Moo

Hallmark Meat Packing Co. was caught violating "humane treatment" of the cows they slaughter, as reported by BBC News:

"Operations at the plant had already been suspended after an undercover video shot by the Humane Society of America came to light.

The video appeared to show crippled and ill animals being prodded with the blades of a forklift truck, kicked, given electric shocks and sprayed with high-pressure water hoses by staff."

The "appeared" is a nice touch on BBC's part, I think. It "appeared" enough that the USDA decided to recall 143 MILLION pounds of cow meat. Now that's something to chew on.

But don't worry - the cows are safe now! After all, the last paragraph of the articles DOES mention that

"The company says it has now taken action to ensure all employees handle animals humanely."

Well, that's a relief. From now on, everything will be different.

---

You know, personally speaking, I'm not a big fan of killing in order to eat. Seems like we're past the point of it being a necessity, and the cruelty, pain, and death involved (not to mention the environmental costs) (and really not to mention the karmic costs, for those of us who swing that way) are totally inexcusable. At least in my opinion.

There are lots of arguments in favor of not making a big deal out of the way animals are handled. They seem to generally fall under the following headings:

1) It's natural - animals eat animals. And we're animals, so we eat other animals.

You know, it's amazing how many people seem to believe that they "behave naturally" or that "behaving naturally" is a free pass for doing anything. What happened to the naturalness of not washing our hands, or living without medication or surgery? What about how natural it is to live without air conditioning, or to have a high chance of dying at child birth? And how many animals use toilet paper, talk on the phone, or surf the Web? (Disney animals don't count)

If we were living naturally, we'd all be dying of some infectious disease when we were 27 - assuming we lived past giving birth (which we'd do much earlier, since we wouldn't use contraceptives).

Let's face it: When we like it, we pretend to behave like baboons. When we don't, we snap right out of this "natural" make-believe, and do whatever we feel like doing. Acting "naturally" isn't necessarily moral, or healthy, or nice. Stop using toilet paper and the medical system, and then we can start talking about acting "natural."

2) If I don't eat meat, I'll get sick and die.

Actually, You'll probably get healthier and live longer. Let's have that discussion. And please, enough with the "only meat has complete protein" line. Eat 5 different colors of veggies and fruits every day, chew on lots of nuts, drink your soymilk, and You're likely to get better, not worse.

Although to be perfectly honest, You're still probably going to die at some point.

3) The animals we eat are so dumb that they can't really experience suffering or pain.

Um, no. Lots of animals are plenty clever (remember the tool-making crow?) and pain is so basic to survival that it's unlikely that any living being in possession of a limbic system cannot experience pain (yes, that includes fish).

And let's not go down the "they're so big and strong, when You kick them they just feel a little pat" path. Watch this horse and tell me that she's insensitive and can't feel gentle pressure, and that the only way to communicate with a big beast like that is to kick it hard, or yank its head from side to side.

4) I like eating meat.

Hey, it's your choice.

While mom and dad are arguing, maybe we can get stuff done ourselves

I love it. A Time Magazine piece about Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger endorses, pretty enthusiastically, the fact that these two are doing things that, in all fairness, the federal government should've been doing a long time ago.

Now, nothing is as simple as it's presented to be, of course. While the article mentions that Schwarzenegger doesn't receive state salary, it fails to mention that Schwarzenegger allowed lots of people to simultaneously earn state and campaign salaries... But perhaps this is still a good example: After all, not many people would forego their salary, just to make a point.

I am really pretty amazed at the plans and actions that the article ascribes to Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger: California funds stem-cell research that the federal government would not, and Schwarzenegger intends to sue the federal government for failing to sign an environmental treaty; NY City is shooting for a 30% cut in greenhouse gases by 2030. Big moves, big action.

Cool. Bring on the change. :-)

(from the article) "Nature abhors a vacuum," says Bruce Katz, director of metropolitan policy at the Brookings Institution. "And the vacuum at the national level is immense."

Everybody wins

I was recently contacted by someone who's planning on writing a book about getting into ivy-league schools, who found me through my How I Got Into the Stanford Psychology Ph.D. Program website. He asked me for some thoughts for his book, and perhps I'll end up contributing a short piece. In the meantime, here's what came up when I was thinking about it - it's been on my mind for a couple of years now, and it's nice to get the opportunity to actually spell it out.

