One of the few apps I use on a "smart" phone is the GPS. (It's also the only thing I have location services activated for. Probably the Mounties / FBI / KGB / Interpool / ISIS can track my whereabouts anyhow via my phone, but I gives me a comforting if false sense of security to keep it turned off.
Being in Quebec, but having my GPS in English, can be amusing. That's besides the fact that said GPS gives distances in
rational Metric units, whereas my car's odometer is in archaic English units. Fortunately I'm used to converting in my head. Anyhow, the GPS on the BB would give directions in an English-speaking (synthesized) voice, but give street and place names in a French-speaking (different synthesized) voice. Since I didn't grow up bilingual, it takes a moment for me to switch languages, so it's like running down one track and making a brief jump back and forth to a parallel track: English-English-English-French-English-English-French-English. I often just don't catch it first go around. I don't feel entirely bad about this, because often people who are seemingly totally bilingual don't change the pronunciation of proper nouns; they use their native language's pronunciation. Example:
"Next week I'm going to Daytwah for a business trip."
"Daytwah. You know, that place in your country where they make the cars."
"You mean Detroit (Dee-troy-t)."
"Yes, that's what I said, Daytwah."
Apple Maps, when set in English, just gives English-pronunciation to all proper nouns. Yeah, It's my native language, and all, but some names I learned in French, and others, well, it just sets my teeth on edge hearing the name mangled.
Example of the latter: directing me to turn onto Saint Jackus (Saint Jacques pronounced almost like "Sane'Jock"), but at least I realized what it meant, teeth on edge or no.
Example of the former: directing me to turn onto Charlie Voiks street. This is right around the corner from me, and only when I got right up to it did I realize it was Charlevoix ("Sharl-uh-vwah").
Finally did it. Got an iPhone. This completes the set: MacBook, iPad, and now iPhone. I've drunk the Apple Kool-Aid. "My name is warriorsavant, and I am an iSheep."My old Blackberry was dying, plus there are very few apps still created for that operating system. Not that I buy many apps, but still, be nice to have the option to do so if I wanted one. Also, it was impossible to actually sync my BB with my other devices. (Yeah, there is an app that is supposed to do that. Uh, no.) When my last phone died, I had to make an immediate choice of what to replace it, as it had indeed died, and as is well known, the human brain can only survive for 4 minutes without connectivity. (Or is that oxygen?) I went with the BB b/c I really didn't like the touch keyboard on the iPhone as much (and really still don't).I confess I love my new IamASheepPhone, mostly because it is lightning fast to connect to the internet. Also, I got everything properly synchronized between my devices: mail and contacts and bookmarks all show up on all three gadgets simultaneously. (Not interested in sync'g anything else right now. I do NOT keep my documents on their cloud.)Changing over from my old phone went as smoothly as on can expect from the modern, we're here to serve you tech world. Which is to say I am lucky it all got done before I had a stroke or was arrested for homicide. Four hours in the Apple Store. ( Blood curdling tale of woeCollapse )When I got home, I loaded the few other apps I ever use (after looking up my passwords), and I'm in business.
Following my post about what a disaster this presidential election is going to be whatever the outcome, http://warriorsavant.livejournal.com/591659.htmlhad the following email exchange with an Army buddy, one who has a great knowledge of history as well (posted with his permission). HIM:There's no doubt that both parties have forgotten who they are working for; my disenchantment (perhaps better to say the opening of my eyes to our political reality) came with Bush 41. He was running against Dukakis and I would have probably voted for Bush except that he had a fund-raiser in NYC - I forget how many $$$ per plate. A reporter asked a spokesman what that money got you - he answered that you got access to GHWB. The follow-up question was "how do people get access if they can't afford $$$ a plate? The answer - practically sniffed in disdain - was "they can seek access other ways". Right there I knew I no longer mattered. My vote was window dressing on an elaborate charade; no-one in either party really gave two shits about me. So I voted for Perot. I was still registered Republican; voted for Perot again when GHWB ran against Clinton. Then Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house, and, nauseated by his smarminess and hypocrisy, I switched affiliation to Independent. After the 2000 hanging chad debacle I switched to Democrat. Upon return from Iraq I promised myself I'd never vote for any Republican for anything ever - and except for our last mayoral race in NYC, the Republicans have made it easy to keep that promise. Even there, I was voting against DeBlasio, not for whoever the Republican candidate was. So, I understand anger - also alienation, and the sense of betrayal - you play by the rules your whole life and get royally screwed for it. But anger is a state of mind, not a plan. The Tea Party movement initially had promise - if it had become a "throw the bastards out" 3rd