A Curious Statistical Anomaly

I love words. I’ve been a talker since I first learned my first word — which was, as I’ve been told by others, “why”. Guess that explains how I got to be the curious person that I became.

I’ve always loved words. I’ve been known to, in the privacy of my office, to just say the same word or phrase over and over because I like the way it sounds, or the way the sound comes over the tongue and between the lips, or because of the image it causes in my mind’s eye. For example, I love some of the French words I learned because that rolled “r” makes my upper palate tingle — which usually means I don’t say the word because I start giggling but still I like it.

So, back on track, today when I came across the link for the 100 Most Beautiful Words in English, I had to check it out. The list contains some of my favorite words: adumbrate, blandiloquent, chiaroscuro, colporteur (the book seller not the wonderful singer), diaphanous (a long word for something so ethereal — a word also on the list), halcyon, inglenook, loquacious, mondegreen, peregrination, scintillate, and surreptitious among other words.

There’s also a list of ten bonus words which has one of my all time favorites — sussurous. I just love the sound of that word. Sigh. Other favorites among the bonus words: syzygy, terpsichorean, and tintinnabulation.

So, check out the list of beautiful words in English. The list has their short definition. There’s some words I’d add and some I think are nice but not worthy of the list but I enjoyed seeing them celebrated on this list.

What’s your favorite beautiful words?

The crunch of getting the ezines up and live on the 1st of the February is over. It’s now time to relax and try to figure out what went wrong with my schedule so that I ended up working until 3 a.m. to make that February 1st deadline. I finally realized it was because I lost a day.

Now, I don’t mean someone just waltzed in and took a day from me but they might as well have. After careful thinking between bouts of shiny thingying like crazy, I figured it out.

First, I have to remind you that there are two kinds of calendars. One type shows the month with weeks running from Sunday on the left to Saturdays ending the week on the right. The other one goes from Monday at the left to Sunday ending the week on the right. Well, in my office I have a Monday to Sunday calendar. But, and this is critical, in the kitchen I have a Sunday to Saturday calendar.

Well, when I was planning my time frame while making coffee (so I was in the kitchen) I glanced at the calendar and noticed that the 31st of January was the last day of the month. Great. Then I moved into my office, coffee in hand and started plotting my schedule thinking because the 31st was the last day of the month, it must be Sunday. Hence my surprise when I found out on Saturday that it was the 31st.

“Yikes,” says I. “But I still have too much to do. What happened to my extra day?”

Needless to say. I now know to beware the calendar differential setups and examine all plans carefully for the whole Mon-Sun and Sun-Sat issue. So, I lost a day but only on paper and in my mind. If you haven’t already checked them out check out SFRevu.com (interview with Lois McMaster Bujold and another with Anton Strout) and GumshoeReview.com (interview with Sarah Graves).

I think about things and wonder:

• what causes it, or
• how it works, or even
• why can’t I find anything about it.

Today I got to think about eyes and sleep.

Have you ever noticed that you’ll be asleep and it’s dark and some sound or something wakes. But, you come to consciousness but you don’t open your eyes and everything is dark. Then you open your eyes and it’s bright sunshine. Now here’s the part I wonder about. If you then close your eyes it’s not dark when you do — the light is filtering through your eyelids and its obviously light beyond your eyelids.

Why is that? If the same eyelids before and after you open your eyes. Is it like your eyes have to turn on and they don’t boot up until your open them then they recognize the light outside the lids? I mean what causes that difference in sensation.

It’s just something I’ve been pondering. Being me I Googled but didn’t find anything specifically about what I’m wondering about mostly I learned a lot about how the eyes perceive light and how color vision works — stuff I mostly knew from college. But the answer to why it’s dark until you open your eyes and then it isn’t anymore doesn’t seem to be one of the big questions scientist ponder. Guess it’s just me.

If you happen to know how/why this happens I’d like to hear about it.

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information being published about coffee and its effect on us. Of course that’s not new; some people have always said it’s bad for you to drink coffee and some have said it’s good. I remember as a child it was forbidden to have coffee unless, of course, it was one part coffee to about 6 parts milk. But now science has put its oar in the water and the boat is spinning…

First there’s the good.

Last April (2 April 2008), BBC News ran this article, Daily Caffeine ‘protects brain’. This study basically showed that caffeine helped protect the brain’s blood/brain barrier from decaying. Saying among other things:

The University of North Dakota study used the equivalent to just one daily cup of coffee in their experiments on rabbits.

After 12 weeks of a high-cholesterol diet, the blood brain barrier in those given caffeine was far more intact than in those given no caffeine.

Caffeine is a safe and readily available drug and its ability to stabilise the blood brain barrier means it could have an important part to play in therapies against neurological disorders.

