Pinging Knight

Filed under: Uncategorized
No Comments

A few notes:

• Madge and I have moved in together! We now both live on Capitol Hill, in Seattle.
• We just got internet back today.
• I’ve been playing D&D4E with my previous housemates. It’s been pretty fun. I’ll probably blog more about it later. Maybe even post stories.
• I can cross off “cycling to work” on my list of New Year’s Resolutions. 54 miles during Bike to Work month.

Filed under: Personal
2 Comments

Melissa Williams, having spent a lot of time with high school students seeking to get into good colleges, has raised the question, “Just what is a good college?”

Despite colleges sometimes being ranked within a single giant group, the questions students should be asking themselves is more like, “What do I value in a college? What sort of traits should I be evaluating?” It seems somewhat obvious now, having been through college, but certainly it was not quite so clear when I was a high school student.

Here are some things that students should consider when evaluating a college—with bias towards the things that made me appreciate the University of Washington:

• Total college size. Is the college small and intimate, or is it practically its own city? Some people prefer colleges where nearly everyone knows each other which may feel more friendly and less like you are a statistic. I would have probably made closer friends in a small college. However, it’s not too tricky to find a niche of familiar faces once you are in a club or in your major’s department even in a large college, and I did make some good friends. I very much appreciated the vast variety of opportunities offered at large university like UW. You can take a course in practically anything, join a club for practically any interest, and enjoy great facilities like the IMA–a gym much better than any fitness club I’ve ever been to. If you are not sure what you plan on majoring in, a large university is more likely to provide the major. If you somehow figured out that you really wanted to be a paper science and engineering major, well, UW would have you covered.
• Class size. It’s related to the previous point in that smaller colleges tend to do better in this, but some large ones still try to maintain small class sizes. Smaller class sizes typically provide more opportunity to ask questions in class, professors to tailor the course more to the interests of the students and to provide more individualized attention without the student needing to actively seek it. I’m not sure if there is much positive about having really large class sizes at all, other than making it statistically unlikely for the curve to screw you over because you ended up in a class of geniuses. It lets you skip class without being noticed as much if you have to take that option. The most I can say about having a large class size is that a small size may not matter to you if you work pretty well independently.
• Strength/challenge level in the subjects you are interested in. Different colleges are known for excelling in different subjects. Particularly at the graduate school level, where a student typically already knows what area they are going to be studying in, one may evaluate specifically how good a college is in a particular subject. The difficulty level in various courses seem to vary wildly within UW. But their Computer Science and Engineering program was strong, and that was what I was interested in. It had a good mix of practice and theory–some CS programs only do one or the other particularly well. It was usually suitably challenging. You want something as challenging as you can take, always pushing you to grow and expand your limits. Some professors are just better teachers than others; teaching isn’t an easy thing. Make sure that there are good teachers in the area you plan to study.
• Research opportunities. Particularly if a student is interested in grad school or becoming a scientist, one should check how easy it is to do research projects with a professor or grad student. It seemed reasonably easy to participate in research at UW; we always joked about how professors enjoyed free labor for their projects. Some colleges require their students to participate in research; Cal Tech is one I remember offhand.
• Cost. Sure, some people say that cost should not be a consideration, but I don’t belong in that camp. I imagine a huge amount of debt would currently weigh somewhat heavily on me. Student loans aren’t so bad, but I just like financial security.
• Location and campus. This wasn’t too much of a consideration for me, but it was nice being within driving distance of my family, but far enough away that there was still some independence. I also love western Washington and really appreciated how nice UW’s campus is.
• Industry relations. I will always maintain that there is much more to college and education than getting a job, but being able to get a job easily afterwards is a great plus. I don’t know about other departments, but UW CSE is a large destination for recruiters, who often gave talks and provided free food and swag. The University of Waterloo (the other UW) in Canada is known for their strong work term system where each of their students graduate with already two year’s worth of work experience. Just remember that college isn’t a vocational school; learn about the great issues that we face in the world today and such as well. And learn about how to learn.

