OK Go on Skates

I have probably seen as many OK Go videos as anyone outside of, well, OK Go. Earlier this year (or late last), they had a contest to see who could do the best rendition of their dance/song.

Since I was a figure skating weenie, having watched figure skating since the mid 80s or so, I was mightily impressed with the choreography. Consider the following. The original dance had four members. There's only two here. The original members had their feet mostly on the ground. Here, they skate.

Already the degree of difficulty is impossibly high, and they still manage to borrow enough of the original moves to show they paid attention to the video.

I have to say they shoulda won it all.

My-dol

I was watching American Idol for the first time, live. I couldn't help it. I just had to see him. You know. That guy.

Sanjaya!

Oh the humanity!

So I caught half of American Idol last night. The show is something of a sprint. Each person sings two minutes, and the judging is another minute or two. It's pretty quick, actually.

Unlike, say, Mr. Tony, who has been watching this entire season, I've not established a firm opinion on everyone. For example, I listened to Haley, and she seemed "eh" and the same with Jordin. The judges more or less said the same.

When Blake came on, I didn't like his look, but I thought he sounded pretty good. The entirety of Mr. Tony's cast hated it, while the entirety of the American Idol judging loved his performance. But then, I had few preconceptions of how Blake was. I thought it captured the essence of the song. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Randy said Sanjaya was the smartest contestant. And in a sense, he was. He sang his song mostly in Spanish, then ventured (awfully) into English. It's a quiet song, and he emoted just enough, and sounded like he pronounced the Spanish words quite well, that he did a credible job. I know. Low expectations. It's smart to start off badly but stay on week after week because anything above that sound pretty darn good.

Who's that woman on Mr. Tony? She's now using tons of Mr. Tony-isms. I dunno. Doesn't work well with me. Too much empathy, I think. What's her name? Jeannie McManus? Or something.

I must go to a confession soon.

And I'm not even Catholic.

Bless me father for I have sinned. I had to see...Sanjaya!

More Imus

It's a little hard to find the context of what Imus said, but here goes:

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --

McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.

RUFFINO: Only tougher.

McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.

You could point out that Imus didn't call them hos right away, that one of his co-hosts did, and then he took what he said and followed up. Indeed, his co-hosts seem more aggressive in their comments, though Imus clearly gels with them and goes along for the ride.

It's always good to see more of the original context before passing too much judgement.

Getting an I-Full

I tuned in, like I do most weekday mornings, to listen to Tony Kornheiser. Today was the day they were going to weigh in on Don Imus. Don Imus is, after Howard Stern, the most noted "shock jock", a guy who'll say offensive things on the radio, but had enough of a listenership who agrees with what he says, or at the very least, is entertained by what he says.

Imus made a comment about the Rutgers women basketball team. They made a surprise runner-up showing in the NCAA Division 1 Women's Tournament, losing to Pat Summitt's Tennessee team, a dominant team through the 90s, but looking to reclaim some lost glory, ten years removed from its last title.

Imus called the team "nappy-haired hos" and has been apologizing for saying this ever since, mostly, I imagine, because he thinks he'll lose his job over such comments. Tony Kornheiser is left in the unenviable position of trying to defend Imus, not so much because he agrees with what Imus said, but because it seems very much like the politically correct police gone out of control.

Now, I'm assuming Imus has said at least as scandalous a thing before, though I would say that I agree that his use of the word "hos" is more offensive than nappy-haired. Heck, I've seen an African American woman who proudly claimed she had nappy hair! And I didn't know what she was talking about!

There's a much lower threshold for racism than sexism, and commentators have pointed this out. It's Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson that come out to protest these remarks. Were these remarks made on Asians, would it get airplay? Were these remarks made about white women, would it get airplay? Indeed, why is it getting airplay?

To me, it says as much about racial politics in the US. We're not living in the 60s where civil rights advocacy meant lynchings and attacks, and so the kinds of brave actions that were taken are now reduced to finding occurrences of racism, most notably against African Americans, that are worth fighting, because such protests give rise to debates. Indeed, what better choice than a shock jock than Imus, and what better target than an athletic team! Because once it's about athletics, then the echo chamber of sports punditry takes over, and it gets discussed ad-nauseum by people like Tony Kornheiser, because somehow it's become a sports issue.

People are clamoring for Imus to lose his job, but are we prepared to have Tim Hardaway lose his? At least his comments were straight-forward, not in the context of a joke. He said he simply did not like gay people. What if Imus simply said "I don't like black people. I don't want to be near them. I would keep my distance away." Would he deserve to be fired? If you say yes, then you should say yes to Hardaway too.

Or do your sensibilities get rankled. African Americans are already a persecuted lot, so they should get a pass if they try to say something critical like this. Most people said that Hardaway wasn't particularly enlightened, but no one's saying get him out of the NBA.

Now, you can claim that these cases are indeed different. Imus has had a history of such outlandish comments. Perhaps, as Tony points out, this is much like Bobby Knight, who also had a history of being a bully. No one act was enough to get him ousted, but a history of repeated actions meant that the next straw would be enough to get him booted out. To that extent, Hardaway has kept his opinions mostly to himself, and so he hasn't had the same history.

Part of this is because it's Imus. Pick another person and heck, you wouldn't even know who that is. I mean, Imus is almost barely in the radio conscious, but he's just recognizable enough to serve as scapegoat.

Tony was treading very lightly on the topic, because Tony is an intelligent man. Is this being made a big deal because it's being perceived as a race issue? Yes. Would the same thing happen if he had made similar comments about white women athletes? No. Is this a form of "thought police"? Yes.

The subtext is even greater. Tony is, in case you hadn't noticed, a bit of a comedian on his show. His histrionics is what makes his show enjoyable. Does he make fun of people? You bet! Remember Melinda Doolittle? She's got no neck! She's older than Greg Oden! Why, they're all African Americans? OK, so maybe it's not enough to push anyone's racial button, but maybe the no-necked advocacy group should complain about this.

But you can see why Tony might be nervous. He can claim that he's not strayed into the realm of hateful speech because he's not deliberately hateful at all. He'll hate, but on oddball things. He'll pretend he wants to ban John Feinstein. It doesn't hurt that it's all an act, and both are Jewish American sportswriters, so it's okay to bust the chops of someone in the same boat as you. He can say that there are differences, but at what point might someone say, there are no differences, and he becomes the next guy accused of saying something inflammatory, as a joke?

Indeed, African Americans are much more likely to raise issue when there is a racial slight, but usually when there is some political advantage to doing so. No other ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation group has even close to the kind of media play. It might be something if Jesse Jackson defends some Asian Americans against perceived racism against say Abercrombie and Fitch, a company noted for its lily white models and for a racist Asian shirt. But you don't hear it happen much, do you?

