I found it rather funny reading an article about why flies are so hard to swat. Apparently flies have a sophisticated response to the incoming swatter:
"Long before the fly leaps, its tiny brain calculates the location of the impending threat, comes up with an escape plan, and places its legs in an optimal position to hop out of the way in the opposite direction. All of this action takes place within about 100 milliseconds after the fly first spots the swatter."
If you ask me, I prefer to catch them and let them out the window. Who really wants to swat them and end up with a mess to clean up?
Yup, that's right - catch them!
I figured out the trick as a kid growing up in Sydney. Let me tell ya, there can be a lot of flies on a hot summer's day in Australia.
It turns out to be really easy! Their vision is not like human vision - its tuned to be sensitive to change/motion. So just grab a tissue and very slowly bring it over them like lowering a white ceiling. All they'll see is a blanket of white with which they can't detect change/motion. They're trapped and buzzing under your tissue before they realise their predicament. Rarely does this not work. Why not try it next time and calmly let it out the window, instead of madly chasing it around the house with a swatter?
"Long before the fly leaps, its tiny brain calculates the location of the impending threat, comes up with an escape plan, and places its legs in an optimal position to hop out of the way in the opposite direction. All of this action takes place within about 100 milliseconds after the fly first spots the swatter."
If you ask me, I prefer to catch them and let them out the window. Who really wants to swat them and end up with a mess to clean up?
Yup, that's right - catch them!
I figured out the trick as a kid growing up in Sydney. Let me tell ya, there can be a lot of flies on a hot summer's day in Australia.
It turns out to be really easy! Their vision is not like human vision - its tuned to be sensitive to change/motion. So just grab a tissue and very slowly bring it over them like lowering a white ceiling. All they'll see is a blanket of white with which they can't detect change/motion. They're trapped and buzzing under your tissue before they realise their predicament. Rarely does this not work. Why not try it next time and calmly let it out the window, instead of madly chasing it around the house with a swatter?
Sometimes I like to observe society and, well, just kinda think about the human condition a bit. There's this psychological phenomenon I see now and again, which if you'll bear with me you might find equally strange. You see, it seems that practically everybody, at some stage, sees themselves as an underdog... That, by itself isn't strange, but it is interesting. It's like this weird mass delusion that seems to grip whole segments of society from time to time, and ironically enough, the rich and powerful as well.
You see, there's an appealing Romanticist element in the underdog story. I mean who wouldn't like the story of how the less powerful, courageously battles against the oppression of a dominant enemy, and then against all odds, have justice prevail and emerge triumphant? There's just something seductive about that narrative that lures people into identifying with it.
Now for the weird bit. You'd think it'd be pretty clear cut who the powerful oppressor is and who the courageous, oppressed weaker party is, right? Well, no, because both sides often believe themselves to be the oppressed victims taking a gutsy stand. The thing is, they can actually both be right....and wrong.
Let's start with one example to illustrate and then explore some more examples later. There's been a bit of a battle recently concerning Japanese whaling around Australia. It's interesting seeing the reactions and dialogue here.
From the perspective of Australians, the actions of the government, of Greenpeace, and especially of the Sea Shepherd activists, it is the story of a comparatively weak party defending whales from slaughter by battling a very rich, powerful Japan. I mean, it's obvious isn't it - especially when footage on TV shows little boats saving defenseless whales against huge ships with harpoons?
For the Japanese, it is not the Sea Shepherd, or Greenpeace or even Australian public opinion that constitutes the enemy. In their narrative, they see themselves as courageously battling the overwhelming forces of Western cultural imperialism. In this view, Australia is merely an agent of a much wider Western hegemony. They see condemnation from Western cultures as an absolutist imposition of hypocritical Western values and beliefs, and it is equally obvious to them who the weaker victim is.
What's happening is that both sides choose how they define the enemy and the agenda of the battle. Instead of an appreciation of each other's views, there is just a wide chasm of indignity.