---

Everybody Wins

Where do You have a better chance of being accepted - in a top-tier, prestigious program, or in a mid-level, reasonably good program? Hint: You may be in for a surprise.

My sense is that fewer people apply to very prestigious programs than to less prestigious programs. Most people simply never apply to the big-name programs, having been intimidated by the name or the (imagined) prospects of succeeding. I almost didn't apply to Stanford, by far the most prestigious of the places I was looking at, simply because I thought I wouldn't stand a chance of being admitted. I remember one friend, who believed in me more than I ever believed in myself. When I wondered aloud if I should apply to Stanford, my friend looked at me with some sympathy and said "Eran, come on, be realistic" - the only time I can remember that this friend ever expressed any doubt in me.

Relatively few people have been applying to the PhD program in psychology at Stanford, at least while I've been there. The same is true for other prestigious awards and fellowships - the really big ones seem to receive fewer applications than others. To this day, when I apply to less prestigious programs, I often get cut on the first round, while the more prestigious awards or programs give me more consideration.

The bottom line is this: If You want to be absolutely certain that You won't get in, don't apply. Otherwise, give it a try. You have nothing to lose (if application fees are a problem, most universities will be willing to help You with those), and a lot to gain. The universities will also profit from receiving more applications from more diverse applicants, and not just the people who have gone through the cookie-cutter process (graduated from top schools with top grades, worked as research assistants, applied to graduate school, yaddah yaddah...). And last but not least, You'll probably be facing less competition.

Go ahead, aim high. Surprise someone.

Be Green or Be Sustainable?

This is very interesting. The EU, bless their enlightened hearts, are considering passing a law that would ensure that 10% of transport fuel should come by biofuel by the year 2020.

Sounds good. The resistance came from an unexpected side: Environmental activists and sustainability-minded organizations. They're thinking about the bigger picture, and I for one am impressed.

The claim: While biofuel is great, it has to come from someplace. More demand for biofuels means somebody will have to grow more corn (or soy, or what not), and that has social, economic, and environmental reprecussions, some of which can be negative. So, ironically, increasing the demand for biofuel without making sure that producers don't start planting it where other carbon-eliminating vegetation was can cause a net worsening of the situation, rather than an improvement.

At least, that's what the EU Observer says that Friends of the Earth and others are saying (which means that, by the time You're reading this here, it's pretty much a third-hand account).

Still, I'm impressed with the complexity of these questions, and really glad that some people out there are thinking about the big picture.

Morning games

Morning. Woke up after a night filled with strange, unpleasant dreams.

Hanging out in bed, letting my mind wonder. I become aware of the fact that I'm grimacing - scrounging up my face and biting down on my own teeth. Tension. The grey morning light is bright in my room, and maybe that's why I'm narrowing my eyes. But why the teeth?

I breathe and relax my face, lie back again, arms crossed behind my head, letting my mind wander. After a moment, I become aware of the fact that the big toes of my two feet are hooked together, holding on to one another. Tension. I breathe and relax my toes, my calves, my legs. They relax, but I can feel the internal protest. They want to be tense now.

This continues for a while: I'm lying in bed, letting my mind go where it may, and then become aware of the tension that creeped into my body, and relax it. My own version of playing hide-and-seek with myself. :-) And perhaps a friendly reminder from my body that there's just a little bit too much going on at once right now.

Actively procrastinating

These are two bizarre, amazing pieces.

 

Microsoft's online Santa started talking about oral sex.

 

A British guy invented a drug, and then got a bunch of celebrities and politicians to lecture the public about its dangers, including saying "This is a made up drug!"

 

Hysterical. Oh, I love procrastinating. :-)

Scrabulous under attack from the original Scrabble people

This is very, very interesting: The company that created the original Scrabble board game is going after the people who created Scrabulous , the Facebook application that LOTS of people like to play, and that rakes in a fair (although not mind-boggling) amount of money in advertisements.

 

As usual, my favorite part is the discussion that follows the news (the comments get good around #20 or so). Some people say that the company should just buy out Scrabulous, some say they should be grateful (since perhaps it's making Scrabble more popular), some are saying that intellectual property is not to be ignored (even on the Web) and that the Scrabble people are totally in the right.

