A little etymology of "dude" from this CNN article, Dude -- professor studies 'dude' - Dec 8, 2004:
Historically, dude originally meant "old rags" -- a "dudesman" was a scarecrow. In the late 1800s, a "dude" was akin to a "dandy," a meticulously dressed man, especially out West. It became "cool" in the 1930s and 1940s, according to Kiesling. Dude began its rise in the teenage lexicon with the 1981 movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High."
Hmm. So, this made me wonder about dude ranches. I've seen enough old movies where some ranch hands will be obviously snickering at the "dudes" vacationing out west and trying on the cowboy life for a fortnight. But I didn't think "dude" meant "dandy," per se, from that.
So, I looked up "dude ranch" online and found dude ranches defined and even more etymology on dude here: The Mavens' Word of the Day
In a Scientific American article entitled Captive Audience, the author expresses incredulity at a recently published study in the journal Nature:
"...at the end of September, Nature published a study in which scientists made ferrets watch the movie The Matrix. I'll wait while you read that last sentence again."
The author goes on to describe the basis of the study and then facetiously ponders on the researchers' rationale for this experiment.
It reminded me of the published results of a not too dissimiliar experiment I read of about twenty or so years ago in the journal Science. I think it was. That particular absurd experiment captured my fancy like this ferret/Matrix experiment seems to have captured this author's.
In the study I read about, the researchers decided to find out whether sheep would have a more pronounced reaction to seeing images of sheep with bigger horns. Yup, that was the big question the researchers were out to prove.
And how did they go about it? They showed their sheep subjects slides of other sheep -- some with big horns, some without horns, as well as some control slide images of non-sheep, including a man and an upside-down slide of a sheep.
In order to ensure that their sheep subjects would pay attention to their little slide show so that their reactions could be recorded (which they did by measuring brain wave activity), the researchers had to immobilize the sheep. This they did this by suspending each sheep in a hammock.
And after showing the sheep, suspended in their hammocks, their little slide show presentation, the researchers found that, yes, sheep do react more when they see sheep with bigger horns. Earth-shattering news, there.
But you know the really insane thing about this? It's not even the hammocks. It's that no doubt the researchers were granted funding for this study.
Sigh.
In a couple of recent conversations I had with friends where the South Asian earthquake/tsunami catastrophe was mentioned, I was surprised when these friends segued into indicating global warming being to blame. When I replied that global warming has nothing to do with earthquakes -- that the earth's plates pretty much shifted on their own unfathomable timetable that had nothing to do with what we did or didn't do -- I was met with skeptical and perplexed stares. It occured to me, after the second of these conversations, that maybe people often NEED to blame ourselves (or a fellow human scapegoat) for natural disasters -- perhaps so not to feel so utterly powerless or something of the sort? Perhaps, for some, blaming catastrophes, as once was common, on our "sins" (which the gods will punish us for) or, more currently, on our "excesses" (global warming) gives the illusion that there is possibly a way to stave off or fix future similar sorts of devastation.
Thus, today, I found it interesting to read Mick Hume's article in Spiked: After the tsunami: horrifying, but not 'humbling', where he delved into some similar musings at great length as well as some other notable points.
I have some further thoughts, though, on this point of his:
"There has been much talk about the lack of a hi-tech warning system for earthquakes and tsunamis in South Asia, such as the seismological monitoring system already in place in the Pacific Ocean (where such phenomena are more common). Yet whatever its merits, such a system would seem to be of limited use in societies that lack the basic infrastructure necessary to communicate warnings and evacuate communities. Some in the West may be shocked to learn that not every little Asian fishing village is on the internet...."
I think it's important, though, to also keep in mind that the effectiveness of any hi-tech early warning system for an approaching tsunami is likely to be affected by the earthquake that causes the tsunami. An earthquake of the magnitude that can cause a tsunami is devastating all on its own. Those all-important infrastructures Mr. Hume refers to might be severely compromised and damaged in an earthquake. Power often will be knocked out during an earthquake and evacuation routes might be blocked by fallen debris or by roads and bridges collapsing. So, in such situations, even the most-wired high tech modern metropolis can suddenly be rendered as internet-less (and infrastructure-less) as some of those little Asian fishing villages Mr. Hume refers to.
Although this certainly doesn't mean that hi-tech early warning systems would not be useful or desirable, still, there is only so much they can do, even in the best of circumstances.
People shouldn't overlook the fact that the earthquake (and/or the tide receding abnormally) is in itself THE significant (albeit low tech) early warning system -- as pointed out in two other articles I saw later on today. One was this article from S.F. Gate that speculates on the effects of a tsunami on the Californian coastline:
"Whatever triggers a future tsunami, Californians need to remember at least one thing, says Richard Eisner, coastal administrative chief for the state Office of Emergency Services:"'If you are on the beach and feel an earthquake that lasts more than 15 to 20 seconds, and you have difficulty standing, you should immediately evacuate to high ground. Don't wait for notification (of a tsunami) because you might have only 10 to 15 minutes (before the tsunami strikes).'"
The second was an OpinionJournal article that describes the reaction of both locals and tourists, neither of whom seemed aware of the possible hazard of a tsunami hitting coastal areas after an earthquake (probably because in that area, tsunamis and tidal waves have been rare):
"The response of local residents and tourists, however, was unfamiliar, at least to tsunami field scientists for post-1990s tsunamis. In one report, swimmers felt the current associated with the leading depression wave approaching the beach, yet hesitated about getting out of the water because of the 'noise' and the fear that there was an earthquake and they would be safer away from buildings. They had to be told by tourists from Japan--a land where an understanding of tsunamis is now almost hard-wired in the genes--to run to high ground...."