What other considerations are there when evaluating a college?

Filed under: Thought, UW, Question
No Comments

It’s difficult for me to say what genre Red-Eyed Soul belongs in. They use an astonishing variety of instruments in a single song, and switch it up throughout the album–piano, horns, punk guitar, orchestra bells, accordions, drums, and more. The first time I listened to the album, I was amazed by number of instruments the members seem to be proficient with. The World/Inferno Friendship Society does seem to be more a society than a band. It has supposedly over thirty musicians, about ten of which are on stage at any given time. The best genre classification I’ve seen for them is cabaret-punk.

Whatever their genre, their songs are zany, lively, and incredibly fun. The lyrics are quirky and have great song titles to match, such as “Only Anarchists Are Pretty”, “Annie the Imaginary Lawyer”, and “Me V. Angry Mob”. Jack Terricloth, the lead singer, delivers the twists and turns of the words with great charisma. The rest of gang seem to be all very talented musicians.

The album starts out with the incredibly uplifting “The Brother of the Mayor of Bridgewater”, which I find myself listening to more often than any other track of the album. It always has the effect of brightening my day. “Me V. Angry Mob” is one I find very funny and the lyrics are sung as if two people were shouting at each other while running away from an angry mob:

this ain’t the worst we seen
we been through worse than this
we will live to laugh ’bout this
shut up and keep running
what did you say to make that guy so angry

There’s actually not a single track I dislike in the album, and I listen through the entire thing at work quite frequently. If there’s even a chance that you might like something described as cabaret-punk, you owe it to yourself to check Red-Eyed Soul out.

A YouTube video of a performance of “Brother of the Mayor of Bridgewater”:

Filed under: Music, Review
1 Comment

This is an off-the-cuff kind of entry, but hey, I haven’t posted in a while and this seems important.

I consider myself independent, because I find plenty of distasteful things from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Since party ideals seem to shift over time anyway despite the names staying the same, I do not find it particularly useful to call myself either Democrat or Republican.

That said, most of the Republican presidential candidates scare me. Feel free to draw guidance from your religion, but religion cannot be the predominant force behind your positions. And our handling of 9/11 did not impress me at all. Ron Paul is interesting, but there’s no way he could ever enact Fair Tax or do much with many of his other positions.

I support Barack Obama. His message of hope is a curious one to resonate with me, since coming from nearly anyone else it would seem like a puffy piece of rhetoric. When did the government become something no one expects much good from, instead of a powerful source for positive change? That was the question Obama asked.

All right, all right, so the skeptic in me imagines the government was never really that great. But there have been things in the past that impress me–public education, the freeway system, funding of the internet, the manned moon mission, just to name a few. I approve that Obama is aware of the image of incompetence the government has and wishes to challenge it.

Policy-wise, I was never too sure what the differences were between Barack Obama and John Edwards. But since Edwards is no longer in the running, that seems a moot point. But how’s Obama compare to Hillary?

Hillary strikes me as a panderer. I know where she publicly stands on issues, but I never know if it is what she personally believes in. She has ridden the “games make our children violent” band-wagon. She voted for the war. She’s gone back on her word not to enter her name on the Florida ballot. Recently, she’s made some really nasty and false accusations about Obama that remind me of Fox News. (It’s both funny and sad that Fox feels that they can make any accusation, no matter how untrue, as long as they end the headline in a question mark. Hillary Clinton–Has sex with goats?). While she and Obama may share many of the same policies, she also represents why people have such little faith in politics.

Obama, on the other hand, was against the war when it was an unpopular position to take. His voting record seems entirely in line with his values, and also shows some amount of nuance that indicates that he reads more than just the title of the bills. He has put more emphasis in government transparency, accountability, reduction of corruption, and refuses most lobbyist money. This is the kind of positive change I want to see in government.