Dr Jonathan Geiger, University of North Dakota

All well and good. Just one cup a day and maybe, just maybe, I’ll be looking at having full mental capacity into my golden years.

Then there was more good news.

On January 16th, 2009 there was a report of a new study in theage.com.au, Coffee reduces Alzheimer’s risk: study.

This was a longitudinal study, meaning it took a long time to gather the data — usually having quite a bit of time between the first set of interviews and the second (in this case about twenty years). They interviewed 1,409 people in Finland. The people were first interviewed when they were in their 50s about their coffee-drinking habits then their memory functions were tested. These same people were re-interviewed when they were between 65 and 79. Again they were asked about their coffee drinking habits and their memory functions tested. What they found was that:

A total of 61 people had by then developed dementia, 48 of whom had Alzheimer’s, the researchers said.

The overall results of the study from the lead research:

“Middle-aged people who drank between three and five cups of coffee a day lowered their risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease by between 60 and 65 per cent later in life,” said lead researcher on the project, Miia Kivipelto, a professor at the University of Kuopio in Finland and at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm

“There are perhaps one or two other studies that have shown that coffee can improve some memory functions (but) this is the first study directed at dementia and Alzheimer’s (and) in which the subjects are followed for such a long time,”

Note the number of cups of coffee listed — “between three and five cups … a day”. Because here comes the bad…

The Telegraph.co.uk on 13 January 2009 published Three Cups of Brewed coffee a day ‘triples risk of hallucinations’. Researchers looked at the

[Researchers examined the] caffeine intake of about 200 students, some of whom had experienced seeing things that were not there, hearing voices or sensing the presence of the dead. The volunteers were questioned about their caffeine intake from products including coffee, tea, energy drinks, chocolate bars and caffeine tablets.

So what did they find out from this study. Well:

Researchers found that “high caffeine users”, those who had more than the equivalent of seven cups of instant coffee a day, were three times more likely to have had hallucinations than those who had less than the equivalent of one cup.

Those who have three cups of brewed coffee a day could be at the same risk, they warn, because of the drink’s higher caffeine content.

On average the volunteers had the equivalent of three cups of instant coffee a day, which could still cause an increased risk, according to the study.

Remember, three to five cups a day could possible help protect you from Alzheimer’s. On the other hand, three cups of coffee or more in a day could cause you to hallucinate.

Oh, joy. Conflicting reports. See the problem with science is also what is good about it. Depending on what hypothesis you are testing and what groups you study, you will find different results. The point is that while the good and the bad here are in conflict when you’re trying to decide whether coffee is good for you or not, you can’t make an educated decision based on three pieces of data. You also have to take into consideration your own health. Do you have high-blood pressure? Caffeine can cause it to be elevated. Has your doctor told you to avoid coffee? Why? Have you talked with the doctor about your lifestyle and health history? Are you at risk for Alzheimer’s?

The problem is that people pretty much do what they want no matter what the issue is about. If you want to drink coffee you’re going to like the protection against Alzheimer’s reports and ignore the report on increased hallucinations even if the music in your head is bothering your neighbors. Humans tend to find the facts that backup what we want to do and then feel all happy and righteous about our decisions.

Me. Well, I’ve reduced my coffee intake to no more than two cups a day. By the way did you notice that not one of the studies included a definition of “cup of coffee” in their reports. Perhaps they did in the actual paper presented to their respective scientific conferences but for the lay person well it’s sort of up in the air. My cups are pretty big so reducing my intake to two cups might be the equivalent of five cups in those pretty delicate china cups with saucers. But since I used to have four or five of these big mugs/cups of coffee a day my reduction is pretty drastic. Besides the only times I’ve ever hallucinated has been when I was ill with very high fevers — I called them fever dreams. So, I’ll take my chances with my two mugs a day until the next batch of reports come out and then I may rethink depending on what the results show.

What will you do?

[Hyperion here] This is really interesting … unless, of course, she’s only hallucinating that she read these reports.

There are times when good ideas should just be left alone. When you try to implement that idea, especially into law, it often becomes a bad idea. For example: check out the proposed law that South Carolina is considering. Here’s a short snip:

SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“Section 16-15-370.
(A) It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.
(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

SECTION 2. Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“Section 16-15-430. (A) It is unlawful for a person to disseminate profanity to a minor if he wilfully and knowingly publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available material containing words, language, or actions of profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

I can almost hear some legislator thinking to himself. People swear too much and we need to force them to clean up their act. But, look at the link to the law or just the snippet I’ve posted above. Now think about it — because obviously the legislature hasn’t…

Evidently, South Carolina hasn’t realized that once this law passes there goes TV, or at least every channel except the Disney and the Family channels and even some of those programs won’t pass this test. Of course profanity is in the mind of the hearer, so with laws you have to think of the worse case scenario. That means no TV or movies (theaters wouldn’t be able to show any current films). Even one of my faves Quigley Down Under has one swear word in it. You’d have to close all those DVD rental places because they distribute and disseminate profanity.