And because you don't, people are more willing to look at such protests and say "well, there goes the PC police!".

To be honest, I think the Rutgers women don't give two hoots about what Don Imus says and are perfectly capable of defending themselves. I'm sure some other group is being slighted by similar comments and we don't even hear it. Does this make the comments right? No. But the kind of uproar seems more for political benefit (oh, Rev. Jackson is still around?) than to effectively combat racism.

I won't say it has no effect, because many people agree with the sentiment, but it does polarize people, and puts people in corners they don't want to be in because of the implications of why this became a big deal to begin with.

I-Owe-Wa

Iowa isn't what you'd call a major state. Biggest city? Des Moines? Can you even name another city in Iowa? Images of cornfields abound. Even so, Iowans are a proud folk and they know when Iowans have done well.

On Sunday, Zach Johnson did something few have done. He beat Tiger Woods. Which is to say, his score, at the end of the day, was the best score of the day, and Tiger Woods's score was not.

Zach Johnson, in post-tournament interviews, said he was from Cedar Rapids (there you go, another city in Iowa), an Iowan proud to call Iowa his home. Not all Iowans have been so proud. Ashton Kutcher. He's Iowan. He's even brought Demi Moore to Iowa.

Brandon Routh, the guy who played Superman and Clark Kent in Superman Returns. Iowan. Bryan Singer, the director, was there for the Iowa debut at Routh's hometown. He probably had little reason to go there otherwise. They've convinced Lance Armstrong to bicycle in Iowa. Captain James T. Kirk says he's from Iowa, and a small town in Iowa makes claims to be his future birthplace.

Did you know Elijah Wood, of Lord of the Rings fame, was born in Cedar Rapids? Zach Johnson only grew up there. He was born in Iowa City (yet another city in Iowa!). Of couse, Elijah's been acting since he was a kid, so much like the Beverly Hillbillies, he moved away from there and headed to Beverly. Hills, that is. Or somewhere in the vicinity of Hollywood.

Steve Alford? Well, he coached at Iowa, but decided to leave them for New Mexico, where they understand basketball better. Or something like that.

Iowa can lay a claim against rival Ohio. Spelled with just as many letters and vowels, but has unique vowels. Those Ohioans use two "o"'s, don't you know?

So Zach Johnson, once proudly golfing in the Hooters tour wins the tournament that Hootie runs, that is Hootie Johnson. Remember that? Martha Burk protested that the membership at Augusta was exclusively male. Tiger Woods, wanting to keep his sponsors happy, kept mum on the issue. It was Martha vs. Hootie. Hootie must have won, because there was nary a peep from Martha Burk.

Hootie's gone (replaced by Billy Payne). So's Martha.

We have Zach Johnson left.

And he's proud to tell you he's from Iowa.

Inappropriate Flashing

My friend, Justin, told me a while back: "Don't use flash!". I'm sure he said it more strenuously than this, like "Using flash is the worst pain ever...your mom!".

He was, of course, referring to flashes on digital cameras. These devices of pure blinding brilliance are almost always amped up way too much, creating the most amateurish results. Yet, camera company after camera company insist on making a flash that's far too strong.

Worse still, you can't even control it. Wouldn't it be nice to say "80% flash" or adjust some number that would reduce the flash by the amount it thought was necessary? I know there's some doodad that attempts to measure how much light makes it into the lens, and then turns off the flash, all done in fractions of a second.

You'd think some camera company would catch on. That it would serve as a product differentiator. They could say "our camera does flash right!". But instead, they doom the average photographer to crappy photos. David Pogue, save us! Your humorous vlogs will repair an oversight that has gone far too long!

Flying Coach

Shortly after the NCAA tournament ends, and sometimes during its tenure, there is a mad rush of firing and hiring. There's a subtext to the NCAA men's tournament. The text, as it were, is for a team to win the national championships, the pinnacle of division 1 college basketball. The subtext is to do well enough to get a "better" job, that is, for the coach.

Let's review what happened. Kentucky's Tubby Smith, the successor to Rick Pitino, who heard the siren song of the NBA, became head coach of the Celtics, and drove the once proud franchise into the ground, before heading back to greener pastures, becoming cross-town coach at rival Louisville, decided the pressure of being Kentucky coach was too much.

Tubby had won the national championships once, but it was early on, with Pitino's kids. The Wildcat faithful never quite embraced Tubby, and although he frequently made the tournament, he rarely made it that far. Kentucky fans wanted final four appearances on a Kryzewski-like consistency, which meant basically every other year, a feat that few college programs can expect to reach.

Much like being Alabama (or Notre Dame)'s head coach, being Kentucky's head coach is often a thankless job. You're expected to win big, out-competing up to a hundred other programs seeking the same status.

Tubby finally said adios to Kentucky, and went for the much less known, Minnesota, what many consider a step down. However, Minnesota would be thrilled to get to the tournament regularly, and has little expectations of winning a championship. This was more to Tubby's liking.

Arkansas fired Stan Heath, who got the position after Kent State did well in the NCAA tournament back in 2002. Arkansas had just fired Nolan Richardson, an African American coach, who was a bit controversial. To Arkansas's credit, Heath was also African American, and coached five years. However, he didn't win as much as Richardson, so they looked elsewhere. Arkansas wanted Billy Gillespie, but we'll get back to him in a moment.

Arkansas then hired Dana Altman, the coach of Creighton, one of the mid-majors that do well tournament-time. He backed out after a day, deciding he didn't want the Arkansas job.

Michigan fired Tommy Amaker, who had been Michigan's coach for five years, and never once made the NCAA tournament, though his team won the NIT one year and was runner up another year. Michigan hired John Beilein, who had two successful NCAA runs with West Virginia in 2005 and 2006, but barely missed making it in 2007. Beilein was replaced by Bob Huggins, who once coached Cincinnati, and was asked to coach WVU, before he was fired from Cincinnati and had just wrapped up a year at Kansas State.

Texas A&M had a successful tournament, ranked as a 3 seed, and a team many felt could go far. They did pretty well, reaching the sweet 16. Coached by Billy Gillispie, Texas A&M made it from an afterthought in basketball to being a serious tournament threat.

Kentucky, who had hoped to bait Billy Donovan, two time national championship coach of the Florida Gators, but just as important, former assistant coach to Rick Pitino when he was at Kentucky, had to settle for Gillispie, when Donovan decided to stay at Florida. Gillispie, much like Ben Howland, former Pitt coach and current UCLA coach, is considered a workaholic, married to the sport, spending more time analyzing games then, say, having a wife.

