Run, Al, Run

Iowa Guy 2.0: So Will He Run? (Al Gore after winning the Nobel Peace Prize). What he lacks in charisma, he makes up for in brain. Whether or not he runs, global warming is nothing to take lightly. Nor is humanity's general impact on the environment.

On the light side in languages a few translated

Have you ever tried one of those online translation utilities, only to discover that the English "translation" is at best laughable or incomprehensible? As humanity continues to get more global, more people who speak different languages interact...and, well, I suspect human translators will have job security for years to come. A computer can only go so far (with current technology) and because each language is unique in its syntax, grammar, phonics (or no phonics at all) that automated translation may never be perfected.

I haven't written much in a while and haven't had time to tend to the blog, so this is something to amuse readers (all three of you) while awaiting some deeper prose. This text, using AltaVista BabelFish, translated to various languages, and the result back-translated to English.

To Chinese-simplified and back:
You once tried these on-line to translate the non-profit organization middle, only some discoveries, English "translated" was best is laughable or cannot understand? When the humanity continues to obtain the global character, speaks the different language interactive... more people and, is very good, I suspected will translate the personnel to have the job security for several years. The computer possibly so far only goes (by current technology) and because each language is unique in its syntax, the grammar, automated translation phonics (or basic does not have phonics) to be allowed never to consummate.

I have not written have period of time and do not have the time trend to blog, therefore this is something (all causes the reader three to laugh you) when waits for some more profound prose. This text, uses AltaVista BabelFish, has translated to various language, and the result has translated to English.

To Spanish and back:
You have always tried one of those utilities in line of the translation, to only discover that the "English translation" is in the best one of the cases ridiculous or incomprehensible? As the humanity continues obtaining more global, more people than speak diverse interactive languages... and, well, I we suspected that the human translators will have security in the use by the years to come. A computer can only go until now (with present technology) and because each language is unique in its syntax, grammar, phonics (or none phonics in all) that the translation automated can never be perfected.

I have not written much in awhile and I have not had time to tend to blog, so this one is something to amuse the readers (the three of you) whereas you wait one more a certain deeper prosa. This text, using AltaVista BabelFish, translated to the several languages, and the result behind-translated the English.

To Russian and back:
You did always attempt one of those online general purposes of transfer, only in order to open that the English "transfer" in the best it was laughable or incomprehensible? In proportion to humanity continues to obtain more global, more than people which speak differently languages interacting... and, in the best way, 4 podozryuem human translators will have obespechennost'a by work to Lethe, it is which necessary to arrive. Computer can only go to those times (with at present the technology) and because each language it is unique in its syntax, grammar, phonics (or absence phonics on all) which it automated transfer can ever be improved.

4 did not write much in the time interval and it did not have time to tend to blog; therefore this something to amuse the readers (all 3 of you) thus far zhdushch of a certain deeper prose. This text, ispol'zuyushch altaVista BabelFish, transferred to different languages, and the result of nazad-.perevel to to English.

And one more: To German and back:
Do you have at all one of that on-line translation of utility programs, only it tries, in order to discover that the English "translation" at best laughable is incomprehensible or? While humanity continues, to keep more global, those assume more people the different interacting languages... speak and well I that human translators have job security, so that years come. A computer can go only up to now (with present technology) and because each language in its syntax, grammar, Phonik is singular (or no Phonik at all) the translation automated, can be never perfected.

I much not in when wrote and does not have time had to be inclined to blog therefore this something is, reader (all three of you) too maintained when expecting somewhat deeper Prosa. This text with AltaVista BabelFish, translated to the different languages, and the result back-translated to English.

Yes, the above is inviting admonitions to "get a life," (Obtains the life, Obtain a life, You will obtain the life, Receive a life).

The Case Against Saying "Don't Let it Get to You"

"College Junior's Suicide Leaves Friends, Family Asking, 'Why?' " How often have we encountered headlines like this—with the media admonishing to avoid becoming the next statistic by talking to someone when overwhelmed with hopelessness? Though I would never encourage anyone to take one's own life, I'm rarely surprised that the person in question kept quiet.