Other random pluses I can think of off the top of my head for Obama: - His technology policy is more well-defined that most; he is for net-neutrality - Pro-choice - Supportive of LGBT rights - Supports development of alternative fuels and has not ruled out nuclear - Supports embryonic stem-cell research - Supports universal health care (the government has the great potential to seriously mess this up, but really… everyone should have health care) - Has a multi-cultural background

Some random minuses: - Voted for 2006 Patriot Act - Against legalization of marijuana, though he seems to think the war on drugs doesn’t make much sense

Filed under: Uncategorized
6 Comments

Why am I posting this? Well, I volunteered to be a part of the quartet. The one I highlighted in green–let’s put those rusty viola skills to use, eh? It would be great to see some friendly faces there. Let me know if you are interested in coming!

Filed under: Personal, Music
2 Comments

So, these aren’t really resolutions I come up with for the purpose of New Year’s. They are more a list of goals I come up during the year, but it’s fun to formalize them in an entry.

1. Post 52 blog entries this year. This is a more specific version of last year’s resolution.
2. Record or perform in public at least 3 pieces, either viola or piano. Last year it was simply to record at least 3 piano pieces, which I did not do. But I did perform in a recital, which I felt satisfied the spirit of the resolution. This year’s goal puts that flexibility in more explicit terms.
3. Write one software application worthy of sharing in my spare time, or contribute significantly to some open source applications.
4. Ride my bike to work at least once. Hopefully this will then become a more regular occurrence, but I’d like to judge how dangerous the trip is before committing entirely.
5. Improve physically. Details to be determined later.
6. Move from a long distance relationship to a short distance relationship. We haven’t figured out if this involves me moving or Madge moving yet, but one of us will!

So, what are your resolutions?

Filed under: Personal
2 Comments

• Post, on average, one entry a week on Pinging Knight.

That’d be a FAIL.

• Become more fit. I could bench more in the freshman year of high school than I can now. That’s sad. Time for that to change. I’m not quite sure what to shoot for yet, but I’ll figure out quantitative values later.

FAIL. When I started doing wushu, it went from some sort of strength thing to being able to do the forward splits. As it stands now, I’m not stronger than I was before, and I still can’t do the forward splits.

• Communicate more clearly, particularly in speech.

Uncertain. What do you think, dear readers? Have my blog entries become more or less murky?

• Record three more piano pieces.

FAIL. But I came very close. Fan Lee and I played three pieces from Bizet’s Jeux d’enfants in an actual music recital–one where all the other pianists, for some reason, were music majors. They’re just not recorded yet.

• Write three poems.

FAIL. But I did write a riddle for Madge’s cryptex:

In Latin, I come from Knowledge
My mother is Thought
My father is Perception
Divided, some call me Social and Natural
Others call me Soft and Hard
My child, when grown, will be
Indistinguishable from Magic.

I’ll write a mini-poem for the first person who gets it.

• Read 6 books for fun.

Success. Turns out that commuting on the bus allows you plenty of time to read. The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson was so much fun.

• Get far enough in 3 programming side-projects that I’d actually want to share it with people.

FAIL. I did win an iPod nano for a programming project. Unfortunately, I suspect it has more to do with a lack of participants than the impressiveness of my submission.

• Manage my time more effectively. Sometimes I’m super-productive, but then I fall out of it for a phase. I need to figure out how to focus consistently.

Partial success. Overall, I feel that I am more productive, mostly because I’d feel guilty at work if that were not the case. I should apply more of this focus to things like, oh I don’t know, this year’s resolutions.

Filed under: Personal
4 Comments

This is something I figured out in college. It is possibly obvious to many of you, but while I had a Sense of what might be going on, it wasn’t until I put it into words for myself that it became rational. So here goes.

