Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

  • When did Google — or google — become a verb?

    Or scratch that. New question: WHY did google become a verb?

    Ten years ago, people used to say "do an internet search." We would "do an internet search on snow leopards." Now we "google snow leopards." This wasn't the pre-Google era, exactly, but at that point probably most people used Yahoo! — but you would never see Yahoo! as a verb ("Yahoo the snow leopard"). Yahoo and Google are both two syllables, and yet only the more recent one became a verb.

    And just as important, it became a generic verb. If I am going to wikipedia Tibet, I am going to look up the Wikipedia article on Tibet. If I am going to google Tibet, I am going to run an internet search on the term "Tibet," and I may or may not actually use the Google search engine.

    Yeah, Google is the dominant search engine. And yeah, a single two-syllable word is simpler than a few words signifying a web-search. But isn't it just a bit odd that the public created this word (or verb form of a word) to capture a preexisting meaning for something that was surely somehow already in the common lexicon?

  • Just in case you'd forgotten that we're in a permanent "war" with unstated objectives against unidentified "enemies," Digby quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein:

    The laws of war very clearly say that you can keep a combatant in detention for the length of the conflict. Now this is a bit of an unusual war in that sense, but it is, in fact, a war and it is going to go on. 

    Therefore, if somebody is judged to be an unlawful combatant, and they remain a threat to our national security, what needs to be evolved is a process whereby their detention is periodically reviewed, either by a court, which I would prefer, or by a military panel and a determination made as to whether the threat still continues. 

    Now this would happen, I would think, annually, in a lengthy detention, but there is no question in my mind that somebody who is classified as an unlawful combatant can, in fact, be kept in detention until the end of this conflict, which means terrorism, against the United States, against her allies, and in the world abates.

    It's cool, it's not like Dianne Feinstein — a Democrat from California — is one of "our" (liberals') politicians.  And anyway, she might be saying that anybody can be detained, indefinitely, without ever being tried for crimes, as long as bad things are happening in the world anywhere, but what she's really saying is, "A Democrat is President. Let's put off having this discussion until the next Republican administration."

    And here I was hoping that, with the Bush Republicans being soundly defeated at the last elections, politicians might move on and stop justifying results which are (1) bad and (2) illegal on the basis of a war-time paradigm which is entirely inapposite and makes absolutely no sense as applied to our current situation. 

  • It's not self-control. And apparently it has nothing to do with how badly you want the marshmallow. But it is interesting.

  • Mortar_boards Dear readers, there is one more legal eagle on the A.B. roster. Our own Joe graduated from law school last weekend.

    Joe was one of the two earliest co-bloggers (the other being Anna) to join me on this blog. In late 2005 he was at home waiting to get into law school for the second time. He had been admitted once before but met with an unexpected roadblock. He was to begin school at Tulane University in the fall of 2005. However, mother nature had a plan of her own that summer in the form of Katrina! Joe's law school plans were washed away like much of New Orleans. He returned home to wait for another academic term to begin his legal education. During that idle period, with time on his hands, Joe read a lot of blogs, among them, Accidental Blogger. I came to know him through his comments and recruited him to write when I needed to go on a vacation. It seems like only yesterday. But more than three years have passed since then and Joe is now a full fledged lawyer. Congratulations, Joe!  

    This is the second time we are celebrating a formal landmark event in the life of one of our authors. The first time was a wedding.

  • I am sure everyone saw this item in the news yesterday on TV or on the web. There is really nothing chemically or nutritionally  yucky here. I guess one just has to get used to the idea.

    At the international space station, it was one small sip for man and a giant gulp of recycled urine for mankind.

    Astronauts aboard the space station celebrated a space first on Wednesday by drinking water that had been recycled from their urine, sweat and water that condenses from exhaled air. They said "cheers," clicked drinking bags and toasted NASA workers on the ground who were sipping their own version of recycled drinking water.

    "The taste is great," American astronaut Michael Barratt said. Then as Russian Gennady Padalka tried to catch little bubbles of the clear water floating in front of him, Barratt called the taste "worth chasing."