Gillispie benefited from a decent if not outstanding tournament run, just as Beilein did. Rather than look at a body of work, they figure the proof is in the tournament pudding. Get a good team to play at the NCAAs, and that can be a resume builder like no other.

Strange hiring practices, wouldn't you say?

Rings a Bell?

Ever heard of Joshua Bell? If classical music is not your cup of tea, then maybe not. I can't say I'm a classical music buff, but my dad had many classical albums of the Time-Life variety, which meant it was classic vinyl, and often wrapped up, unused, until either my brother (most usually him) would wonder why we had albums we never opened, and would open them for a listen.

Of course, at that time, Bell was a bit too young, and would have released no albums. More than likely, he was on a youthful apprenticeship, learning to be the master musician he is today. And it doesn't hurt that Bell is fairly attractive. It never hurts for any public performer to be easy on the eyes.

Bell does have an interesting lineage. His dad was one of the several Kinsey researchers. I knew little of Kinsey except that he had written a book on sex, until seeing the film, Kinsey. Kinsey's success, at least as portrayed by Liam Neeson, was that he treated sex as a research, as through and meticulous as his research on gall wasps. This fastidiousness gave him some credibility as he did research on human sexuality, which was surprisingly woefully under-researched in the early 1940s.

For example, that staple of young men (and not so young)--masturbation, was considered unhealthy and taboo in its day. Kinsey did much to convince people that this was not at all unhealthy. He gave credibility to homosexuality as a normal way of living, rather than a psychological disease. Even if 10% population being gay is considered a bit high (it's been suggested the number is maybe 5%), it gave gay people confidence that hasn't been matched until the advent of the web.

But, I digress.

Joshua Bell wanted to try something out. Here's the full story.

He wanted to know, if he looked like something of a vagrant musician, begging for money at a popular Metro stop, would anyone stop to give him money. To make it somewhat less obvious who he was, he wore a baseball cap. Playing his million (actually, several million) dollar violin, he wondered if virtuosity would stop the busy commuter, off to his job.

He played for just under an hour, and made about forty bucks. Hardly anyone recognized him. One woman, near the end of his performance, did recognize him, having been to his concert only weeks earlier. Although she was baffled why he was out there begging for money, she knew it was him.

This article was posted to reddit, where it received a number one ranking. Comments, as they are wont to be, was mixed, some negative, saying that this was a cheap stunt.

One has to point out that few people enjoy classical music so much that they recognize virtuosity. Virtuosity is, by definition, extreme skill. Heavy metal, which can be well nigh unlistenable to a non-fan, is nevertheless, a virtuoso skill. The best metal players play with such proficiency that few can match the ability to play notes so quickly and accurately. Banjo players also attain this level of virtuosity.

Even so, how many people actually like classical music? Had the person been, say, a beautiful woman--and there are plenty, highly-talented attractive women who play the violin, would the reaction have been different? While we've come to expect good, yet out-of-work musicians having to beg for a living, most are male. The oddity of seeing women music performers might draw a crowd, far more easily, and perhaps be a far more incongruous site. And, never underestimate having a beautiful woman playing to attract people, much like seeing a young child virtuoso would draw more attention due to the fact s/he's a child, not because s/he's a virtuoso.

Some people don't like to be insulted, to be told they can't recognize genius. Thus, this experiment would be considered folly, the height of arrogance.

I see it rather differently. Joshua Bell has played in concert halls to a certain kind of audience, one that presumably recognizes and appreciates his talent. But he lives in something of a rarefied atmosphere. Just as there are some people who travel to exotic countries to build up their repetoire of experiences, Joshua Bell has, I gather, as well. Even if he ostensibly did it (or an editor at the Post) to find out how people would react, he may have also done it to explore some facet of a life he's never had to live.

One has to imagine that gifted musicians, especially classical ones, are extremely lucky. While the average Joe band might have some hope of making a small living as a musician, you have to be near the top of your game to be a classical musician. But being there, you can do pretty well for yourself. Still, it takes only a little less talent, and you might be out begging. There, but for the grace of God...well, you get the idea.

Perhaps Bell is arrogant, but maybe he's just curious. His dad was a social scientist interested in behavior. And perhaps he's not so elite as to think this wouldn't be a bit of fun.

I know. When you open up a forum for comments, you find people who say the silliest things, and often, it lacks much insight or intelligence. People are always willing to criticize, because that's what humans do so well. Indeed, it's a skill, one that some people do well, and others do poorly.

I've always thought I should get a CD by Joshua Bell, and oddly enough, a stunt like this has made it more likely I will.

Sanjaya

I've finally been broken. Sorta. Tony Kornheiser has been back on the air since January or so, so my morning quota of Mr. Tony, which had been on the same hiatus Tony was on (he was doing Monday Night Football on ESPN), was now met again.

Tony's always been a big fan of American Idol, but I've never bothered to check it out until recently, and really, only on YouTube, and the like. I've listen to Sanjaya bashing for the last few weeks. In the meanwhile, I've seen videos of Chris Sligh, Chris Richardson, LaKisha, Gina, Melinda Doolittle, Phil, Blake, Jordan, and Haley. So I'm basically up-to-date on pretty much who everyone left is.

As I've pointed out before, American Idol focuses on the singing, which if you really think about it, is only one-half of the equation, the other part, not surprisingly being, you know, the song. This is why, as much as people get hooked on Idol, about which singer they like or don't, the singers never seem to do fantastically well afterwards.

Having a great voice is one thing--and many of these singers have pretty good voices, but singing songs people like is another.

Now, part of listening to Mr. Tony is hearing wacky stories like the "Peter Yarrow burglar". To recount this story for those who don't listen (which is probably all of you), a man apparently walked into Tony Kornheiser's house. It was late enough that Tony was in bed, but his wife was awake.

He was carrying a suitcase, and upon seeing Tony's wife, he notes that he is in the wrong house, and is dreadfully sorry, that he's jet lagged from a trip to Israel, and oh, by the way, he's Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul, and Mary, the folk band from the 60s, who made famous a song called Puff the Magic Dragon.

Days after the event, Tony milked it for what it was worth, trying to decide if this were somehow, inexplicably, the real Peter Yarrow, or a burglar claiming he was Peter Yarrow, so he'd have an excuse, just in case he was caught, just as he was now.

As it turns out, it was the real Peter Yarrow, and he came on the air to do an interview, to explain how sorry he was and so forth. Mr. Tony had to ask Peter Yarrow if he followed American Idol, to which he said he did not.