party instead of being co-opted by the far-right wing of the Republican party something may have actually changed. They ended up electing and re-electing the same lying frauds who were busily destroying the American middle class. But anger doesn't get you anywhere. Embracing a candidate like Trump requires that you either embrace his message - which at its heart is vile (Obama is a Kenyan-born Moslem, hordes of Mexican rapists swarming across the Rio Grande, etc) and akin to that of the other demagogues who made the 20th century so "interesting" - or, you are willfully blind to his lying, fraudulence, hypocrisy and cowardice. You could say much the same about Hillary - I never voted for her husband - but at least she is experienced in government, competent, and sane. At best, Trump is a cranky, sleep-deprived old man - the embarrassing uncle who rants about "them" throughout Thanksgiving dinner. At worst he's an utter cynic who believes in nothing other than self-promotion, says whatever he thinks will please a crowd, and gives no thought to the consequences of his words. I'm not sure if it's Hezbollah or Hamas who has seized on his claim that Obama founded Isis to push their claim that it was all a CIA/Mossad plot just like 9/11. And the people they are talking to are the same ones who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true. Words can get people killed. I'm not sure where we go after this election. With such a large portion of the populace so utterly disenchanted I seriously fear for the future. I think it will take something catastrophic to change the system, and some people may welcome that - but they don't know how bad things can get. I've been to Iraq, you've been to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti - so we've both seen failed states, and Syria is a good example of what a civil war fought with modern weapons looks like. I don't want to see that here, but with one candidate claiming that he can only lose if the system is rigged and the election stolen, there is a potential for violence. It's sad that perhaps the best we can hope for is to slip back into apathy if the economy is stable - bread and circuses for the masses. I agree with your final thoughts regarding our political "elites". The Romans had some good thoughts that apply here, see Cicero- "Politicians are not born; they are excreted". But I forget who it was that lamented a people who preferred the safety of an easy slavery to the rigors of freedom. ME:Thank you. Good points. I will note, however, that it is equally the fault of the Democratic leadership that the Tea Party movement became co-opted by the far right Republicans (and thereby giving them power). The Tea Party was initially a vague anti-establishment ground swelling. There were many things they wanted/stood for, some of which the Democratic establishment could have agreed with. (Again note that they were not a unified force, so different ppl wanted different things.) Instead of doing the moral and tactically correct approach of identifying the points of agreement, supporting those points, and thereby getting the support of a broad swatch of disaffected voters, they just made fun of the whole movement (again, I’m especially thinking of that idiot Pelosi) and drove them into the arms of the far right. Didn’t know you were a life-long Republican at one point, not that it matters now. GHWB might have been part of the disconnected elite, but he at least was competent as President, unlike his son, who was the worst - literally the worst - president at least in my lifetime. Not sure who originated that second quote that you finish with. Loki in the Thor movie? Oh, final note about His Whininess. He is as amazing as his supporters claim... he’s actually going to drive me to vote for Hilary Clinton. HIM:Agree on the failures of the Democratic leadership. In the past they had a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating the most un-electable person they could find. They also seem stuck in their own echo chamber, preaching only to the choir. Also agree on Bush 41. He was an intelligent man with experience in the world who did put his life on the line for his country. I don't know what the attrition rate was for naval aviators in the Pacific, but I'm pretty sure it was high (especially in large, slow aircraft like the TBF Avenger). Agree also on Bush 43 - I was astonished when he got a second term - his reward for blundering into an unnecessary war and doing his best to lose it. That alone soured me on having much sympathy for the Republican base. It's one thing to buy into the wedge issues the Republicans put up but to re-elect an incompetent who is getting thousands of Americans and Iraqis killed or maimed for nothing is a bit much. I actually knew someone at the XXth - now a retired full Colonel - who was certain Saddam was behind 9/11. Talk about drinking the cool-aid. Never mind Hillary's e-mails - I want to see what Cheney, Rumsfeld Rice & Dubya actually believed, vs what they told Congress and the American people. In retrospect I think what drove me from the Republican party was not so much the perception of their catering to an elite but the utter hypocrisy of many of them - Gingrich being a prime example - a draft-dodging serial adulterer who presumes to lecture the nation on patriotism and family values? Puh-leeze! If I had a message for the GOP it would be "don't piss on me and tell me it's raining".