Another danger of the underdog narrative is the temptation to excuse dirty tactics. Afterall, in an unfair battle, surely one is allowed to use anything at their disposal to level the playing field? Japan plays dirty tricks with the whaling commission and their 'scientific whaling' programme, whilst many Australians applaud the more extremist actions of the Sea Shepherd Society.
The thing is, dirty tactics by one party merely exaccerbate the underdog delusion of the other, spurring further polarisation and encouraging even more dirty tactics. Everyone feels more incensed and justified in their actions if the other party seems to be not only dominant and oppressive, but morally bankrupt.
Elsewhere, Intelligent Design advocates see themselves as under attack by a powerful scientific body. They can't get their papers published in prestigous journals, and their theories are ridiculed. They see themselves as silenced victims censored by a powerful body with government sanction, unable to educate even within their own schools. On the other end, athiests see themselves as rejected or persecuted by society at large, wrongly stereotyped as evil or amoral. They see lies being spread about evolution, and about themselves. To them, they are the heroes of truth battling an overwhelming ocean of public ignorance, superstition and intolerance.
I'd bet that even George W. Bush and his crew, who we see as being incredibly powerful, see themselves as underdogs. They not only have to battle what they see as a biased Leftist Press (except underdog Fox News), as well as a Leftist House majority, but even generals, internal government agencies, and members of their own party that disagree with them. Bush probably sees himself as trying to steer his nation through the right path to greatness, valiantly protecting it from danger against the harsh elements of the world, whilst dealing with nothing less than a mutiny. As far as he is concerned, he is both a victim of powerful conspiring forces, as well as a hero whose countless sacrifices will be appreciated many years later. Another underdog.
So the next time you hear the story of a courageous underdog and their powerful oppressor, just spare a moment and consider the flipside too. It might not be comfortable, but it may help you better see where both sides are coming from, and how they justify their actions.
P.S. If you're interested, there is a recent paper with studies concerning the 'underdog' perception as it relates to Olympic matches and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's especially interesting seeing how presenting two different maps of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changes the perception of who the underdog is. There's a publicly accessible version here including the maps and results.
You see, there's an appealing Romanticist element in the underdog story. I mean who wouldn't like the story of how the less powerful, courageously battles against the oppression of a dominant enemy, and then against all odds, have justice prevail and emerge triumphant? There's just something seductive about that narrative that lures people into identifying with it.
Now for the weird bit. You'd think it'd be pretty clear cut who the powerful oppressor is and who the courageous, oppressed weaker party is, right? Well, no, because both sides often believe themselves to be the oppressed victims taking a gutsy stand. The thing is, they can actually both be right....and wrong.
Let's start with one example to illustrate and then explore some more examples later. There's been a bit of a battle recently concerning Japanese whaling around Australia. It's interesting seeing the reactions and dialogue here.
From the perspective of Australians, the actions of the government, of Greenpeace, and especially of the Sea Shepherd activists, it is the story of a comparatively weak party defending whales from slaughter by battling a very rich, powerful Japan. I mean, it's obvious isn't it - especially when footage on TV shows little boats saving defenseless whales against huge ships with harpoons?
For the Japanese, it is not the Sea Shepherd, or Greenpeace or even Australian public opinion that constitutes the enemy. In their narrative, they see themselves as courageously battling the overwhelming forces of Western cultural imperialism. In this view, Australia is merely an agent of a much wider Western hegemony. They see condemnation from Western cultures as an absolutist imposition of hypocritical Western values and beliefs, and it is equally obvious to them who the weaker victim is.
What's happening is that both sides choose how they define the enemy and the agenda of the battle. Instead of an appreciation of each other's views, there is just a wide chasm of indignity.
Another danger of the underdog narrative is the temptation to excuse dirty tactics. Afterall, in an unfair battle, surely one is allowed to use anything at their disposal to level the playing field? Japan plays dirty tricks with the whaling commission and their 'scientific whaling' programme, whilst many Australians applaud the more extremist actions of the Sea Shepherd Society.