    He said the water came with labels that said: "drink this when real water is over 200 miles away."

    The urine recycling system is needed for astronaut outposts on the moon and Mars. It also will save NASA money because it won't have to ship up as much water to the station by space shuttle or cargo rockets. It's also crucial as the space station is about to expand from three people living on board to six.

    The recycling system had been brought up to the space station last November by space shuttle Endeavour, but it couldn't be used until samples were tested back on Earth and a stuck valve was fixed on Monday.

    So when it came time to actually drink up, NASA made a big deal of it.

    The three-man crew stood holding their drinks and congratulated engineers in two NASA centers that worked on the system.

    "This is something that had been the stuff of science fiction," Barratt said before taking a sip.

    NASA deputy space shuttle manager LeRoy Cain called it "a huge milestone."

  • Sleeping cat 1 Honest. See for yourself.  

  • The English language is about to reach the 1million word mark. At least, by one person’s reckoning – that of Paul Payack, a “word watcher” (of the Wordubon Society?) from Austin, Texas. Payack thinks he knows the precise time that the millionth word will enter the English language lexicon – 10:22 am (GMT) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009. He has a count-down clock ticking towards that moment on his website. While Payack seems all set to welcome the landmark linguistic event, other language mavens sniff at his presumptive prediction. They call his count spurious and claim that there is no way anyone can accurately account for the exact number of words in a language. 

    More from Tuesday’s Houston Chronicle.

    (more…)

  • The Texas legislature has given preliminary approval for issuing state licence plates that read "Choose Life." The revenue raised from the sale of the specialty plates will be used to fund adoptions and pro-life counseling at state pregnancy centers.

    The Senate tentatively passed a bill to establish "Choose Life" license plates, with revenue going to promote adoption. There was no debate on SB 1098 by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas. The vote was 22-9 with one Republican, Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, joining eight of the body's 12 Democrats in opposing the bill.

    The bill faces a final Senate vote before going to the House. Gov. Rick Perry favors the bill. Texas would join 19 states that have similar plates, which have raised more than $9 million to support pregnant women who are considering adoption.

    UPDATE: Perry's office just issued the following statement:

    "I am pleased the Senate has passed legislation authorizing the creation of a Choose Life specialty license plate. Texans have long been able to support their causes in this way, so I'm glad they can do so now to assist pregnant women who are considering adoption as an alternative to abortion for their unborn children."

    "This license plate will give Texans a subtle but meaningful way to express their personal views, while supporting pregnant women making the decision to choose adoption. I applaud Sen. Carona and Rep. Phillips for sponsoring this bill."

    There would be nothing objectionable about the proposed plates had it not been for another inconvenient fact about the state of Texas' commitment to life. See here and here for the most recent data.

  • I was going to write two posts about matters musical, but it’ll wait. First, Krugman has an NYT column about global warming and China, where he says the Chinese need to cut back on emissions, and should face economic sanctions if they don’t voluntarily do so fast enough:

    As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.

    It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.

    I don’t think he gets nearly enough push-back in the comments section. A few thoughts:

    0: Speaking for myself, a world 4-6 C warmer with all that entails, but with continued third world growth, is still preferable to that of today, with manageable temperatures but billions in absolute poverty. Both of those are awful options, and better can be done than each, but those two alternatives aren’t equally awful.

    1: The different costs of climate change aren’t all uniformly distributed across the planet. The Chinese are more likely to pay attention to costs that impact them directly. Loss of land in Bangladesh/Bengal or more malaria in sub-Saharan Africa aren’t such costs, for example.

    2: The Chinese argument – that the emissions cost of their exports shouldn’t be counted against them, because the benefits of the goods produced go to Westerners – seems fishy. It seems they can’t really accept the money payment for those same exports while disclaiming any carbon cost. I’m not dismissing outright these more sophisticated transnational accounting schemes, at least not in theory. Maybe the rest of the world ought to subsidize American/Western/Japanese research efforts, particularly in medicine and high yielding crops. Western Europe could help pay for the US Army and China and India could compensate the rest of the world for imposing a large unproductive body burden upon it. Maybe. Meanwhile, it seems a bit self-serving to use such arguments only in this specific instance.