Hedgefund might have read / spelled out a word last night while I was reading to her. (As a doting daddy, I'm certain of it; as a sceptical scientist, I reserve judgement.) There was the word NO, and she spelled out N-O. (The ironic appropriateness of the first word of someone in her Terrible Twos being "no" is not lost on me.) Not sure if she really understood / wad really spelling, but I'll claim yes :-)
Time will tell.
Okay, it's been less than a week since I noted Hedgefund thought that "you" was her name, not a pronoun. http://warriorsavant.livejournal.com/590926.html
Now she seems to have caught on. Still prefers to refer to herself by name, but does (sometimes) use pronouns correctly.ADDENDUM Aug 28
Actually HF has a mix of adult and toddler pronoun usage. She just told me "you do this for you..." It was not an exhortation to self-affirmation, she wanted me to do something for her, with the first "you" being the correct/adult usage of pronouns, and the second being the toddler usage of thinking that was another version of her name.
No, I don't mean as in "asking difficult to answer questions just to show how smart you are." I mean as in what is left when a tree is cut down to within inches of the ground. And your toddler decides to direct when each of you gets up on it, then jumps down. Specifically saying "Papa get up," "Hedgefund do it," "Papa stand here," etc. She's rather a bossy pants, that one. However, made for a fun game. Okay, more fun for her, but kinda fun for me.
Neither of us felt like cooking last night, so we went to "Little NYC" for some pizza, and ate it in the park. There's a nice fountain in the middle of that park, some benches, and the aforesaid stump. HF really wanted ice cream, but we told her no ice cream until she had her pizza. Yeah, that sounds a bit odd to me too, having to bribe a kid to eat pizza, but I guess pizza just doesn't compare with ice cream. Also, she's a very fussy eater, so Nom was glad that I could feed her pizza (and fruit) to a full meal's worth. Not that we didn't get ice cream afterwards anyhow; there's no such thing as too full for ice cream. Local place that makes their own; had a scoop of strawberry and a scoop of sesame. Yes, sesame. Wasn't great, but not bad either. Nom didn't care for it, but surprisingly, HF liked it. Later, we went home, cleaned up, and read books until she fell asleep.
She is a fussy eater - well fussy about everything. (HF, not Nom. Well, Nom much less so anyhow. Wallstreet eats everything and is very mellow about most things.) She's less fussy with me, either because she's "daddy's girl," or just because since she doesn't see me all day, she's super happy to spend time with me. I feel the same way. I'm not a "woo hoo, jump up and down for joy" kind of person. Okay, I'm rather a grump, but even when I enjoy something, I'm not jump-up-and-down excited. That having been said, I loved that I got to spend and even in the park and generally chilling with my family.
Trump winning the presidency would be a disaster, but his losing would not be good either.
His supporters are mostly the same people who oppose globalization and were pro-Brexit. The issues aren't 100% aligned, but close enough that we can discuss pro- and anti-globalization.
It's fashionable amoung the pro-globalization folks to dismiss Trump supporters (and Brexiteers, and anti-globalization forces everywhere) as racists. They couldn't possibly have good reason for their opinoins. After all, they disagree with enlightened people like us, so they must be mistaken if not downright evil. There, there, now. Does that make you sleep better at night, dismissing people who disagree with you as a bunch of nasty, knuckle-dragging racists?
So who are "us," the enlightened, pro-globalization people? Generally better educated, younger, living in bigger, globally-connected cities. Y'know, the people who actually benefit from globalization. (Yeah, I know, not every last one of these people individually benefitted at all times, but statistically, as a group, they did.) And who are "them," the people opposed to globalization? Generally less educated, older, and rural/small town. Y'know, the people who have been hurt by globalization. What! They are actually against something that is hurting them? How unenlightened.
In this way, Trump is right. No one has been speaking to, or for, these people. Not that he'd do anything for them either if he were elected, but he is channeling their anger, their justifable anger. Consider a older, white couple living in a small city. He's a blue collar worker, she's a hairdresser. The Republicans don't care about them because they are neither big business owners nor evangelicals. The Democrats don't care abou them because they are not visible-minoritiy-lesbian-single-parents. There are no government programs helping them, as they are told they are "privileged," while they watch their purchasing power erode, their dreams evaporate, and their town die. Globalization may be helping those educated, young big city folks, it's helping manufacturing workers in China and call center workers in Bangladesh, but it's hurting them. We are not talking about a small fringe of the population, we are looking at 25%? 40%? of the country. (If you look at the Brexit vote, we're looking at >50%.) In Germany, these people are less anti-globalization, because the system is set up to help them adjust and adapt. Here, they get nothing. They are told that they are priviliged and unenlightened, and to stop whining.
