monkey nonsense

my coworker sent me this article:

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/23/1746254

“Developers seeking job security in the years ahead could find an unlikely edge in Cobol. According to an InfoWorld report, demand for Cobol skills is surging, with salaries on the rise. More importantly, the short supply of offshore Cobol programmers and the fact that mainframes aren’t going away anytime soon are spurring longevity for big-iron skills, with many companies looking to hire in-house Cobol pros to bridge mainframe Cobol apps to the rest of the enterprise. The report provides further evidence that Cobol may indeed be primed for a comeback, with new kinds of Cobol integration jobs emerging to prove old-guard skills are critical to some of the hottest areas of software development today.”

dude! my time at CGI was not a complete waste! i wonder if the SilkTest job market is better or worse than the COBOL job market. maybe it’s time to switch back to the other useless skill i’ve acquired in my 4 years of working…

washingtonpost had an article about using “airport business” as an excuse to use the HOV lanes during rush hour – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502136.html?hpid=topnews

darn it!! i’ve been using this excuse for about a year now. mostly for the afternoon. especially when i tutored in reston. i would just take the tollroad all the way to the airport, stop by the exxon and grab some candy to bribe my student, and take a nap in the cell phone waiting area and then take the toll road to reston (so going west, then east, just to go west).

i never thought about using it as an excuse in the morning… pretty good idea!!! i always assumed that the airport excuse wouldn’t be valid to use in the morning. in fact, i’ve actually had legitimate airport business in the morning (dropping off someone) and then i’d get OFF I-66 after the toll road because i assumed that i wouldn’t belong! i never knew that it meant i could ride all the way into the city!! brilliant!

but now if washingtonpost had an article on it… they’re probably going to crack down on it now darnit! ruin my commute!!!

interesting cnn article about whether or not you can tell if someone is gay from the way they walk.  a grad student is doing research into this by having people walk around with red lights on them in the dark and recording their strides.  because all you see is their outline and stride, you’re not biased by any other things that might give you clues as to their sexual orientation.  he theorizes that your sexual orientation is as basic as your stride which can’t really be chosen/changed, supporting the nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument.

take a look at the videos and see if you can figure out who’s gay or not (answers available too) – http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/26/sexuality/index.html

i wasn’t able to load all the videos so i haven’t really watched them to see how accurate i am.  but it’s kind of interesting… just today, on my way into work, i saw this girl walking in front of me in a skirt and i couldn’t help but feel that the way she was walking seemed more like a guy than a girl.  i didn’t realize until that moment that guys have a certain bounce in their step and girls walk their own certain way… i wonder whether gay/straight also impacts your stride.

interesting article in the washingtonpost today about a 20 year long study to see if your behavior as a 1 year influences
your future romances.

oh weird… i hadn’t even noticed but it mentions a researcher at CMU!
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100931.html

Plagued With Relationship Troubles? Blame Your Parents.
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, February 12, 2007; A02

So, Valentine’s Day is two days away, but you know he isn’t going to bring you any flowers. And instead of a cuddle and a kiss, you know she is going to dig up that old canard about your mother.

Does your relationship feel like an endless rerun of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” — Edward Albee’s grim masterpiece of domestic disharmony? Do you always spend Valentine’s Day alone? Do all those smooching couples sound like idiotic moths banging their heads against a windowpane?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, science can finally provide a simple explanation — and a measure of grim satisfaction: Blame your parents!

Forget about Hallmark cards and chocolate. Just in time for Valentine’s Day, scientists are announcing the results of an astonishing two-decade-long study that explored the connection between insecure infants and relationship problems in young adults. Turns out the kind of baby you were at 12 months can say a lot about the kind of lover you will be at 21.

“If you are more insecure when you are 1, you are more likely to experience more negative emotions in your relationship with your current partner when you are 21,” said psychologist Jeffry Simpson at the University of Minnesota.

People from Sigmund Freud on down have made arguments about the role of early relationships in later life. But Simpson and his colleagues have shown for the first time, in a paper in the current issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, an empirical connection between early behavioral patterns and romantic relationships years down the road.

The study closely tracked 78 people over a quarter-century, starting when they were babies. Mothers and infants were brought into a laboratory, and the mothers were asked to leave briefly. The infants became upset, of course, but the psychologists were interested in what happened when the mothers returned. Some infants clung tightly to their mothers and sought comfort. In a little while, they calmed down. But others refused to calm down even after lengthy soothing. And some babies refused to turn to their mothers for comfort at all.

Simpson said research has shown that secure infants turn to their parents when they are upset: “The kid learns, ‘I can count on my parents to calm me down.’ They learn to turn to others. Whereas insecure kids learn that my parent is either rejecting or they learn my parent is neglectful. Or ‘I have to protest to get attention.’ ”

The researchers checked in with the children again when they were in first through third grade. They asked teachers how each child compared in social skills with other children in the class — especially when the child was upset. Did she act out her anger or reach out to others to solve the problem?

