Universal Rule

Book Reviews

Wednesday, March 5, 2003

-- Comment()
Want to impress? Don't overuse big words: "Essay writers who use complicated language where simple words will do tend to be seen as less intelligent than people who stick with more basic vocabulary, according to a new study." [Reuters Health eLine]

-- Comment()
Black cat 'lucky genes' probed: "Black cats may be traditionally considered an unlucky sign, but the very genes that produce their colour could help researchers fight disease." [Google Technology News]

How many diapers have you changed? -- Comment()
About three years ago I was at home for three weeks taking care of our oldest daughter. When I went back to work, I said at lunch that I had changed diapers 100 times. A female colleague looked at me as if I was mentally defective and said: 'I have never thought of counting that kind of things.'

Well, I kept count, because I'm a mathematician and a (semi-compulsive) list-keeper. I count, for example, how many books have my name on the cover, have many articles I have written, how many courses I have organized, and how many lectures I have given. Why not to count how many diapers I have changed?

By the way, the current number of changed diapers is about 3200. And I have posted at this weblog 1986 messages.

When you next time shake hands with Bill Gates, feel free to ask him how many diapers he has changed. That is a nice opening remark when you greet someone. And let me know the answer.

Private vs. public information -- Comment()
A reader of this weblog asked why I had not discussed the accidental privacy spill of Laurie Garrett: "A journalist attends the World Economic forum, and writes an email to a few friends. It's a chatty, casual conference report. The conference is a gathering of the 5,000 most powerful people in the world. The report gives a breezy insight into how stuff gets done at that level, and what the concerns are that keep the world's leaders up at night. That email was intended only for the journalist's friends. That email winds up getting plastered all over the net."

The reader asked: a) Can you trust the confidentiality of a potentially explosive e-mail message? b) Can an e-mail become public property due to public interest? c) Would a weblog have been a better forum for the message?

These are all interesting questions. I did notice the original discussion at Slashdot, but didn't have stamina to tackle the matter. (My hands have been occupied.) I still don't have an opinion on the matter. Thus my firm but soft statement is this: If you have inside information which could be helpful to the public but you don't publish your knowledge, your career can be safe, but perhaps your conscience is not altogether safe.