Despite lip service to the contrary, our get-over-it culture is not very good at answering a despairing soul's pleas for help. We're told to talk it out with someone, but when we do, too often we get platitudes that defeat their speaker's intention of helping us feel better. Appropriate distress at hearing that one is a danger to self or others can lead to "why would you" questions, denial, or admonition ("Don't think like that!"). If I were suicidal, even anticipating such reactions would silence me. Likewise for preaching that suicide is the wrong choice.

"Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem." Never say that. Despite the altruistic intention to convince the person that the situation has nonlethal solutions, the despondent person perceives it as pooh-poohing her ordeal: "What makes you think my problem is temporary? Do you know how it will be resolved? No? Then stop pretending to know more about my life than I do!"

"Suicide is stupid/selfish." If I had one reason to consider stupid a swearword, this would be it. I remember an otherwise decent person whose condemnation of suicidal people bit like a blast of Midwestern winter wind. I acknowledge that suicide hurts those left behind. But many who kill themselves were beset by a depressive medical disorder. Snapping out of it is more than a matter of will. Some people think they're being anything but stupid or selfish: twenty years ago, I was beset with episodes of feeling that I should spare scores of innocents the unpleasantness of being around me in the future. Positive interactions with people ended these thoughts. Being criticized for my feelings accomplished nothing.

"Stop feeling sorry for yourself!" This is another disincentive to voice not only despair but letdowns such as not getting that raise or your car breaking down or…whatever. English is replete with phrases like "don't let it get to you" and "times like this make us stronger." How many folks grew up without hearing about starving children in [your parents' favorite locale] or being told, "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can't hurt you"? Pessimism brings admonishment to think positive. But even sharing an ambition or dream invites another kind of wisdom: "I hate to burst your bubble, but...," or "Why would you want that?" The urge to help people in this fashion isn't confined to English-speaking countries. After I took offense at a coworker's taunts, another coworker—from Asia—told me, "You take things too serious [sic]." Such statements imply that if you are hurt by another's incivility, it's your fault. Baloney. But objecting yields more clichés: "I'm trying to help you." (Maybe so, but it isn't working.)

Some of these zingers are illogical. Suppose I really am oversensitive. Would telling me so really make me realize I need to toughen up? Or just lead me to beat myself up or brand the critic as an insensitive a-hole? Someone taking umbrage at rude store clerks or aggressive drivers often gets told, "Don't take it personally," That isn't necessarily the case: they're offended because the incivility is wrong. Retaliation is inexcusable, but I get tired of counselors and wellness "experts" implying that if someone else offends you, it's your fault.

We're taught as children about table manners, please-and-thank-you, et cetera. But schooling on how to comfort people and guide them out of a problem seems inadequate, as evidenced by all the "You shoulds/shouldn'ts" and even cookie-cutter uplifters like "You can do anything you set your mind to." They roll off the tongue as if by automation. I can't get mad at someone saying them because they're heart's in the right place. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like they're really listening and if I anticipate such a response, I'm inclined to keep my feelings inside. Not that that does any good.

About 29,000 Americans kill themselves per year, presumably after feeling either that their tunnel would never end or the light up ahead turned out to be an oncoming train. And whenever I hear of a suicide, I can't help wonder if the last thing he heard was "don't let it get to you."

Stop the iTrain! I wanna get off!

An article in switched.com (it's also in today's AOL News) details a new car stereo by the Blaupunkt company that, according to the text, may render the CD player extinct. Basically it plays music off SD or MMC memory cards (iPod users use a universal input jack).

And how long will it be before this thing's obsolete? I wouldn't be surprised if it's decades before the unit itself wears out.

I'm very techno-ignorant. To me, SD means either South Dakota or standard deviation (a statistical term from my scientist days), while MMC is the Roman numeral version of 2100. This new stereo would sure beat my 1990 Oldsmobile's factory radio/cassette player, which doesn't work at all after getting a tape stuck in its craw. I'm using an even more archaic boombox behind the front seat for a radio (its cassette deck bit the dust, too). But electronic technology has become a runaway train that seems to be gaining speed with no end in sight.

My old Win95 computer works fine but no new software is available for it. New versions software comes out faster than you can learn the old ones. And it seems I heard somewhere that television sets won't work unless they're HDTV. And am I going to have to going to switch to Blu-Ray before I've even amassed more than a half-dozen DVDs?

C'mon, world, slow down. We've got more important things to do than trying to stay ahead of this race.

