Deleuzean Potato

I'm adding Chad Orzel's blog to the links at the right. My most obvious reason is his post, Consumer Electronics and Me. The deeper reason is that I've been reading it for awhile, and enjoying it. I've found myself talking to Nora a lot the last couple of days about this post in particular.

It's something I've always been annoyed at myself for not being more interested in doing. I'm taking here an understanding of the verb "to hack" that is certainly beyond the capacity of the OED, and probably more general than most hackers themselves would accept. But I've always wished I was better at taking things we're supposed to use as black boxes, taking them apart, and manipulating them to my own designs. I'm getting a little better at this. Scavhunt has helped, as has this metal detector, as has a summer job where I was supposed to hack together some physics equipment.

Reading it the last couple of days. Really good. Particularly if (like me) you're interested in the full context of the Scavhunt item the story inspired.

One of Hahn's major inspirations was a book called "the Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments," by Robert Brent. I went poking around for a copy earlier this afternoon, but could only find three. The cheapest is $175.

As any good Chicagoan knows, there are 800 address numbers to each mile: 100 numbers on a block, 8 blocks in a mile. There is a major street at the mile, and a semi-major street at the half-mile. Thus, State (1E/1W) is major, as is Halstead (800 W), Ashland (1600 W), Cottage Grove (800 E), Stony Island (1600 E), etc. Likewise, King (400 E), Woodlawn (1200 E), Racine (1200 W), Damen (2000 W), etc, are semi-majors.

The astute urban explorer will notice that the numbered streets (running east/west on the South Side) are off. That is, Garfield/55th is a major, as is 47th, Pershing (3900 S), 63rd, 71st, etc. You'll notice that all those are consistent with each other and the rule, but they're not consistent with Madison (0 N/S), Roosevelt (1200 S), or Cermak (2200 S) being major streets.

Steven forwards me the answer, given him by a friend of his from IMSA:

10-4-040 Numbers to the mile.
There shall be assigned to each mile 800 numbers, or 100 numbers to each one-eighth of a mile on all streets. Such numbers shall be changed from any 100 to the succeeding 100 at the intersection street nearest the said one-eighth of a mile line, excepting on all north and south streets between Madison Street on the north and Thirty-first Street on the south, in which territory there shall be assigned 1,200 numbers between Madison Street and Roosevelt Road, 1,000 numbers between Roosevelt Road and Twenty-second Street and 900 numbers between Twenty-second Street and Thirty-first Street. The even numbers on north and south streets, or streets running in a northerly or southerly direction, shall be on the west side of said streets. The even numbers on east and west streets, or streets running in a easterly or westerly direction, shall be on the north side of the streets. (Prior code 30-4)

CORRECTION: Steven writes to inform me that I misatributed the discovery of the ordinance. His friend had pointed out the discrepency; Steven is the one who discovered the ordinance.

I've recently been apointed the administrator of an old-school (circa 1970s), airport security-style, walk-through metal detector. The two vertical pieces have been sitting in my bedroom since the end of June, and I will come into possession of the remaining parts (two horizontal connectors and a control box) within the next week.

One difficulty: it doesn't work. Specifically, the thing detects itself. If you plug everything in and turn it all on, it sits there and buzzes at you continuously. The previous administrator had intended to fix it up. He didn't get around to it. My goal is to fix it myself. Problem is, I can't find a schematic of this style metal detector anywhere on the internet (all I've found thus far is HOWTO's for building one of those hand-held, recreational devices). I may not even need a schematic; it might be obvious enough once I get the box and get it open. But just in case, does anyeone know where I can find a schematic of a walk-through metal detector?

Via this post, we get forwarded to this press gaggle. While there, we get this:

Q Explain why the President doesn't think that even shadowy groups have first amendment rights?

We also find this interesting tidbit:

For nearly 20 years, three Texas researchers have set out to uncover details of history, art and literature using new scientific techniques — and finding most of their answers in the stars. Using phases of the moon, patterns of stars and other celestial phenomena, the researchers are at the fore of a developing field called forensic astronomy.

More relevent to current events is this:

The researchers contend that the accepted date of the battle, Sept. 12, is wrong, because it fails to account for different calendars used in ancient Greece. They believe the actual date was Aug. 12. If so, the temperature during the messenger's run could have been as high as 102 degrees. Even a trained runner could suffer heatstroke at those temperatures — and if so, Olson says, perhaps the story is more fact than fable.

"Our astronomical calculation … suggests an explanation for the death of the runner and makes the story of the first marathon run more plausible," the researchers wrote in Sky & Telescope.