The thing is, dirty tactics by one party merely exaccerbate the underdog delusion of the other, spurring further polarisation and encouraging even more dirty tactics. Everyone feels more incensed and justified in their actions if the other party seems to be not only dominant and oppressive, but morally bankrupt.
Elsewhere, Intelligent Design advocates see themselves as under attack by a powerful scientific body. They can't get their papers published in prestigous journals, and their theories are ridiculed. They see themselves as silenced victims censored by a powerful body with government sanction, unable to educate even within their own schools. On the other end, athiests see themselves as rejected or persecuted by society at large, wrongly stereotyped as evil or amoral. They see lies being spread about evolution, and about themselves. To them, they are the heroes of truth battling an overwhelming ocean of public ignorance, superstition and intolerance.
I'd bet that even George W. Bush and his crew, who we see as being incredibly powerful, see themselves as underdogs. They not only have to battle what they see as a biased Leftist Press (except underdog Fox News), as well as a Leftist House majority, but even generals, internal government agencies, and members of their own party that disagree with them. Bush probably sees himself as trying to steer his nation through the right path to greatness, valiantly protecting it from danger against the harsh elements of the world, whilst dealing with nothing less than a mutiny. As far as he is concerned, he is both a victim of powerful conspiring forces, as well as a hero whose countless sacrifices will be appreciated many years later. Another underdog.
So the next time you hear the story of a courageous underdog and their powerful oppressor, just spare a moment and consider the flipside too. It might not be comfortable, but it may help you better see where both sides are coming from, and how they justify their actions.
P.S. If you're interested, there is a recent paper with studies concerning the 'underdog' perception as it relates to Olympic matches and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's especially interesting seeing how presenting two different maps of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changes the perception of who the underdog is. There's a publicly accessible version here including the maps and results.
Every year we can pack more and more data into a tiny little space. That's great news for your iPods if you want to store countless songs and movies on them.
But just how much further can we keep shrinking things? In 1959 Feynmann famously said "there's plenty of room at the bottom". The thing is, fifty years later, he's still right - and by a lot.
Okay, if you're a non-technie, then skip this paragraph for the juicy bit! Now, for techies out there - lets start with carbon and assume we can encode 1 bit for every 4 carbon atoms. At that density there's over a trillion terabytes of data in one gram. Wow. To put this into perspective, we can think about the amount of data needed to store a year of 3D video at high quality HDTV (1080p). Lets say we have 45Mbit/s for each eye, that's 90Mbit/s for stereo. Well, that's about 350 terabytes per year including when you're sleeping. If we recorded 100 years of footage, that's still only about 23 micrograms of carbon!
But just how much further can we keep shrinking things? In 1959 Feynmann famously said "there's plenty of room at the bottom". The thing is, fifty years later, he's still right - and by a lot.
Okay, if you're a non-technie, then skip this paragraph for the juicy bit! Now, for techies out there - lets start with carbon and assume we can encode 1 bit for every 4 carbon atoms. At that density there's over a trillion terabytes of data in one gram. Wow. To put this into perspective, we can think about the amount of data needed to store a year of 3D video at high quality HDTV (1080p). Lets say we have 45Mbit/s for each eye, that's 90Mbit/s for stereo. Well, that's about 350 terabytes per year including when you're sleeping. If we recorded 100 years of footage, that's still only about 23 micrograms of carbon!
Think about that for a minute - your entire life recorded in 3D High-Definition Video. That's every single thing you have ever seen or heard or said or written in your entire life, and it weighs only 23 micrograms - about the weight of a single grain of sand.
If we recorded a year of every single person on the planet, that's a population of 6.6 billion, then its still only 150g of carbon, or in rough kitchen terms - ten tablespoons of water. Just recording everyone in the US would be about 7 grams, about the same as one and a half teaspoons of water.
In a mere kg you could store six years of everyone's life on the planet, like some kind of ultimate YouTube. That's astonishing and somewhat scary all at once! Yes, there really is plenty of room at the bottom...