Quite often, it seems we feminists are contradictory creatures. We believe women need not be shackled to traditionally feminine roles–they need not be restricted to be home makers, nurses, secretaries. They can be computer scientists, doctors, businesspeople. Make-up, the color pink, and ponies don’t have to be girls’ only interests. We attack products that employ such stereotypically female elements (sometimes called “pinkware”), accusing their creators as sexists who pigeonhole women. Sometimes, we even attack other women for wanting to stay at home to take care of her children.

On the other hand, we often espouse that one should embrace one’s femininity, expressing it freely and proudly. Go ahead and wear pink and don’t be ashamed to put ponies on your PC case. We applaud when something is made with women in mind. Damsels In Success is a great website for women with a great name.

The two aspects seem to be in opposition. Why the disconnect?

Well, for one, it’s not like all feminists are a hive mind and are in complete agreement. But I think you already know that.

It’s that there are actually two major goals in feminism. At least. Or rather, two sides of the same coin. It’s just that many people haven’t synthesized what seem, at first, to be diametrically opposed movements.

The coin many people see–the goal of feminists is to support social equity between men and women. For many people, this means supporting women in traditionally male-dominated fields, removing the restrictions have stopped women in the past. Allowing women full access to what was traditionally masculine. This is one side of the coin.

The second side of the coin is removing the stigma associated with the feminine. There should be no guilt in liking ponies, pink, flowers, being a nurse, or staying at home to take care of the kids. There should be no guilt for either women or men.

Those are the two major goals of feminism. And really, they are both implied when people say women are equally as important as men, but I feel that the goal of removing the stigma associated with the feminine is not as obvious. Unfortunately, uplifting the feminine has the side-effect of reinforcing stereotypes among the sexist if not done carefully. There are plenty of people who would interpret a celebration of feminine values as confirmation for their prejudices–which is one reason why I think more effort should be made to incorporate men into the support for the traditionally female.

When approached from the perspective of these two goals, a lot of things became much clearer to me. Pinkware gets derision from feminists because it’s quite often stereotypical and just a shallow attempt at appealing to women without recognizing them as equally complex as men. The reason why a name like Damsels in Success may be the subject of some controversy is because feminists aren’t sure if it is doing more good by uplifting the feminine to be closer to par with the masculine or more harm in reinforcing female stereotypes. The same applies to women taking care of children at home.

It’s a tricky thing to balance. But I think we will know that we’ve made great progress when we get to the point where women are free to chose either traditionally male or female roles without anyone thinking less of them.

Filed under: Women in Computing
2 Comments

There’s often some hostility expressed against the ACM-W because men view it as unnecessary, and sometimes they feel it is a form of undeserved affirmative action. At least a few times, I’ve heard the goal of increased diversity accused as being just a convenient front for women to try to set up such groups. Someone told me once, “Well, you don’t hear about efforts to support men in women-dominated fields! There aren’t groups like this [ACM-W] for guys in nursing, are there?”

There are at least a couple of points to make:

• First and foremost, there are such groups for men in nursing. I’ve always responded to those that claim otherwise that there are. Unfortunately, I could never name such examples of support off the top of my head, and it wasn’t until today that I bothered seeking out such examples. Luckily, a query for “men nurses” on Google yielded on the first page not themed porn, but such things as The American Assembly for Men in Nursing and Male Nurse Magazine.

• Second, the lack of women in men-dominated fields and the lack of men in women-dominated fields aren’t entirely equivalent issues, though both are important. It should be noted that there’s a significant income gap between the fields that are predominately male and the fields that are predominately female. It was never a good excuse to claim that discrimination against women is okay in some fields because discrimination against men exists in other fields. It’s a particularly awful excuse when you consider the income difference.

Questions like these usually stem from a lack of knowledge about the issue more so than any overt hostility against feminism. There’s quite a few people who don’t understand why the ACM-W exists, since they don’t see or notice overt examples of discrimination. This includes women as well, since their personality type may allow them to ignore some things that come up that would discourage other women–perfectly capable people who I feel could otherwise do quite well in the realm of computing. I’ll write about some of these issues at some later post.

Filed under: Women in Computing
4 Comments