But it's the reason why he chooses not to listen, that's most interesting. While he had nothing against people wanting to sing for a career, indeed, he feels people should do what they want, much to his 60s ethos, it's the manner which the show goes about finding good singers. In particular, they are judged, and sometimes this judging can be particularly nasty. Simon has gotten nicer over time, but he has an acid tongue, pointing out people's flaws, bringing them to the edge of tears, and beyond.

Now, some people have pointed out that Americans live in a society where they are coddled, where they are made to feel good about anything, where failure is meant to be brushed under the carpet. Criticism is kept to a minimum, while everyone feels good about every accomplishment, no matter how small. It's been argued that criticism, and people's responses to it help people become better, strive for more than just to be.

However, Peter Yarrow feels, in only a way that Peter Yarrow can, that this is wrong. Little kids criticize others for being too fat, too tall, too ugly, and so forth, and such comments are hurtful, and to his mind, wrong. Indeed, he expressed his sentiment on Tony's show in the form of a song, and of course, in the context of American Idol, you had to think, this man's singing stinks! (As the show's motto is "This show stinks"). And you had to feel this sentiment, even as the song's sentiment reaches at something deeper, much as folk music of the 60s tried to do.

But it also makes an interesting critique of Idol itself. American Idol is not so great because the audience can vote, and their vote counts. No, it's that these singers are not uniformly great. They're pretty good, but you can hear their vocal flaws, and so that means, the average American, who loves music, but typically lack any vocal training, can weigh in.

Indeed, there are several "vlogs" (video blogs) that do that each week, much like Tony critiques Idol with his co-hosts. That most of the vlogs are hosted by men (many claim straightness even!)--indeed, I haven't seen one by a woman yet, though I'm sure they are out there, shows that Tony isn't the only guy who has fallen under the Idol spell.

Idol's mystique lies in your own criticism of the singers. You become the judge. And amazingly, this ties to all the baser instincts of people that Yarrow was singing against. I was once visiting my cousin in Seattle, and his then fiancee. We went to one of their friend's apartment, and there sat one of those Hollywood rags. One of the girls opened it up, and started brazenly criticizing how ugly, or old, the person she was looking at was.

She did it almost reflexively, as if it had been built up from many years of she and her girlfriends, passing the hours (or possibly from her mom!) criticizing others. Man, do we love doing this! It makes us feel better about our humble lives.

Say, did you see Sanjaya! He can't sing a lick, but look at that hair! What the hell kind of hair cut was that? It wasn't a mohawk! His hair is poofed up like Marvin the Martian's brush helmet on steroids!

Indeed, had I not found out that Sanjaya Malakar was Bengali Indian, as is a friend of mine, I would have not bothered to check out this Sanjaya phenomenon. And sadly, his rendition of Gwen Stefani's Bathwater, apparently a not-very-well known song by No Doubt sung by frontwoman, Stefani, is so catchy, that I can't seem to get it out of my head, syncopated to the beat of Sanjaya's head.

One of the YouTube comments that Sanjaya's version was superior to Gwen's, even as Mr. Tony feels Gwen's singing is wretched. Still, despite not having the pipes of a good singer, Stefani's singing style is unique enough, and perhaps tall, thin, blond things do well, especially with a ska backup band to give the band its sound.

And it goes to show you, that the quality of singing isn't everything! It's to Idol's credit that it puts singing front and center, albeit singing of a certain style, which I'd have to say, has been greatly influenced, as much of modern American, even modern English-speaking music, by African Americans. Popular singers are about everything, their voice, their looks, their general hotness, and yes, occasionally the songs they sing.

I'd love to see a version of Idol where the song was put front and center, where prolific singer/songwriters/bands would play an originally composed song each week. To be fair, learning a song, and writing a good song in a week are far different. While Jonathan Coulton and maybe Sufjan Stevens is that prolific (indeed, many a songwriter claims they wrote the song in ten minutes), it may stress real bands to have to compose this quickly.

To be fair, one way around this is for the band to have some time to write up songs ahead of time. But the key, in my mind, would be to compel them to write songs in a wide variety of styles, which would show off songwriting and song-singing prowess.

You'll note that Idol never has a "rap" night, because, well, rap ain't singing. I don't know if they've had country night, or hard rock singing night, as that would really put people out of their comfort zones. When you have "British Invasion" night, it still leaves open quite a variety of songs, one of which ought to be something you can sing well.

Well, now I've come to a close, and fortunately, I'm now awake, so that nefarious bump-bump-bump of Sanjaya's head doesn't come tap-tap-tapping in the night.

Twitter

Twitter used to be called Twttr, at least, I thought it was. It's hard to find evidence of this.

It's the latest new thing, and as with many latest new things, I find it through Dave. Dave somehow manages to figure out the pulse of new things. He told me about Flickr before Flickr was big (and arguably, it's not that big).

What is Twitter? If you have some IM buddies that are younger than a certain age, they often list their away message letting you know where they are at any particular place and time. Modern youth do not seem that concerned about privacy, perhaps an outgrowth of reality TV shows like Big Brother, where people actually want to be filmed 24 hours a day.

Indeed, the latest online example of this is justin.tv where former Kiko employee, Justin Kan, straps a small camera on a cap, and films whatever he sees all day long. When he sleeps, he aims he camera at his bed, and using night vision, you can see him sleep, which is modestly dull.

The lesson one learns from having a camera is that no matter how boring someone's life is, someone is always watching. Two things have pushed Justin.tv to the next level beyond the cam sites that were popular a decade ago (JenniCam, being the most famous person) are the quality of video, which is much better than the old days when images refreshed once in twenty seconds, and even the best of them, Camarades, would stutter all the time, and that Justin takes the camera everywhere. In its day, the cams were mostly stationary, in the room of the cam star. When the star was not around, the room was empty. A viewer would get a terribly limited view of the person's world. Oh yes, there's also sound. Many cams of its day lacked sound.

Right now, due to its increased popularity, a hundred people might be watching at any one time, which means it's become increasingly difficult to see any video at all.

But I digress.

Twitter is much simpler. The idea is to have a website where you can update everyone by any means necessary. You can go to the website itself and put a note on what you are doing right then and there. You can send a text message from your phone. I think you can even IM to it.

And, while I haven't checked it out, you can keep up in similar ways. If I want to keep up with Dave's every move, I could probably route his updates to my phone. Now, he doesn't actually update enough to make that realistic, and he may indeed get tired of it very quickly.

But for now, Twitter seems to have caught the fancy of many people, especially at this thing called SXSW (which is short for "South by Southwest", a riff on a Hitchcock film) which I believe is hosted in Austin Texas each year.

