June 9th, 2003

Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

Last night, my train got in about 9pm.

I had so much fun, and it was so good to be amoung friends again.

On the other hand, I am so glad to be home, where I have clean clothes.

I was just supposed to go up Friday night, can come back the following sunday night. two days. I ended up staying 10 days with 2 pairs of pants, 2 t-shirts, 2 pairs of boxes, a pair of shorts, 3 pairs of socks, and three long sleeved shirts (which were of no use, with how freakin' hot it was). By the time I came home, my laundry bag was pretty rank.

209 pictures on my camera when I got home. A few good blackmail ones. ;) And the cutest picture ever of uninterrupted holding a baby. Lot's of us climping on the troll. A bunch of commies infront of the largest statue of Lennin in North America. Katri and Louise making funny faces. All the good stuff. :-)
Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

The kinds of thingsI would waste money researching...

I was doing the crossword puzzle and a ponderance came across me.

How does mental specialization destroy adaptability? The idea that came to mind first was, if you changed a basic rule in chess, how well would a grand master still play? If you took a grandmaster, a master, and some one from each major rank class and had them play chess where, each game, one pieces movement was modified. What level of player would end up being best?

Some examples of rule changes

  • reversing the bishops and rooks.
  • Making the bisop move as normal, accept it must move one square left, right, forwat or back, after it has finished it's diagnal run.
  • The queen my only take pieces if she starts he attack on a black square, and she can not be taken if she is on a white square.


My guess is, a mid level player would do best, but that is just a guess.

[Side note: skim milk, when it goes sour does not taste sour. It tastes freakin' bitter, like a liquid asprin. Yuck!!!]

Taking this to the next step, finding an optimal point of specialization without sacrificing addaptability. If you have a graph showing a steady climb in knowledge with specialized study. And you have an other graph showing adaptability, which would climb with study, but would eventually taper off or even decress as the study becomes more specialized. If you overlaid the graphs, at what point is a happy optimum for the two?

Finally, how could this be applied to normal everyday studies and in life? In some fields of study is it possibly to not specialize? Take cars for example. 20 years ago anyone could pick up a book and learn enough to diagnos and fix most problems with their car. Today, you have electronic controls, and you need special equiptment to diagnos issues. 10-20 from now, we will likely have another fuel system (fuel cell?), fully electronic controls for steering/throttle/brakes, possibly even auto drive using GPS, landmark sensing, and awareness of other cars. As these things become more and more technical, it will take more and more specialization to support each aspect. Will this lead to HMO's for cars?

Who knows. I'm fucking tired. G;nite!