Hmm, maybe a Sky & Telescope subscription wouldn't be a bad idea.... Steven might also be able to get his hands on some of these as well.

This was forwarded to me by my roommate Jessica:

A black bear was found passed out at a campground in Washington state recently after guzzling down three dozen cans of a local beer, a campground worker said on Wednesday.

In and of itself, this would be just a normal oddity. But it become particularly noteworthy when we discover the specific local beer involved:

It turns out the bear was a bit of a beer sophisticate. He tried a mass-market Busch beer, but switched to Rainier Beer, a local ale, and stuck with it for his drinking binge.

That's right; Rainier Beer. The only thing I know about Rainier Beer is the commercials (which were described to me by my mother back in the day). There's a dude on a motorcycle, and the sound of a motorcycle revving up. Combined with the revving, there's a voice saying "Raaaaiiiii, Niiieeeer, Beeeeeeeer," followed by, "Californians just don't get it."

UPDATE: I've been told about this, independently, by Nora.

and frustrated. I feel like I have a lot to say, but can't think of what it is. I feel like I should be doing something, but can't think of what it is. And I keep feeling like the best time to do either is tomorrow.

I've noticed at least a couple of quite silly prejudices in our political discource. The most egregious appear to relate to the phrase "Fair and Balanced." Two in particular are bothering me this morning.

The first is the very silly notion that the two words, "fair" and, "balance" have anything to do with each other. This silly notion is a subset of the silly notion that the two words have meanings that are likely to appear in the same context. To wit:

• fair: "1. In a beautiful or comely manner; agreeably, beautifully, brightly, handsomely, nobly ... 2. a. Civilly, courteously, kindly. Now only in phr. to speak (a person) fair ... 4. Equitably, honestly, impartially, justly; according to rule. Also in phr. FAIR AND SQUARE."


• balance: "13. A condition in which two (or more) opposing forces balance each other; equilibrium ... 16. The preponderating weight; the net result of estimating conflicting principles, forces, etc."

(both OED)

Notice that "fair," properly used, is normative. Likewise, "balanced," properly used, is descriptive. The phrase, "fair and balanced" implies one of a specific set of relations between the two words. There are three possible relations implied by the popular use of the phrase:

1. "fair" and "balanced" are synonyms


2. "fair" is a proper subset of "balanced"; if X is fair, then X is balanced


3. "balanced" is a proper subset of "fair"; if X is balanced, then X is fair

The most obvious difficulty with these relations is that a word used in a normative manner (fair) cannot bear any of these relations to a word used in a descriptive manner (balanced). It's possible to get around this objection by pointing out that the phrase, "fair and balanced" isn't meant to actualy imply any of these relations. Instead, it is meant to describe something that happens to have both qualities. In the same way, I might describe myself as 5 foot 9 and hazel-eyed. I suppose, in which case this silly notion that the two words are related is simply a misunderstanding of the turn of phrase. Or perhaps this silly notion doesn't actually exist. Maybe it's just a figment of my imagination.

That, of course, is the less problematic of the two silly notions. The other is the word "balance." The use of the word conjours up a very particular image, that of a balance. On a balance, two substances are compared against each other to see which weighs more than the other. If the balance is not balanced (sorry for the shit phrasing of this sentence), there are three ways to correct it. Add more material to side A, remove material from side B, or move the fulcrum towards side B.

This is the image we're taught to use when we address our political system. If we think something is not balanced (too many Republicans/Democrats in office), we add more material to one side (elect more Democrats/Republicans, respectively). When we talk about the system, we're supposed to make sure we have the same amount of material on either side of our balance. If there is too much on one side, we need to move some from that side to the other, or else we can move our fulcrum. And all of this happens. Though it's not so clear here what the material is, there are insinuations of what it should be.

That all of this happens isn't the problem; the problem is the fact that we're using this image at all. It dictates a one-dimensional view of the system. We're taught that there are Democrats and Republicans, that they constitute opposing sides of something, and that they are equals that should be compared against each other according to some standard. People have been bitching about those standards for some time, so I'll leave that for now (though I will come back to it in the next day or so). My complaint right now is the assumption that our political system must be one-dimensional, that the only choice we have to make is between Left and Right (both capitalized). There are several ways of approaching politics under the US Constitution; almost anything is better (more consistent with the foundational documents, more historically informed, more self-consistent, etc) than this simple declaration of Left(tm) and Right(tm).

This isn't to say that I'm bewildered by the fact that we view the system this way. I have a pretty good guess why. But that's a different argument. And one that's long enough in it's own right to deserve its own post.