Then of course libraries would have to cull all those books — like the dictionary — which “make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.” Not going to be much left to read in South Carolina after this bill goes into effect (IF it passes).

Then there’s the problem of what the bill doesn’t cover. If parents buy a film “containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature” and their children see it. Could they be charged? Sounds to me like they could. Golly gosh, sit down to watch Lethal Weapon (minor language) or Beverly Hills Cop (wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap language) and little Billy gets up for a drink of water,  hears something he shouldn’t, and before you know it Mom and Dad get raided and Billy is in foster care. After Mom and Day pay fines and do their jail time, is anyone better off? I doubt it.

Heck under this law you couldn’t even have a copy of the Bible now that I think a bit more about it. Have you ever read some of the sexier parts of Psalms? Woo. Hoo. There’s some hot stuff in there. Now that I think of it — yup, the Bible has to go.

So, what started as a good idea to get people to clean up their language and keep smut out of the state will have ramifications that I bet never occurred to the writers of this proposed change to the law. At least, I’m giving them the benefit of a doubt when I say they couldn’t have thought about the implementation and consequences. But then maybe they did plan for the big excitement for the population of the state would be getting to watch paint dry — they certainly won’t be able to watch TV, read books, watch movies, or use the internet.

I’m really, really, glad I don’t live in South Carolina. Too bad too because it always sounded like a nice place to visit and I had it on my TODO list but guess I can scratch that one off — I enjoy movies, books, and — well I have been known to utter a few words I shouldn’t once in a while…

This is another one of those cases where someone has decided to legislate morality, and that’s always a mission fraught with disaster. First of all, laws should never be passed if you can’t define your terms. What is “profanity”? Aside from George Carlin’s 7 dirty words, there are a wide host of words that some people believe to be profanity, and others do not. Who gets to decide? Same thing goes for vulgar, lewd, lascivious, and indecent. Is a woman in a short skirt sexy, or lewd? Is a wink flirty, or lascivious? Is a woman breast-feeding her child a natural act, or an indecent one?

The Supreme Court once ruled that there was no way to define profanity, and that legislatures would need to tread very carefully.  In the last few years there have been several laws passed to “protect the children”. Every last one of them has been struck down for pretty much the same reason: Protect the children and you deny the adults their constitutional rights to free speech. About the best anyone has come up with are strange compromises like certain things can only be shown late at night, or only on pay channels, although what these “things” are tends to very from location to location, and year to year. But in every case the freedom of speech must be maintained. This law throws the First Amendment right out the door, which is what the courts will have to do with this law, assuming South Carolina suffers from terminal ignorance of the law and actually passes it.

I’ve met Jeff at several conventions — doubt he’d remember me. I’ve also sat in on several panels and heard him speak. Occasionally, maybe once or twice a month, I get over to his blog and sort of catch up on what’s he’s doing — mainly because he’s thoughtful, intelligent, opinionated, and interesting. Those are the criteria I usually use when visiting blogs. I don’t have to agree with a blog just be informed and/or entertained.

Anyway, he’s now reviewing the Penguin Great Ideas series by reading and reviewing one book a day for 60 days. Today (1/13/09) he is up to book #26 Revelation and the book of Job. These are the books that perhaps we all should have read at one time or another — we’d be richer for it I’m sure. Having read through VanderMeer’s reviews, I’m certainly thinking I’m going to need to look in on this series.

You can read Penguin’s page about the series and they have this to say about the books:

Throughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves – and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives – and destroyed them. Now Penguin brings you the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whose ideas shook civilization, and helped make us who we are.

At Penguin’s blog, they have coverage of Jeff VanderMeer’s efforts to read and review 60 in 60 days.

Every now and then I decide I’m going to improve my understanding of myself, the world, and everything. I know the answer is 42, but how did it get there. In my last foray to improve myself, I read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Surprisingly, I loved the book. It wasn’t what I expected it to be — dull as dust and like dragging my eyeballs over sand. Instead it’s simply a man’s thoughts on life and his place in it — what he wishes to be and how he hopes to achieve his goals. It was a bit like reading someone’s diary. Many of his thoughts gave me much to think about in relation to my time and my life. So, it was well worth the effort. This was the #2 of 60 on VanderMeer’s blog.

