding seasons.

AL MVP: I'm going against the grain on this one and giving my vote to Jermaine Dye. I was going with Joe Mauer for most of the year, but he really tailed off at the end. I'd put Derek Jeter 2nd (though he's going to be the one to actually win the award), Mauer 3rd, Justin Morneau 4th, and David Ortiz 5th. Manny Ramirez, Travis Hafner, and Jim Thome had superb seasons but lost some time to injuries and got lowered just a notch for MVP considerations. Also, when will Grady Sizemore and Carlos Guillen get some love?

NL Cy Young: This race is wide open. Nobody even won 17 games. (In fact, nobody in the Majors won 20 games for the first time in a long time.) There are a bunch of starters with similar stats and none of them really stands out from the others; this includes Chris Carpenter, Roy Oswalt, and Brandom Webb. It is in such years that relievers get Cy Youngs, and I will go that route and vote for all-time saves leader Trevor Hoffman. What will happen is that the starters will split lots of votes among themselves and Hoffman will get the Cy Young---kind of like that episode of "Different Strokes" in which Willis Jackson won a beauty contest in which all the other contestants were females because all the girls split the female vote and all the guys voted for Willis.

AL Cy Young: Johan Santana. And it isn't even close.

NL ROY: There was a very strong crop of rookies in the National League this year. With a late push (after a long midseason slump), I'm going for Hanley Ramirez of the Marlins. Honorable mentions (in no particular order): Josh Johnson (Marlins), Dan Uggla (Marlins), Ryan Zimmerman (Nationals), Prince Fielder (Brewers), and Josh Willingham (Marlins). (Notice that the Marlins have quite a core of young talent, and they also had other very successful rookies who I haven't mentioned here...)

AL ROY: I'm going to take Justin Verlander by a nose over Francisco Liriano, who pitched better but not close to as often. (Sadly, Liriano needs Tommy John surgery and will miss the entire 2007 season.) Jered Weaver also deserves an honorable mention.

NL Manager of the Year: Joe Girardi (Marlins), even though he got fired once the season ended.

AL Manager of the Year: Jim Leyland (Tigers).

From the Somerville College website

Somerville College is where I'll be a Tutor in Oxford. They have housing for faculty, so the best thing for me will be to reside there at first (and make my life easier rather than trying to find an apartment while oversease). This is known as a "set." I don't know precisely what it has, but we'll see.

I'll write more about the College later (perhaps much later), but I was poking around their website trying to find a Somerville t-shirt and found something I wanted to mention now. (I saw a memorabilia shop in Oxford that sold t-shirts for the individual Colleges, but I was not about to buy one without first having an offer.) Their website advertises their bar (in-house bars are a major component of College life in the Oxbridge system), and I just love the following quote from the description: "Our Bar is also fantastically adorned with murals of the seven ‘deadly sins’." I approve!

I'll just go ahead and buy a regular Oxford t-shirt. That will nicely complement the "Magic Missles Kill People" t-shirt I purchased earlier today.

Sociology Experiment: Quirksome.org

One of my friends is collaborating on a sociology experiment via the website quirksome.org, which is "a game of first impressions" in which one tries to see how well one can tell somebody's personality based on a picture. (I'm curious about how to "break the system" or at least provide null models using photoshopping, cartoon renderings, etc.) Apparently, the idea is to see gow visually perceptive people are with pictures. (Well, it's a particular type of perception.)

Here is the text of the e-mail I received:

"I'm collaborating on a sociology experiment, and would like to solicit your help. The purpose of the project is to see how much information people can extract about someone's personality just from a photo. We put up a website (quirksome.org) and are recruiting people to post their pictures. If you or anyone you know doesn't mind being on display, we would appreciate your help."

Hyperculture pie charts

Courtesy Lemming, here are some hyperculture pie charts. Long live Pac-Man! (I agree with Lemming that that one is the best one.)

Liveblogging: Devoci\'{o}n por las Mases (Tributo a Depeche Mode)

(Note that I am using latex notation for accent on the 'o' in the blog title.)

This album, a Spanish tribute album to Depeche Mode, was an impulse buy on Amazon when I was preordering a book that was released at the end of last month. (I made the order in July and only just got it now because of the book's release.) When Gazebo liveblogged an album review, I thought it would be cool if I liveblogged something as well, but I really wasn't sure what it should be. Then I remembered that I was going to get this album, so I decided this would be a good choice. (Sorry for not giving any advanced warning!)

I've preordered Loreena McKennitt's new album---her first studio album in almost 10 years!---though that one doesn't really make sense for a liveblog.

As usual, the track selection includes both obvious choices and surprising ones. However, first let me make a comment about the album cover. After the first song started, I noticed that the 'es' in 'mases' is cut off, which is not a particularly good sign.