Why would people want to update everyone on what they are up to? And why would people care? Yet, people have done this. Perhaps someone addicted to Twitter can enlighten me.

I'm just here noting it down, even as others have already noted it too.

More Phelps

Some followup. Michael Phelps continues to rack up medals and break world records. The FINA World Championships in Australia are done, and Phelps had hoped to get eight gold medals, but instead he has to settle for seven (boo-hoo). The last medal was a medley, which requires four swimmers, and one of his rivals and teammates, Ian Crocker, had left 0.01 of a second too soon. I mean, you'd think they could simply penalize this time at the end, though certainly it creates problems if everyone is doing this.

Phelps had beaten Ian in some previous event.

Let's just say his accomplishments have been amazing, and the media can hardly overstate this. Indeed, they have a hard time getting enough enthusiasm for this. Why? Lance Armstrong, another sports figure who has resonated with the American public, has succeeded where Phelps has not. Why?

There are several reasons for this. First, Lance won over many, many years. Each year, they would go back to the Tour de France, and each year, Lance would win. The public probably didn't even follow Lance until after he won his third Tour. That's just how much people cared (or didn't) about the Tour.

Second, Lance is a cancer survivor, so there is a secondary story that people can relate too. Many people know of someone else that are cancer survivors.

Third, the Tour de France runs over several weeks, and there is coverage on OLN (which didn't happen until he was roughly on his fifth win). People could watch it live, and it would last a few hours. As people learned more about the race, they could figure out its nuances. There are even nutty situations where the spectators are literally inches from the riders, and at any point, they could knock over a competitor.

Let's face it, the Tour, as is, would never happen in the US, at least, if we cared about the sport to any degree. Athletes would want to be protected from rabid fans. Indeed, a French rider of some repute, Eddie Merckx, lost a title because someone knocked him off his bike. And Eddie was French!

On the other hand, swimming takes only a few minutes, if even that. It's like watching track and field. It's over quickly. So we can appreciate the import of the event, even if lacks the kind of drama that racing can have (in particular, last year's win by Floyd Landis had him make up some 8 minutes in one day, with only about two days left in the event, which is practically unheard of. Most people thought Landis was done for, and to make up that time was not possible. When he did, there was some question of doping).

His accomplishments seem less notable than Mark Spitz, the guy he's most often compared to. There's a reason for that. First, Mark Spitz won in the 70s, when there was no cable TV. The Olympics, when it was on, had a huge, captive audience. And they loved it. These days, the Olympics are meh.

Mark Spitz was also something of a golden boy. Just as Chris Evert was not only successful for her excellent play that made her one of the two players you think of during the late 70s and 80s (the other being Martina), she was also noted for being good looking. Spitz had that 1970s good look, where folks like Tom Selleck and Burt Reynolds--guys with moustaches, seemed something like men's men (though not John Wayne types).

Let's face it, Michael Phelps looks rather wiry, and still very much like a kid. And there's a tendency for one white swimmer to look like another. Put Ian Thorpe side by side with Phelps, and you'd probably find the average person unable to decide who is who!

And, unlike Spitz, Phelps didn't even break these records at the Olympics! True, the World Championships are no small deal, but it's not the Olympics.

I'm starting to read a touch more about Phelps, that he's a bit of a jokester, and he's hugely into rap music, which just goes to show you the crossover influence of rap for white audiences (he is from Baltimore, which has a rather large African American population). Still, it's amazing how little I know about this guy, even though I've heard of him for years.

Pryor Work

Joel Spolsky co-founded Fog Creek Software with Michael Pryor. That's right. Co-founded. Startup CW says you should create a start up with a co-founder. Helps divide up the work.

But you hardly hear of Michael Pryor. Why is that? Presumably because Pryor, like many software types is an introvert, and doesn't like the limelight. Perhaps Joel is so much better at being interviewed. Hey, there's no shame in that, right? Recently, the two were interviewed by Robert Scoble (I think, as I have no idea what Scoble looks like). Scoble has his own website and is one of those big bloggers, much like Joel himself.

I am reminded of a movie I saw long ago, called Prick Up Your Ears, which was well-reviewed, but I never knew much about it until seeing it. It tells the story of Joe Orton, a gay writer, who lived with Kenneth Halliwell, and the two became lovers. Eventually, Halliwell killed Orton, though the reason isn't clear. The film posits that Halliwell was frustrated with Orton's success and when Orton won an award, he invited his editor, instead of him, it pushed him over the edge. As this murder was actually a murder-suicide, the actual reason is not known despite a suicide note from Halliwell. The film stars Gary Oldman and Alfred Molina, when they were not so well known (Molina is still not that well known, but played Dr. Octopus in the last Spiderman movie).

I have yet to listen to the full interview which runs about an hour, having only listened to the short six minute highlights version, but I suspect Joel does most of the talking. It begs the question why Michael Pryor is in the interview at all.

To be fair, being an interviewee requires thinking quickly and being able to give interesting responses, though this has not stopped Shaquille O'Neal (though he does say some funny things, despite his rather whispery voice--one time he was talking about how he is able to do well at the end of a season when it matters. He says "some guys are all roses and chocolates". By itself, it's not much, but in context, you see that this is incredibly funny.)

(OK, fine, I'll explain it. Why does someone give roses and chocolates? To woo women. Why? To get women in bed. So, thus, Shaq is joking that some guys are great at the beginning, when it doesn't matter, and can't deliver in the end. It was his analogy to his situation in basketball.)

I don't know why the two relate to me, only whether there's a sense of wanting to share more of the visible face of Fog Creek. Google has two lead guys, but I'd say Sergey is the more outgoing of the two. Indeed, I'm told Larry Page spends more time at the "Googleplex" than Sergey.

So why did I blog about this? I read some followup comments where someone felt bad for Michael, and he followed up himself. I suppose he was mildly embarrassed.

Shrug.

Generic Particulars

Sports commentators love to refer to people as generics. Not even people, but places too. For example, you might hear "The Kobe Bryants, Kevin Garnetts, and Lebron Jameses of the world" to refer to successful straight-from-high-school to the NBA players, or "the Ohio States and the Floridas of the world" (notice the "of the world") rather than say "players like Kobe or Kevin or Lebron" or "college programs like Ohio State and Florida".

I dunno, it just peeves me to hear it.

A Thousand Cuts

Like most people, I watch movies. I've heard of a particular film term that I never bothered to look up until just yesterday: the jump cut. Apparently, this idea was popularized by the French New Wave, films that often lacked a strong story arc, following wayward rebels doing whatever came naturally.