Promising weight-loss drug

So, it looks like taranabant (sounds like a dinosaur's name, no?) is really doing well in FDA tests. People are less hungry, losing weight, increasing metabolism...

 

Makes me wonder. Let's pretend for a second that there are no downsides whatsoever - does it then seem appropriate to regulate our appetite by using medication? Is that different from regulating our appetite by using foods mindfully, eating complex carbohydrates at certain times of the day, etc.?

Cocaine blocker

People working on an antagonist to the active ingredient of cocaine, which would block the "high" that results from use - same idea as the "alcohol blocker" (disulfiram).

Of course, people would still have to take the drug in advance...

Incidentally, a list of various "blockers" and other interesting drug treatment facts can be found here.

Happy 2008! :-)

Signed and dated my first "08" today (at Safeway, of all places).

 

I remember that switching to the new year (when writing letters, or signing things, etc.) used to be harder in previous years. I'd still be writing the last year a few months into the new one, and would constantly get confused.

 

It's easier now. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I accidentally signed something "08" even before the year was out. I don't think this ever happened before.

 

I can think of two reasons for why the switching is getting easier:

 

1) I have more practice at switching years.

2) I'm living in the future more.

 

Can't really tell. But hey, whatever the reason:

 

Have a happy 2008. :-)

Erasing traffic jams all by yourself

This is pretty amazing. One guy was brave enough to experiment with driving more slowly than everyone around, and started documenting the effects. He discovered that he can erase traffic jams by driving into them slowly and maintaining a constant speed. This way, everyone behind him also drives at a constant speed, not having to do that annyoing stop-and-go dance.

The entire description is at http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/trafexp.html. It's long, but very thought provoking.

It makes perfect sense. He even helpfully added some animation here (do You prefer to be driving in the left animation, or the right animation?).

As it turns out, Inspiring stories happen everywhere...

30% better fuel efficiency with any car?

Some cars show the miles-per-galon (MPG) right on their dashboard, in real time, as You drive. The little indicator goes up and down, changing in response to road conditions and the way You drive.

Especially the way You drive.

I had a chance to drive two cars that have such a real-time MPG display (thanks, Hal!), and they totally changed the way I drive. I noticed that, with just a few simple changes, I could get much, much higher fuel efficiency. This means having to buy less gas, and polluting less. And it's SIMPLE!

The main thing is to accelerate more slowly. It's that simple. Apparently, just accelerating mildly when leaving traffic lights and stop signs can improve your fuel efficiency by a third . A third!

Other small things include:

• Using the brakes less (which means taking the foot off of the gas pedal early and slowing down before arriving at the stop sign, rather than slamming on the brakes after a 100-yard dash between stop signs).
• Using the cruise control when going on highways.
• Driving no faster than about 65 mp/h (~100 km/h) on highways.

More ideas and tips at http://www.hypermiling.com/.

Happy driving. :-) Please, please use your seatbelt, and drive safely.

Can YOU make a spear?

Apparently chimpanzees create and use spears.

The scientists who published the discovery say this is relevant to understanding "...the evolution of tool use and construction for hunting in the earliest hominids."

And I'm thinking Holy crap, people. They use tools, they have insights - isn't it time we agreed that they have awareness?

Oh, and just for fun - here's the link to the famous clip about the tool-making crow.

Outsourcing vs. Offshoring

Hi everyone,

 

Hope You're doing well. I've been looking for places to hire coders, and [yadda-yadda-yadda] found this really interesting post on a fairly famous website called TechCrunch.com. The post itself is a review of a service that I was looking at, but what's really interesting is the discussion that followed it. One person (nickname: AmericanMade) was making a case against offshoring jobs, while two others (nicknames: LongTimeUser and Dave McClure) were making a case for it.

 

Both sides run the full gamut of arguments: moral, macro-economic, business, societal...  I found myself continuing to read despite (or perhaps, more realistically, because) I have something else that I was planning on working on. It's a long discussion, and it took me some time to go through it - but I felt like I was learning from each comment made there, and came out with a lot to think about.

 

So, just in case You're interested: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/09/08/odesk-provides-on-demand-skills/ .

 

Take care, have fun,

 

- Eran