Track 1: Begoña, Free Love. This song comes from the album Exciter, which has some good songs but is not one of DM's best (by a healthy margin). This song is a ballad and was a very odd choice. It was recorded live and in the beginning one can actually hear DM's "Personal Jesus" in the background. The background noise fades a bit, but one can still hear it throughout the song, which was sung in English. The singing (by females) was good (and it was amusing to hear the hispanic accents in the singing), so this isn't a total loss, but I'm not overly impressed.

Track 2: Deluxe, Everything Counts. This is much better! The song was stripped down, as the instruments are mostly just a piano or two. This song works very well as a ballad, though this too is in English.

Track 3: Australian Blonde, People are People. This was also in English and was really not very impressive. It's too bad, because the original is such a great song.

Track 4: Maga, Little 15. This was another odd cover choice, although this song is actually one of the best DM ballads out there. The cover is more upbeat than the original and has an additional Latin-style rythym in the background that actually works quite well. I'm digging this one, though the original is certainly better. (Of course, I'm more interested in hearing the songs that are actually in Spanish. I think three of them are, but I would have preferred the whole album to be in Spanish.)

Track 5: Viena #1, Sometimes. This DM ballad is another odd choice. That said, this song has also been sped up and I am digging the cover. Actually, I think I like this version better than the original (which is among the weaker DM songs out there). It works really well with a faster pace!

Track 6: Sexy Sadie, Blasphemous Rumors. The original is one of my favorite DM songs. The cover sounds good as well, though it pales in comparison to the original. I'm glad to have any cover of this song, but I really wish it were in Spanish! (Also, I like the band's name.)

Track 7: Luxury, Shake the Disease. Dude! Awesome! Female synth-pop cover of the song! (My immediate impression is that this is what a Ladytron version of "Shake the Disease" would sound like.) This is easily the best track so far! (This also reminds me---I need to find a copy of the stripped-down version of "Shake the Disease" that Depeche Mode sang at Coachella. They turned it into a ballad, and it was just really beautiful.) I approve! The ending is a little weird, though.

Track 8: Miños mutantes, "El Silencio" (Enjoy the Silence). Finally, a cover that's actually in Spanish! It's cool and it's much better than the cover of this song that Tori Amos did. However, it can't come close to DM's original, which is only on the short short list of my best songs of all time (it's not the only DM song on that list). Of course, if one is going to cover a DM song, this would be the canonical choice. The Spanish lyrics to the song definitely work very well, however, so I'm glad to have this. As far as my tastes go, I'd change the musical style somewhat.

Track 9: Simo, Walking in My Shoes. This song is from the Songs of Faith and Devotion album and is certainly a reasonable song to cover. It sounds reasonably faithful to the original, although it the style is a little "rougher." It's good, but it's nothing special.

Track 10: Digital 21, Never Let Me Down Again. It sounds good---much better than the Smashing Pumpkins' cover on the "official" DM tribute album. This is also an unsurprising choice of songs to cover. For some reason, the artists decided to adjust the lyrics to make them less subtle. "I'm having sex with my best friend" has replaced "I'm taking a ride with my best friend" on a number of occasions. Lame. As if it wasn't obvious already. The song still sounds good, but that's a flaw and this was never one of my favorite DM songs anyway. There also is a long riff in the song that starts out cool but gradually fades into annoying. I'm going to have to downgrade this to decent.

Track 11: Los Acusicas, "Tu \'{U}nico Dios" (Personal Jesus). This is another of the obvious songs to cover. Hmmm... the style is odd---it's very different from the original, the DM acoustic version, and the Johnny Cash version (the first two of which are awesome and the third of which is very good). They grunged it up. I was kind of hoping for an acoustic version in Spanish. I like it, but not a lot. I was hoping for more. At least it's in Spanish. Also, "Dios" means "God," not "Jesus" and the word used in the song is "Cristo" (aka, the correct word). Who wrote the track list? Also, the end of the song samples "Master and Servant," which provides a segueway to the next song but nothing else.

Track 12: I Kan, "Ama y Esclavo" (Master and Servant). Alright, this sounds really good! Here we have the second best track of the CD, which is also in a synth-pop style (notice the coindence... I *heart* synth-pop). Also, the main singer is female, which provides a nice contrast to the original (and apparently provides a bit of role-reversal). Dude, they just segued between a couple verses to the music from "Personal Jesus" but instead of sampling they played it themselves and it worked really well! Then they returned to the main theme. I approve! This is the second big win of the album.

Track 13: Dirty Princess, Pleasure Little Treasure. This is a strange choice. The format is odd, but it does sound pretty good. Specifically, the background music sounds very good, but the singing itself is detracting from it. Once they got into the verses, the singing started reminding me of "Money" by Flying Lizard (which is one of the worst songs of all time). Yuck. Well, the track isn't utterly hopeless but it definitely works better as a Ride chaser than for any other purpose.