Some of the classics that they suggest you read in college are really good reading. My belief is that maybe if instructors didn’t tell us how necessary it is to read these wonderful works of philosophy and “deep thinking” then maybe it wouldn’t trigger our “fear of failure to understand” and we’d just read them as we would anything else and find that indeed they are good books well worth reading. For example, I found Herodotus to be a bit of a gossip and when you read his words they’re like reading a travelogue.  On the other hand, the translation notes are a hard slog through a swamp with hidden quicksand pools.

So, pop over to Jeff VanderMeer’s blog and read what he has to say about the books in the Great Idea Series. You may find yourself putting some of them on your reading list — I know I did. Now, if I could figure out how to get the time to actually read them — I’d be golden.

Who was Emperor Norton? Well Wikipedia says:

Joshua Abraham Norton (c. 1819[2] – January 8, 1880), the self-proclaimed His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco, California, who in 1859 proclaimed himself “Emperor of these United States” and “Protector of Mexico.” …Although he had no political power, and his influence extended only so far as he was humored by those around him, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented.

He captured the imagination and thus has been mentioned in many literary works. You can find a list of books that reference the Emperor at http://www.knauer.org/mike/discordia/norton.php. The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco also has a piece on Emperor Norton.

His legend continues to this day as he is remembered far and wide. Personally, I’d never heard of Emperor Norton until The World Science Fiction Convention was held in San Francisco. Emperor Norton was the Ghost of Honor at the convention. They had someone dressed up as him and in character throughout the convention.

This of course made me curious about the man who proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and I looked him up. I really don’t know if he was insane or one of those people who just manage to find the right insanity to let them live the life they wanted. When he died, 30,000 people attended his funeral/viewing. He’s been written about usually as a minor character in several books that take place in San Francisco that I’ve read over the last couple of years.

He lives on in the imagination and history of San Francisco and the country. I think he endures because he was one of those rather harmless cranks who spoke his mind and probably said or did things that everyone wished they could do but didn’t/couldn’t. He filled a need for the people of his time and he fills a place in our hearts — you know that place that secretly enjoys a good con as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.

It’s fitting as we come up on January 20th when we (the United States) inaugurate a new president, to remember our only Emperor — Emperor Joshua Norton, may he live in our imaginations and our hearts.

We went out shopping today. Saturday is the day we usually get the week’s groceries and run errands. So, in the course of doing that I happened to spot a nice looking young woman coming in from the parking lot as we were heading out. Leather jacket and large purse, nice turtle-neck sweater, jeans, and cute strappy heels at least 3 inches high maybe more.

I don’t wear heels. In fact, I trip over shadows, so heels would just add a level of danger that I’m not comfortable with. Even my dress shoes are flats. When I do get something a bit higher in the heel — well, we are talking maybe an inch and that’s without a separate heel just a wedge that lifts the heel higher than the toe of the shoe. My highest heels are on sneakers and that’s because the whole sole is so thick.

So, the upshot is that every time I see a woman in extreme high-heels, I just stand in awe that they can not only walk in them but maybe even talk on the phone carrying on a conversation at the same time. If it was me, I’d look like one of those comedy skits or that scene in Miss Congeniality where Sandra Bullock as the newly pressed and polished FBI officer comes out of the hanger looking like a million bucks and falls off her heels and lands on the ground. Later she has to hold onto things because her balance is all off — that would be me but not looking even close to the beauty of the actresses just managing the pratfalls.

A long time ago, I worked with a woman who wore heels all the time. She said her Achilles’ tendon had shortened and she couldn’t wear normal shoes. She had to have at least an 1 1/2 to 2 inches of heel or her feet hurt and she couldn’t function. Why do women do that to themselves. While I can admire the balance required to walk in them, I have to wonder why women wear them. They pinch the toes and make your feet hurt and yet women continue to wear high-high heels. Why? I’m stumped.

In fact, when women friends complain about their feet, I’ve been known to say, “Then why wear them. Get something pretty and comfortable.” The response is usually what you’d expect if you’d suddenly dropped sixty IQ points and grew a second head. Again, I’m at a loss. You see, I’ve never been a girly-girl. I always was a bit of a tomboy and boys got cooler toys. I actually preferred Lincoln Logs and chemistry sets to dolls and doll clothes. In college I was in a lot of science and technology classes … often the only woman in the class — so not being a fashion queen or even having someone to key me into the whole fashion thing, there’s a lot of things I just don’t get.

I’ll never wear high heels and don’t understand the women who do so when it causes them pain. But, I certainly have to stand in awe of their ability to balance and walk across broken gravel in shoes that see me making a quick trip to the emergency room for a broken ankle or leg.