Mystery turned three years old this past week.
She looks so calm and peaceful.
Nice fangs, Mystery!
Impressive tongue, too!
(Short on manners, long on tongue?)
Thanks for posing.
Mystery turned three years old this past week.
She looks so calm and peaceful.
Nice fangs, Mystery!
Impressive tongue, too!
(Short on manners, long on tongue?)
Thanks for posing.
I had first seen reports of this from Melanie Phillips and then Stephen Pollard. A representative from UNWatch.org made a presentation to the UN Human Rights Council in which he pointed out all the council’s blatant biases and anti-Semitism.
The … UN Watch speech, lifting a mirror to the shortcomings of the UN Human Rights Council, was rejected by council president Luis Alfonso de Alba as “inadmissible.” … He banned the statement from being delivered again, and the speech was stricken without notice from the official extranet record of the Human Rights Council Secretariat
For a comparison of the types of statements welcomed by the Council on the one hand, in contrast with the remarks from UN Watch, see this.
Here is the speech that caused the commotion:
I had first seen reports of this from Melanie Phillips and then Stephen Pollard. A representative from UNWatch.org made a presentation to the UN Human Rights Council in which he pointed out all the council’s blatant biases and anti-Semitism.
The … UN Watch speech, lifting a mirror to the shortcomings of the UN Human Rights Council, was rejected by council president Luis Alfonso de Alba as “inadmissible.” … He banned the statement from being delivered again, and the speech was stricken without notice from the official extranet record of the Human Rights Council Secretariat
For a comparison of the types of statements welcomed by the Council on the one hand, in contrast with the remarks from UN Watch, see this.
Here is the speech that caused the commotion:
I had first seen reports of this from Melanie Phillips and then Stephen Pollard. A representative from UNWatch.org made a presentation to the UN Human Rights Council in which he pointed out all the council’s blatant biases and anti-Semitism.
The … UN Watch speech, lifting a mirror to the shortcomings of the UN Human Rights Council, was rejected by council president Luis Alfonso de Alba as “inadmissible.” … He banned the statement from being delivered again, and the speech was stricken without notice from the official extranet record of the Human Rights Council Secretariat
For a comparison of the types of statements welcomed by the Council on the one hand, in contrast with the remarks from UN Watch, see this.
Here is the speech that caused the commotion:
Last week, Jack sent me this piece arguing that having a messy desk and office is actually more efficient than having a pristine, clean desk and office.
“…A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder,” by Eric Abrahamson and David Freedman, [is] a new book that argues neatness is overrated, costs money, wastes time and quashes creativity.
“We think that being more organized and ordered and neat is a good thing and it turns out, that’s not always the case,” said Freedman.
“Most of us are messy, and most of us are messy at a level that works very, very well for us,” he said in an interview. “In most cases, if we got a lot neater and more organized, we would be less effective.”
Freedman argues that it is neatness that is expensive.
“People who are really, really neat, between what it takes to be really neat at the office and at home, typically will spend anywhere from an hour to four hours a day just organizing and neatening,” he said.
This got me to thinking about my e-mail inbox and sent box. I could probably empty them once an hour/day/week/whatever, but I don’t. There are things there that I want to see now and then to remind of something; there are other things that just don’t neatly fit into any of the standard categories of my life. In other words, the incremental costs of clearing my inbox are quite high in terms of time (and filed items I would probably never see again), and the incremental benefits are low.
I asked Jack how many messages he keeps in his inbox, and said that since his server permits nearly unlimited storage of e-mail, he has about 100 messages in his inbox. I used to keep that many in the inbox, but I found it was too many for me to remember or manage. I never saw the ones at or near the top of the list and might as well have deleted them. So I did.
I now keep about 20 – 40 messages in my inbox, depending on my e-mail inflow for the day and depending on the opportunity costs of my time to think about and deal with them. When the number gets over 30, I try to make a concerted effort to do something (including deleting) to/with some of them. That happens at least once a day.
My inbox, I guess, is like the cluttered desk of Abrahamson and Freedman. It is organized clutter, and it is probably the efficient amount of clutter for me.
.
Economists are often trashed for our imprecision and inability to forecast. But what about the cosmology branch of astrophysics? From the NYTimes,
Take [the recent] observations of supernovae, apply one cornerstone of 20th-century physics, general relativity, and you have a universe that does indeed consist of .26 matter, dark or otherwise, and .74 something that accelerates the expansion. Yet in another way, dark energy doesn’t add up. Take the observations of supernovae, apply the other cornerstone of 20th-century physics, quantum theory, and you get gibberish — you get an answer 120 orders of magnitude larger than .74.
As if we can measure the amount of dark matter and dark energy to test either prediction…
Economics is so much more precise.
Economists are often trashed for our imprecision and inability to forecast. But what about the cosmology branch of astrophysics? From the NYTimes,
Take [the recent] observations of supernovae, apply one cornerstone of 20th-century physics, general relativity, and you have a universe that does indeed consist of .26 matter, dark or otherwise, and .74 something that accelerates the expansion. Yet in another way, dark energy doesn’t add up. Take the observations of supernovae, apply the other cornerstone of 20th-century physics, quantum theory, and you get gibberish — you get an answer 120 orders of magnitude larger than .74.
As if we can measure the amount of dark matter and dark energy to test either prediction…
Economics is so much more precise.