The next check came at another developmental milestone, when the kids were teenagers. The psychologists studied how the adolescents reached out to their best friends for support: “Do you rely on your best same-sex friend at 16 to calm you down or do you distract yourself?” Simpson asked.

Finally, the researchers studied the people when they were between ages 21 and 23. They asked the volunteers how often they felt happy or sad in their romantic relationships. The volunteers’ romantic partners were asked to describe the relationship as well. Finally, the couples were presented with a conflict and given 30 minutes to try to resolve it. Researchers videotaped the couples as they dealt with the problem and the emotions it produced.

“We find if you are insecure at age 1, that predicts being rated as being less socially competent than your peers during grades one-two-three, which predicts less reliance on your best same-sex friend when you are upset at 16, which then predicts more negative emotion in a romantic relationship at age 21 to 23,” Simpson said.

Does this mean all insecure infants are doomed to a lifetime of unhappiness? Simpson argued otherwise. Human destiny is not so circumscribed, he said. What the study showed is how each developmental step influences the next, positively or negatively. While it is certainly best to be started in the right direction, people can always learn the skills needed for successful relationships.

At its core, said Brooke Feeney, a social psychologist at Carnegie Mellon University who published another study in the same journal, research into the factors that predict happiness in our personal lives reveals a paradox about relationships — and a timely lesson for Valentine’s Day.

Contrary to the popular American myth that people left to fend for themselves become strong and independent, the psychological research seems to show exactly the opposite is true: It is the people who are confident enough to reach out to others for help — and to whom help is given — who become truly capable of independence.

Like those crying infants in Simpson’s study who turned to their mothers for support and, once comforted, resumed their explorations of the world, Feeney found that romantic partners similarly become more independent once their emotional needs are met.

“It is a lot easier for people to take risks and accept challenges when they know someone is available to help them and comfort them if something goes wrong,” Feeney said. “The most secure individuals are able to turn to other people for support.”

NY Times had an article (about a year ago, i just stumbled upon it) about my next door neighbor!! she is a student at yale and they interviewed her about what she wants to do. i think some people may view it as kind of anti-feminist because she wants to go to law school but afterwards, focus more on her family. i actually don’t see that as anti-feminist because she isn’t limiting herself. she isn’t majoring in home economics and wanting to marry and have kids right out of college. it’s clear she’s a highly motivated and intelligent woman who has ambitions and goals she wants to accomplish. just because she includes family in her plans doesn’t mean she’s selling herself short. in fact, i think the fact that she wants to go to law school, become a lawyer AND have a family makes her all the more ambitious. she wants to accomplish all that in less than 10 years (say she wants to have kids around 30). it’ll be all the more impressive when she accomplishes that.

most importantly, the NY times article had a picture of her and her mom (her mom’s nice too! my parents really like their entire family. my dad usually races to mow the lawn between our two houses before mr. lechner because mr. lechner, very generously, always mows all the lawn, including the portion that is ours.) sitting on their front porch. and in the background is my good ole house! yay brick front!! and green shutters! i love my house

cnn had an article about radical vs. moderate muslims. they entitled it Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies’ blood. all i could think of was…. WARNING: 24 SPOILER!!!! well, jack bauer eats our enemies!

in any case, i was wondering whether middle eastern people get tired of playing the bad guys every season (i’ve watched) of 24. doesn’t it feel like we’re constantly picking on them since they’re always the villians. would the show be less interesting if the bad person was american or canadian or british? has there been a season where there’s been a non-middle eastern villian? (i haven’t watched all seasons of 24)

i would find a season of 24 where the villian is canadian to be amusing tho i may be in the minority here…

edit: oops, i have a short term memory.  i guess last season’s villians weren’t middle eastern, but 2 of the 3 seasons i’ve watched have been!

Surgery on Girl Raises Ethical Questions
By LINDSEY TANNER
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 4, 2007; 7:27 PM

CHICAGO — In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little “pillow angel” a manageable and more portable size.

The bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad via the Internet, with some decrying the parents’ actions as perverse and akin to eugenics. Some ethicists question the parents’ claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

University of Pennsylvania ethicist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and reflects “slippery slope” thinking among parents who believe “the way to deal with my kid with permanent behavioral problems is to put them into permanent childhood.”

Right or wrong, the couple’s decision highlights a dilemma thousands of parents face in struggling to care for severely disabled children as they grow up.