Breaking Résumé Rules and Getting Away With It

As a lot of us have seen, "rules" (or perhaps guidelines is a better word) appear in books aplenty on how to compose a résumé, what to include, and what not to include. The most common mistakes include:

• Putting "résumé" (or curriculum vitae (CV), if you're in academia) at the top (it's obvious what the document is).
• Including personal information such as your birth date/place, marital status, spouse's, children's, pets' names, etc.
• Including hobbies, especially the mundane, e.g., reading, being with family, or worse potentially controversial, e.g., religious or political activities, etc.

As Richard Herman and Linda Sutherland so aptly put in their book: The 110 Biggest Mistakes Job Hunters Make (And How to Avoid Them), "don't use as 'filler' something that is potentially dynamite [explosive, that is, not awesome/rad/phat]."

So it was to my dismay that, while temping in an HR office recently, I ran across dozens of CVs of doctors and others that have enough information to delight a stalker or identity thief and make HR staff say, "whatever." But these folks got good jobs with these papers. My résumé has been praised by my alumni career counselor (after seeking a variety of counsel). I occasionally get interviews but no further.

Perhaps the discrepancy is best explained by that conventional wisdom that seems mercilessly true: "It's not what you know, it's who you know."

Why are you working here...

...when you have a Ph.D.?" If I had a dollar for each time I've been asked this, well, money wouldn't be so tight. I can't hold it against someone to have such natural curiosity, but I've grown tired of 'splaining myself over and over and over...

Becoming a Ph.D. scientist was what Dr. Donald Clifton and Paula Nelson called a "misyearning" in their book, Soar with Your Strengths. Among the things that give rise to misyearnings are listening to others'"helpful" advice and ignoring your own heart and talent, or "going for the money" instead of answering your calling. In my case, I found a graduate fellowship that would pay me just enough to live on and give me an excuse to move out of my parent's house (Five-hundred mile
commutes (each way) just aren't doable). Moreover, I enjoyed my undergraduate years that led to a biology/chemistry degree and the pharmacology Ph.D. seemed a logical sequel.

I spent six years with a graduate advisor who is a very good scientist but not so adept at recognizing a misyearning. Instead, I got a lot of chiding about how I needed to develop initiative. The real problem was my heart wasn't really in it: I like my science the way it's presented in consumer drug books, Popular Science or on PBS. Through the 1990s, molecular biology and the Human Genome Project muscled their way into health science, and try as I might, I never quite "got" that field. Comprehending passages like, "In many black African populations, the capacity for CYP2D6-dependent drug metabolism is generally reduced. A specific variant of the CYP2D6 gene (CYP2D6*17) that carries three functional mutations (T107I, R296C, and S486T) ... (Oscarson et al, Molecular Pharmacology, Vol. 52, No. 6, 1034-1040, 1997)," was a hopeless ambition. I'm not disparaging this article or its authors. This is their area of strength, while my strengths lie elsewhere. Not to mention that the world of research can be a rat race wherein you're scrambling not to get "scooped."

Some people pooh-poohed my feelings as college stress. I didn't help myself by believing that as well. After a lot of soul-searching I concluded that I would rather be an architect (a childhood goal that faded to the background during undergrad school. But by that time, I was too close to the end to walk away without the degree.

The biggest mistake I made was to have no plan "B:" after a two-year postdoctoral stint near Washington, DC, I bailed out without having something else to get in to, and ended up working clerical jobs through a temp agency. It was hard enough to pay bills, to say nothing of spending money on AutoCAD training.

Yet, my education and experience provided plenty of skills that don't necessitate working at the bench. And designing buildings isn't the only thing that stirs my blood. When my first paper made it into a professional journal, I remember the rush I felt at the realization that "I'm an internationally published author." Nothing to make me famous, but just being in print was enough. Had I given it more thought
back then, I would have looked into freelance and other writing opportunities before my finances went down the toilet. That is the direction I'm looking at now.

The message to the reader is to look at what you enjoy doing now and can do well without having to go back to school. Don't just say, "I hate this and I want to be a ____." Above all be patient; I wasn't. Had I been willing to take a longer time to make the transition or come up with alternatives that would be partially satisfying, I probably would have been better off. The old cliché is right: hindsight is 20/20.