    3: There is the problem of divvying up not just carbon consumption per-annum from but the extra atmospheric carbon already created. In practice I suspect the latter won’t be accounted for. I do think deviations from per-capita-equity based carbon allocations will tend to be increasingly hard to enforce and police with time.

    4: Any accounting of the cost of fighting climate change, must include the cost of forcing the Chinese (and other third-world economies) to accept lower growth rates, and by implication, lower life expectancy, lower levels of material comfort and the like.

    5: There needs to be a conversation about optimal levels of environmental degradation. To be florid, we must have targets of x units of per-capita GDP growth per species extinction or acre of rainforest lost. Indeed, to say that there are economic tradeoffs, more so when dealing with poor countries, is to say that these levels aren’t optimized at small values. IPPC says we’ll experience 2 – 4 C of temperature rise this century if we do nothing. How much do we want to do, assuming magical solutions don’t drop out of the sky?

    6: The more stories like this we see, the more attractive geoengineering schemes (with their considerable power and risk) will seem. About time the public conversation moved beyond glib hubris-of-man to seriously consider the technical and geopolitical challenges.

    Unconnected closing thought: The New Yorker is the anti-Playboy. One only ever reads it for the pictures.

  • A survey last month by the Pew Research Center on Social & Demographic trends found that only 47% percent of the respondents considered a microwave a necessity rather than a luxury, down 21 points from 2006. This is just one curious finding from a much broader survey relating to how the population is weathering the bad economic climate. After commenting that people who have been hit the hardest over the last year or two are more inclined than others to take steps to brace themselves for the future, the authors of the report note that “this distinction doesn’t apply to changing perceptions about what’s a luxury and what’s a necessity.” That shift is widespread, they maintain. I’m encouraged by their analysis. There are few necessities, hordes of luxurious baubles. (I count high-end audio among the former, by the way, in which respect I am woefully undernourished.)

    That is, I’m encouraged until I read the New York Times story reporting on the Pew survey and others’ views of the trend not to spend. Beginning with the lede there is squishy talk of a “culture of thrift” and financial virtue, and then a bit later, “the forces that enabled and even egged on consumers to save less and spend more—easy credit and skyrocketing asset values…” Of what does this culture and its virtue consist? Whence these forces? One sentence coyly avoids making the connection: “American businesses have become so dependent on consumer spending that any pullback sends ripples through the economy.” There’s no mention here of business’ dependency on other businesses, or of savage competition among businesses for consumers’ dollars. That might intimate a more systemic problem, worthy of systemic repair.

    If I had read it only in the NYT, I would not have accepted that people are saving more. For one thing, it doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps we’re trying to save more, or planning to do so, but I know the more I think about bolstering savings, the clearer it becomes I won’t be able to do so. (For me this means no upgrade to my turntable’s suspension, power supply, or onboard phono stage, not to mention no new amplifiers, no new CD player… Oh, yeah, and then I have a wife and kid and self to feed and stuff.) Since Pew says it’s so, though, I’m more inclined to accept the trend. Still, the Times and its tapped experts ought to cool the analysis a bit. It’s obvious that saving for contingencies is a good thing, Keynes be damned.

    Today being Mother’s Day, I dedicate this post to my mom, who knows how to save. Yes, she owns a luxurious microwave, but it surely must by now be an antique, and she’s too thrifty to buy a new one.

  • Courtesy of Librarians’ Internet Index (LII), this Times of London survey of fifty of the world’s best food blogs includes our own Anna’s uncle’s Serious Eats. Anna announced the blog here almost 2 1/2 years ago!

    Unrelated to food, LII is offering an award for renaming the site and its imminent merger with Internet Public Library. So far, I’ve only thought of stupid puns. Now’s your chance.