I finally looked it up--where else?--Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets a bad rap, and I have no idea why. I know that it's edited by people, and thus, anyone can put up anything. For the most part, they haven't, and so the content is reasonably reliable, especially for non-controversial topics.

A cut refers to a switch of scenery. For example, suppose you have two people talking to each other. You see one person's face, then another, then back to the original person. The two do not share screen time together. This is a cut. Or more drastically, you had a scene on Tatooine, and now you have a scene on a Star Destroyer. You cut from one to the other.

A jump cut is not exactly like that. The idea is to jump in time. It's still a cut because it's not continuous in time. For example, in Ocean's 11, there's a guy who's trying to tap the security cameras. As he's leaving, he realizes he's lost because the directions he wrote on the back of his hand are smudged, when he wiped his sweaty brow. So, he walks down one hallway, then comes back and walks a different hallway.

Now, this would normally take up quite a bit of time as he walked down and back, and that would leave the viewer impatient, so they skip little bits here and there, to show advancing of time. Usually, the jump in time is only a few seconds, skipping over "boring parts".

Although Wikipedia notes a related kind of cut called the match cut, the two are quite different. A match cut is also a cut, but it tries to relate two different scenes together by creating a similar scene. The most famous match cut (I'd imagine) is the scene in 2001 where an ape throws up a bone into the sky, as it flips end over end, and then melds into a lengthy space craft flipping end over end. The idea is that the bone has become a tool (in this case, a weapon) and similarly, the space station also happens to have nuclear weapons in it. It matches a weapon in the past to one in the near future.

I'm sure there are as many cuts as there are directors to imagine them, but I've always been curious about what a jump cut is. In the old days, I could look it up, but it would have taken some work. Now, I just get on a computer and look the information up, and indeed Wikipedia helps in situations like this.

I wonder what the next Wikipedia will be. Search engines are good, but lack a good way to organize the information. A colleague recently asked me whether baby drumsticks come from baby chickens. Apparently not, but if you look at the Wikipedia entry on chickens, it talks mostly about the kinds of chickens out there, and spends no time talking about the processing of chicken into food, despite the fact that chickens are one of the few domesticated animals that humans eat with regularity (others being cows and pigs).

Review: Dreaming In Code

I read the book Dreaming in Code on Joel Spolsky's recommendation (I need to remind myself that he pronounces his name as Spole-skee, where the first syllable rhymes with "pole". I keep saying "Spall-skee"). Not his direct recommendation exactly. He didn't call me and say "Hey, Champ, read this book, it's good for you!".

Of course, he mentioned it on his blog, even as he hadn't read the book himself. He had been interviewed by author, Scott Rosenberg, though Joel has a minor cameo in the book.

I suppose I should briefly summarize the book as, unlike movies, you're not likely to read the book. Basically, it tracks the creation of Chandler, a personal information manager, something like Outlook. Indeed, it was called the "Outlook killer". The company was OSAF which has "open source" somewhere in its name. The founder was Mitch Kapor who made a ton of money with the creation of Lotus 1-2-3, the spreadsheet program from the 1980s.

Mitch was looking for lightning to strike twice. Indeed, his story vaguely reminds me of a Star Trek episode called The Ultimate Computer, which is about Richard Daystrom inventing a computer called the M-5, which will control starships during battles. Dr. Daystrom's back story includes winning some award like the Nobel Prize of the future. He had been a child (or early twenties) genius making breakthroughs in computing, and this was to be his new breakthrough.

There's some subtext. Daystrom is black (I don't want to say African-American as it's not entirely clear that "America" still exists), and his situation may reflect other bright people of color in the US of the day, but even so, his story has some universality, the desire to reclaim genius, to show the first time wasn't a fluke. Why that's important to folks, who knows? You see it often in sports as coaches strive to achieve greatness all the time, and you see it with filmmakers too. But just plain old genius?

Well, Kapor wanted to create Chandler, and gathered together talented individuals to make it happen. He thought it would only take two years to make it happen, but that was like 2002, and it's now 2007, and I've never heard of Chandler until I read the book.

Rosenberg had to be disappointed with this project, because a non-fiction book, to be entertaining, needs to have some structure that we normally associate with fiction. We want a beginning, middle, and end. I'm sure, by 2005, he was thinking, that this book is already 2 years behind schedule (as was Chandler, of course), and he had to release the book.

The book doesn't merely focus on the key players, but tries to explain software development and its history. For example, there's a mention of the halting problem, which is pretty geeky, but standard stuff for a computer science major with a decent background. Rosenberg compares that to dealing with recurring events in a calendar program.

My question is: who is the target audience for the book? As a software engineer, I'm interested in the software development process. From what I could tell, they suffered from too many cooks. Different people had different ideas, and everyone was good enough that they could make some justification for their ideas. There was some woman named Mimi (I think), who did UI design. One common theme of UI design is that many such designers don't know that much about programming. This allows them to "think outside the box", but also means they don't always consider the feasibility of certain ideas.

Most books don't want to delve that deep into the tech-geek process, hoping there will be some readers who like computer geek stuff that might read it. I dunno. It would have helped if Rosenberg could have followed some humdrum project at a so-so company. Whether he could have gotten permission to do that, I don't know.

The point is that great programmers don't always lead to great code, especially when there are varying opinions.

The complaint I have with Dreaming is similar to Aardvark'd, the documentary tracking several interns at Spolsky's Fog Creek Software as they build Copilot.

To be fair, that documentary didn't even try to appeal to software types (although you think they would). They went for the up close and personal approach, trying to chronicle the individuals involved, rather than how they developed code.

I'll be reading Founders at Work, also recommended by Joel and see how that turns out. Since it's a series of interviews, it won't have a story arc. Instead, it will be about common themes or interesting nuggets.

Adult Swim

Tony Kornheiser recently wondered, on his radio show, about the need to send a Washington Post sports reporter all the way to Australia to cover the 12th FINA World Championships. At the time, Michael Phelps had just broken the world record in freestyle, and would in successive days, break his own record, and a few others, the most recent in butterfly.

Let's face it, sports radio commentary, a radio genre that's exploded in the last 5-10 years, focuses on three sports: football, basketball, and baseball, in roughly that order. Occasionally, they cover golf, because the sports pundits play golf and because of Tiger Woods, who essentially put an African American face on what many had perceived as a white sport (of course, he was far from the first African American to play golf at a high level, but he's the first that's dominated the sport--yes, yes, he's half-Thai, but that's not mentioned a great deal).