Yup, great moral and tactical political leadership to ignore that big a percentage of the population who is actually hurting, and being hurt, by the current policies of both major parties. That's why they are supporting Trump. He's at least pretending to talk to them and their issues. And when Trump loses, the political elites will dust off their hands, pat each other on the backs on how they staved off disaster, and continue to ignore those folks who voices will be silenced. Until the next time.
I do annual TBSE (Total Body Skin Exam) only on select patients. There are no clear public health guidence, the best guess seems to be everyone should get a TBSE in his/her middle years. Annual exams only if there is a reason to do so: personal history of prior skin cancer of any type, first degree relative with history of melanoma, certain genetic disease that predispose to skin cancer, and a few other possibilities. This is my approach, based on my reading of the best information out there.
In the past week, had several new patients who said they had come for "the usual annual checkup." Two families were from other countries (Brazil and US) and both said something to the effect of "oh, you don't do that here in Canada?" when I looked perplexed. I don't know about Brazil, but I'm fairly sure that is not the case in the US (especially on young children as in this family). At least one other was from Canada, whose Dermatologist had recently retired.
I was pretty sure that my approach was right, but when a number of people come in in a short period of time expecting something different, I feel obliged to at least re-look and re-think my way of doing things. So, when in doubt, crunch the numbers. If we calculate the average Dermatologist in these parts sees 6 patients/hour, then in 8 hours of seeing patients (which is higher than surveys show, never mind time spent teaching, CME, or admin), that would be 48 patients/day. Round that out to 50/day and 250/week. If each works 50 weeks/year (again, a high estimate), that's 12,500 patients screened with TBSE/year, if each Dermatologist does nothing but. There are 200 Dermatologist in Quebec so multiplying 12,500 by 200 gives 2.5 million. The population of Quebec is about 8 million (ratio of 1 Derm : 40K population), so either we'd need over 3 times as many Derms, or we'd all have to do TBSE 120 hours/week. Canada-wide, there are about 600 Derms for 32 million people (1:50K), so the numbers are even worse. Again can't speak about Brazil, but the US has about 10K Derms for 320M people (1:32K), so the numbers aren't much better.
Yup, thanks to basic math, I know I'm doing the right thing.
To understand my use of the term "magpie," see 2nd
paragraph of http://warriorsavant.livejournal.com/2008/08/15/
and for fuller discussion, see http://warriorsavant.livejournal.com/2015/10/29/
Was at BIL's over the weekend. He and SIL have 2 daughters (11 & 6). SIL's sister* and her family were visiting from France with their son & 3 daughters (various ages from child through late teen). Hedgefund adores visiting with her cousins, mostly because they dote on her, and now there were five
girls doting on her. At one point, I was in the dining room holding Wallstreet, and all
these young females were in the adjacent kitchen, talking at once. He looked at them, then looked at me with a bemused expression on his face. I just explained that women were like that, and he'd have to get used to it. I might even have used the term magpie.
He's clearly the strong silent type. Actually, not all that silent, but relative to HF, very much so, and very calm. He sometimes gives me that same bemused look when she is carrying on about something, and I give him that same explanation. At one point while at BIL's, when HF was carrying on about something, I told 11-year-old neice that HF was rather a drama queen.
"But she's only two-and-a-half," she protested
"She was a drama queen when she was two-and-a-half weeks
." *Which would make her my sister-in-law-in-law-in-law?
Pronouns are relative to the person speaking. I (warriorsavant) am writing this for you (Gentle Reader) to read. From your perspective, warriorsavant is "you" and Gentle Reader is the "I."
Hedgefund doesn't yet understand that. A toddler, much like Tarzan from the movies, only uses proper nouns, referring to herself by name. (Not so in the original books, where the protagonist spoke Elizabethan English. Tarzan, I mean, not Hedgefund.) From my saying things like "Papa help you," she's concluded that "You" is another one of her names, and sometimes refers to herself as "You." Logical from her perspective, sometimes confusing from mine if I don't remember that when she says "You," she means "Me"/"Hedgefund," as in "You do this," getting upset if I (warriorsavant) try to do it for her.