Track 14: Alex Under, Monument. This is another strange choice. It was included on the "official" tribute album as well, but it's a really obscure old song by DM, so I'm not sure why this keeps getting included in these albums. I like the original and the tribute on the "official" tribute is actually even better, but I would (much!) rather have a cover of something like "Strangelove."

Track 15: Universal Circus, Just Can't Get Enough. This is another canonical choice and, in fact, the obvious choice for the last track. (DM has ended many concerts with this song.) Dude, this got turned into a Tex-Mex (but in English) campfire song! I'm amused... The accent on the singer is quite prevalent. This actually works really well. Now I'm thinking I want to hear the Seu Jorge covers of DM songs... This is a great way to end the album!


In sum, the album has a couple really awesome tracks (one in English and another in Spanish), one or two other very good ones, several other good ones, and a couple that are worse than that. I wasn't expecting a great album or anything, but I did want more than 3 of the songs to be in Spanish. I probably could have figured this out in advance, but still. I am happy I got the album, but maybe I'll eventually find some more Spanish covers.

A picture that includes me to promote healthy living?

I wouldn't think so either, but apparently this picture from my days at Tech will be used for that. (Of course, it's because of the person in the foreground, which is Neema Jalali '99, rather than because of me (looking befuddled in the background).

The picture was sent to a staff member in math at GT, who forwarded the request to me. The student's request reads as follows:

>> Hi there,
>>
>> I am currently doing an Computer course at school to promote healthy
>> living.
>>
>> I have seen a picture on your website (link), can i use this picture in my
>> publications.
>>
>> This will be in-house only and will be marked externally.
>>
>> Is this ok?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Aaron


I'm really moving up in the world. :) I wonder if this kid would be disappointed to find out how long ago that picture was taken.

John Kerry becomes a punchline

We interrupt this Oxford blogging for something more political.

I'm a little late to the game---I only just found out about Kerry's blundered joke at dinner tonight.

So, here are my comments:

First, Kerry should not need to apologize to the public or the troops for what he said. Assuming it was truly a slip (which I am inclined to believe), then it's fine that he chose to apologize, but other people demanding an apology is ridiculous. Also, the version of the statement he actually made is true. One is more lilely to end up in a war zone if one is not educated than if one is. People may not like to hear that, but there is a positive correlation. (There are admittedly people who choose to go.) It really drives me batty how people just automatically piss on anybody who tells them something they don't want to hear. Forget whether it's true; you just aren't allowed to say things people don't want to hear.

Second, it really annoys me (though it's unsurprising) that the Republicans have used this to divert attention away from real issues. Well, I took only two licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, so that must mean that I'm cheating. Why don't we talk about that in our public campaigns?

Third, Kerry is being dumb politically or he doesn't care that he's hurting his party (or perhaps his own political aspirations). He knows that the politicians and the public are going to act this way, so although I have no problems with his words/actions (as others do), it seems to me that he ought to realize how people will react and that he's not helping his cause as a result of that reality.

The Good Ship Soliton

I'm still having jet lag issues (and need to get up early tomorrow for my talk in Claremont), but let me briefly eat into the Oxford blogging backlog. Today's story is about solitons. Here is (almost) what I wrote as part of an e-mail to my collaborators.

As I mentioned, I was walking along the River Thames with a friend on Saturday. I noticed a boat that was docked and it was called "Soliton". (!!!) I took a couple pictures with my camera, but it's not a digital camera, so I won't know for a while if it comes out. (My friend has a digital camera, so I should have asked for some help.) This will make a great slide for talks (assuming one of the pictures is remotely reasonable)! I was really excited when I saw this, and it also gave me a chance to explain some of my research interests briefly and to tell the canonical story. Although it wasn't the same body of water as the original (though it's not too far off), it should be noted that the Thames is extremely thin around Oxford, so the conditions could very well be right for solitons.


Let me add some stuff here:


One of my collaborators has already requested a copy of a picture.

I could possibly use one of the pictures in the expository article I'm currently (still) writing with Bambi Hu, Dave Campbell, and Norm Zabusky (the co-inventor of the term 'soliton'). I really ought to have gone digital for this...

The body of water in which the "original" soliton was observed is the Union Canal in Edinburgh.

Solitons and 'solitary waves' aren't quite the same, though in the physics literature the normal practice is to use the terms interchangeably. (I do this as well, although in talks I just indicate I'll be doing so. Sometimes the distinction is important and other times it isn't, but it's good to just state at the beginning of a seminar that there is a difference but not for the purposes of that talk.)