“This particular treatment, even if it’s OK in this situation, and I think it probably is, is not a widespread solution and ignores the large social issues about caring for people with disabilities,” Dr. Joel Frader, a medical ethicist at Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital, said Thursday. “As a society, we do a pretty rotten job of helping caregivers provide what’s necessary for these patients.”

The case involves a girl identified only as Ashley on a blog her parents created after her doctors wrote about her treatment in October’s Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The journal did not disclose the parents’ names or where they live; the couple do not identify themselves on their blog, either.

Shortly after birth, Ashley had feeding problems and showed severe developmental delays. Her doctors diagnosed static encephalopathy, which means severe brain damage. They do not know what caused it.

Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk. Her parents say she will never get better. She is alert, startles easily, and smiles, but does not maintain eye contact, according to her parents, who call the brown-haired little girl their “pillow angel.”

She goes to school for disabled children, but her parents care for her at home and say they have been unable to find suitable outside help.

An editorial in the medical journal called “the Ashley treatment” ill-advised and questioned whether it will even work. But her parents say it has succeeded so far.

She had surgery in July 2004 and recently completed the hormone treatment. She weighs about 65 pounds, and is about 13 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than she would be as an adult, according to her parents’ blog.

“Ashley’s smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.,” her parents wrote.

Also, Ashley’s parents say keeping her small will reduce the risk of bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. In addition, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won’t experience the discomfort of periods or grow breasts that might develop breast cancer, which runs in the family.

“Even though caring for Ashley involves hard and continual work, she is a blessing and not a burden,” her parents say. Still, they write, “Unless you are living the experience … you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers.”

Caplan questioned how preventing normal growth could benefit the patient. Treatment that is not for a patient’s direct benefit “only seems wrong to me,” the ethicist said.

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl’s best interests.

Diekema said he was mainly concerned with making sure the little girl would actually benefit and not suffer any harm from the treatment. She did not, and is doing well, he said.

“The more her parents can be touching her and caring for her … and involving her in family activities, the better for her,” he said. “The parents’ argument was, `If she’s smaller and lighter, we will be able to do that for a longer period of time.’”

___

On the Net:

Ashley’s blog: http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com

Journal: http://www.archpediatrics.com

from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401060.html

i was reading an article about billy graham and his family trying to decide where to be buried once they’ve died. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201338_pf.html) it was an interesting article… i guess the subject is a touchy one and it’s interesting to hear how families are dealing with it. it’s pretty cool that it seems his family has two really nice burial places to pick from, but bahhhh! when i read the description about one of the places:

The tour is geared particularly to children, according to Franklin, starting with the life-size mechanical Holstein named Bessie who greets visitors from her stall just inside the front door.What Bessie will say is yet to be decided, Franklin said, but she might start off with something like, “Hello. I bet you didn’t know milk comes from a cow. Well, let me tell you about that.” She’ll then introduce the main man: “When Billy was young, we cows knew there was something special about him. . . .”

first off… talking cows?! bah! what’s that got to do with billy graham!? second… what kind of start is it when you start talking about milk? and what kind of transition is “well, let me tell you about that” …. and then when billy was young?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001376.html

Susan Kidd is leaving too!!!
NBC4 is upsetting me! you develop a bond with your news anchor… a relationship!! you see them every day, they report to you the news of the day cheerfully. they joke around with one another and you feel like you’ve gotten to know them a bit. you trust them because u’ve received the news from them for the past X many years and you know that what they report is true (and when they are wrong, they apologize) u can’t just replace them with other people just like that! they better not get rid of jim vance, doreen gentzler, or bob ryan… they’re an institution! if they get rid of them, i’m not watching nbc4 anymore!!

i heard about this about a week ago… i was standing on the metro when i saw a familiar face smiling from a picture in the newspaper… it was that picture of susan kidd! then i read the headline. i actually gasped outloud on the metro! haha, i was reading over someone’s shoulder so i just looked the other way, but then i came home and looked it up.

just too upsetting….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600669.html

“Michael’s departure from the anchor desk will mark the end of the market’s longest-serving and top-rated news team of himself, news anchors Jim Vance and Doreen Gentzler and weatherman Bob Ryan.”

NBC4 was by far my favorite news channel. I used to start watching the news at 4pm with Jim Handly. Then 5pm with Doug McKelway (who left for ABC7!) and Susan Kidd, and then 6pm with Jim, Doreen, Bob, and George. 7pm was the Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. I miss Tom He was my favorite anchorman. (No offense Jim)

I’m not sure quite why I’m so fascinated with news people. I remember meeting Bob Ryan when he visited Stone Mill in 6th grade! I kept track of news people as they switched from station to station or from one newscast time to another. I was even surprised when I recognized Morris Jones from Fox 5 on the news in Pittsburgh! (who can really forget his helmet hair?)

i hope jim, doreen, and bob don’t leave….