Here are some sports that are almost never covered: tennis, auto racing, hockey. And of course, there are sports that are really never covered, like cricket, soccer, some college-only sports like lacrosse and field hockey. The only time these sports get a mention is when a scandal occurs, such as the Duke Lacrosse team scandal. And even then, there's nary a mention of the Pakistani coach, Bob Woolmer (from South Africa), getting strangled after Pakistan had lost to unheralded Ireland.

Much of this ignorance reflects the thinking of sports pundits. They believe they are the surrogates for the average American fan, who also don't like these sports. And more than likely, they actually don't like the sports at all, barely following it, not knowing who's who. Occasionally, they pronounce a few names semi-correctly like Belgian tennis player Justine Henin-Hardenne.

You would think that a guy like Mr. Tony would love to promote some obscure sport he loves and talk to the world about it. But if he hasn't been following it for twenty years, he's basically not interested, mostly because he feels he adds little to the table (although he would claim that he doesn't know half the football that Joe Theismann does, but still, he can't say he knows as little about football as he does about, say, soccer).

It seems like we've heard about Michael Phelps forever. I've known his name far longer than I've known what he looks like. Unlike other athletes, I don't know what his voice sounds like. I know little of his personal life. He's not dissected on radio like Barry Bonds or Terrell Owens. He's a white boy in a white sport.

But he is local, born in Baltimore, and having trained in Maryland. Heck, he's even swam in the pool at the University of Maryland Natatorium (quite an impressive facility given the utter crap it was when it existed in Cole Field House--UNC, I believe, routinely paid Maryland not to swim there away meets at Maryland).

Michael Phelps could be a total ass for all I know. "Nigel", the guy that Tony talks to, claims he had met Michael once, and needed a ride back from some event, and he refused, despite being a sports personality. Whether this really happened (it sounds plausible, despite the Nigel persona, which may or may not be real), I can't say. Phelps is tabula rosa to me, a blank slate.

Even so, he's had to go to Australia, mind you, on the other side of the world, adjust to the time differences, and manage a whole week of knockout performances, winning six golds so far, and breaking several world records in the process. Of course, Mr. Tony would rather talk about Sanjaya and how awful he is, and his hair, because he only reflects the American public's affinity for American Idol.

Now, to be fair, Mr. Tony's obsession with American Idol is practically unprecedented for a sports pundit. He spends easily a third of his time, more these days, discussing non-sports topic. You don't hear, say, Mike and Mike in the morning do anything like that. Indeed, with Mike Golic playing the "man" role, watching American Idol would be anathema to what they do. And the sports listeners would cringe at how much discussion the show gets. They love sports, not some guy with poofy hair singing Gwen Stefani.

His penchant for covering non sports events gives his show some breadth that most sports talk shows lack. I listen to some late night sports commentary on the radio coming home from work, and it's painful to listen to. Still, I'm not really up for the pop-music that's on and sometimes NPR isn't covering stuff that interests me.

What's particularly impressive about Michael Phelps's achievements is that he times it so well to the big championships. How many records have been broken in key championships or in the Olympics? I suppose it's useful to do that, because those accomplishments get airplay, more so than if it had occurred in some smaller non-event. This lack of coverage may indeed influence athletes who try to gear up for the big events and swim their best in them.

I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. After all, isn't this what athletes in other sports do? Gear up for the big game? The Superbowl? The Final Four? The NBA Championships? Why not try to do your best in the big games?

But the key is this. He's trying to break records too. In a team sporting event, the goal is merely to win. Kobe isn't planning to go for 100 points during the playoffs. Indeed, there's some question as to whether he could even approach such a record with playoff caliber teams. Even in golf, a tough sport if there ever is one, Tiger doesn't care to break scoring records. Since each course is unique, and the majors are played on difficult courses, he's less likely to break a scoring record. He just needs to win.

But in sports like swimming or track and field, breaking records seems to be par for the course. There's honestly no good comparison with the sports Americans appreciate most, and so there's no real appreciation for the accomplishments either.

Does it say something that, other than NASCAR and hockey, predominantly white sports don't appeal to Americans? Perhaps because Americans aren't particularly good at these sports? But this is not true in swimming, and unlike the cancer surviving story of Lance Armstrong, who perhaps single-handedly raised the awareness of the Tour de France so that a network like OLN would even think of covering it, and fans would consider watching it, and heck, people would consider buying a Trek bike so they too could begin to appreciate road cycling.

Sports like swimming and racing seem to lack the kind of drama needed for fans to be rabid. It's pure speed. There's not much strategy, at least, nothing visible to the average eye. And it's over in a few minutes. You can't sit and watch these events for a few hours. This may explain why people only crave such events once in a few years, as in the Olympics, and even the Olympics have waned in popularity now that there are hundreds of competing channels to watch. When only four channels existed, the Olympics had a captive audience.

So sorry Michael Phelps that Mr. Tony doesn't care for you (or Nigel, for that matter). Best of luck, and don't be an asshole.

On Baseless Advice

All over the web, there are articles on this or that. What foods you should be eating. Exercises you should be doing. How to be happy in life. And on and on. These articles are written with very little in the way of authority. No papers are cited. No studies are done. Indeed, it seems they merely copy their well-worn advice from someone else.

Yet, advice like this abounds. The four food groups were suggested by some governmental group. Then, it became a pyramid. Needless to say, they suggested foods that were commonly available in the US. After all, why mention fruits that could only be found in obscure parts of Asia.

People seem to get paid to do this, as if they had never written a research paper in their lives, and yet they feel supremely qualified to tell you what to do. Now, as with most people, I take such advice with a grain of salt. If it makes some sense, I might follow it.

I'm just surprised how common it is.

Idol Worship

Everyone knows that American Idol is a huge hit. So huge that it's been exported all over the world. Pop Idol (the British version), Indian Idol, Vietnamese Idol.

I was never much into the Idol fad. Still amn't (aren't, isn't, ain't?). But I've been listening to The Tony Kornheiser Show, better known as the Tuesday Morning American Idol Quarterback Show and it's got me intrigued.

Why does this series succeed? First, why don't I watch it? There's something about watching reality TV shows that seems to reduce us to blithering idiots. Or at least, that's the sense I get when I think I want to watch a reality show. That, and I simply don't watch that much TV to begin with.

But Tony Kornheiser is a bright guy, and he watches it, so there must be some appeal.

Here's the gist of it, best I can figure. First, there's the mass appeal that anyone can try out. William Hung, noteworthy for his awful singing which still ended up landing him something of a music deal, got his start on American Idol. He started off in the initial round where good and bad are mixed together, just to show you how awful awful can be.

Once you get past that stage, then each week (or perhaps more often than that), singers pick a song and sing it. The usual panel of judges consists of the acerbic and British Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul. They either praise or insult the singer depending on the performance. But the key is this. They don't decide who stays or goes. They hope to influence the vote by commenting on the quality of the singings. The audience, that's you and me, get to decide. You call in a special number, one for each singer.

Now, there are many factors a singer has to consider. How well do they sing? What songs best suit their personality? Do they sing in a style that might be too similar to someone else who is a better singer? If they sing a popular song, and almost always they are singing a cover of some song, then how will audience members react to their rendition of the song? How close should it be to the real thing? How much should they create their own version?

But the real key is this. Most singers sing well, but not fantastically. The format forces you to pass judgment on singers based on how well they sing. This is in contrast to, say, judging them on their ability to write a good song. Performance and personality are important.

If the singers were all uniformly excellent, then the average person might not be able to distinguish good and bad. The key is for the person watching to be able to hear the differences. And moreover, you must draw the distinction between one singer and another. And they all sing in a particular style. Thus, operatic singing wouldn't fly because the average American doesn't care to listen to opera, even if it was sung well.

This is the theater of the decently good, not of the highbrow extreme good, such as concert pianist, where a listener would strain to tell the difference between two performances. This isn't about the songwriting and how to write a catchy song people will like. Comparatively speaking, songwriting is hit and miss. One could reasonably argue that a good singer can sing well even if you care for the song.

So I was thinking, why is American Idol more successful than, say, Iron Chef? One problem with Iron Chef is that sound and images travel across the air. You can judge someone's singing and the way they look by watching television. On the other hand, you can't actually taste the food that the cooks are making. You never get that immediate reaction where you're eating the same food that the judges are eating.

I was wondering how difficult it would be to even approximate this? The closest I could imagine, and it's a stretch of the imagination, is a cooking robot. Somehow, you'd have the right ingredients, and then you'd download a program, and it would start to cook. When it was done, you'd eat. Now, if this were even remotely possible, you would never have to eat out. Fine foods could be made at home.

Let me sum up with why I think American Idol works, even as I don't watch it. First, the audience gets to participate. As much as Simon Cowell seems to rule the roost, the average person votes. As a communal activity, you can go to websites or have Idol parties where you actively compare notes with others. Should Sanjaya stay or go (he's Bengali, did you know that)? Is Melinda really all that modest? Will LaKisha win it all? Why don't the guys sing any better? Why aren't there any punk singers? Opera singers? Folks singing Broadway tunes?

And by slowly eliminating singers, it creates a sport out of it, where you, the viewer, get to pick. Who wins? We'll slowly find out!

And that creates a kind of uncertainty that you find with sports. Those who don't follow sports wonder why anyone cares about sports. It's just some random scores. Here, 90-77. Game. Why aren't you excited? Because you care about how the game unfolds. You want your team to win, but they're down by X points. Will they come back? I remember watching a Redskins game where they were down by like 12 points, and nothing was happening. There were maybe five minutes left and the announcer goes "They better hurry if they expect to do anything".

But they had done nothing all game long, and were going nowhere fast. Then, one deep touchdown, then another, and they were leading. Just when you thought it was a foregone conclusion, when a loss was imminent, and they come back. This happens rarely in sports, but when it happens, it's exciting, because you didn't expect it to work out that way.

American Idol isn't quite there, but it's good enough. You follow breathlessly waiting to see if the person you picked moves on. And they provide enough up close and personal segments that you get to "know" the person.

Or at least, that's how I think it works.

But now I figure there's more than meets the eye, and why even a bright guy like Tony can be swept under the spell of what seems like an idiotic premise.

Playing Doctor

There's a physical therapy room in the basement of the building that I work. For all intents and purposes (a redundant phrase if there ever was one), it's a doctor's office.

A doctor's office (at least in the US) is almost always set up the same way. There's a waiting area. There's a reception desk. There are (almost always) women working, which means answering phone calls and occasionally responding to the people waiting.

Then, you are called to go inside, and if you're lucky, you get to see a doctor right away, but that kind of luck is rare. Instead, you're likely to wait for some period of time and then briefly see the doctor, and then be sent on your way.

I recently read an article where a doctor claims that it takes doctors something like 30 seconds to decide what is wrong with you. Imagine that! 30 seconds! Part of the problem is that a doctor has lots of patients, and so he can't spend hours trying to figure out what's wrong with you, but it seems sad that the diagnosis is made so quickly.

The other problem is that doctors, for the most part, think their patients are idiots. If they can't understand the highly technical terms they use, then they must be idiots. In this NPR segment, a patient had said that she felt like things were exploding in her body. Of course, they thought she was a bit nuts and went with their own diagnosis. It turns out that her body was occasionally releasing bursts of adrenaline (due to some malady), and that felt like explosions to her.

She only got treated correctly when she said that although she has had similar symptoms prior to this, this felt different, and it let the doctor think of other avenues.

But that's a topic for a different day.

Despite how little time doctors spend with you, you spend a bunch of time waiting for them. And there's not many new ideas on how to keep you occupied.

First, there's the question "why?". If I have an appointment at 8, why must I wait 30 minutes? Much like the airports, explanations are not forthcoming. Does the reception desk say "sorry, Dr. Smith came in late today, so we're all behind schedule, or the previous two patients came in 20 minutes late, so we're behind". Instead, apparently, no news is good news.

OK, so let's go beyond that. Fine. Patients and doctors can't show up on time, and you're expected to wait without explanation. What have the doctor's office done to make this wait more pleasant? Magazines? But why are all the magazines for women? I've never understood that. The worst places for that are barbers (er, hair stylists) where women's magazine abound. What about a news magazine? Or sports? I mean, come on.

But what else?

There's a complete lack of imagination when it comes to making patients, who are expected to wait, comfortable. Heck, this happens at restaurants too! You'd think restaurants would want to have too many seats than too few, though the cooks would also have to be increased to handle the load.

The next big change for customer service is handling ubiquitous waiting. How companies do this should lead to improved customer experience. Alas, it's sad how no one even bothers to try.

Do Programmers Need Line Chefs?

If you ever watch Iron Chef, you'll see that the chefs are not competing by themselves. Each typically has two assistants, called line chefs, who are assistants. They are capable enough of doing most tasks. The main chef mainly directs their work. (It's perhaps a mistake to refer to them as sous chef, because the sous chef manages the line chefs, while the executive chef may not even be in the kitchen, having to handle office work).

I was wondering whether programmers might not benefit from this kind of apprenticeship. The main coder would offer up a design, and there would be assistants to do various subtasks. The question is how well the division of labor would occur. One could imagine the main coder doing too little work, and pushing all work to the assistants. But if it worked well, it would seem to be an interesting way to pass information on.