Chew it Over with a Text

There's a well-known candy company, perhaps you've heard of them, that has a series of commercials designed around the "Chew it over" concept. The basic structure of each ad is rather simple: some oafish (though un-threateningly attractive) man finds himself in a precarious position that usually relates to his "female companion." These magical gems of masculine stupidity include sneaking back into a bedroom after a night of partying with the guys or being caught reading a lewd book in a shopping center. You know, the kinds of things us men just can't turn around twice without doing.

There's a hook, of course. These men are loaded with a non-melted Twix bar, which they pull out and begin aggressively chewing. This is not only a natural action--arousing no suspicion in their girlfriends--it gives them precious few seconds of "chewing over" time to think their way out of the mess. The ads, while ridiculous, do have a logical theme: when you take a moment to consider your options in any situation you are more likely to make a better decision.

Shifting gears a little, I'm a big fan of texting. I've never really taken to talking on the phone, it's something I've done often for work and when I really need a pizza, but I find little recreational value in having my centro pressed against my ear. As such, I've become an outspoken advocate of bringing the rest of humanity into the texting world. I've espoused the benefits of unlimited texting plans to all of my friends, cited data that texters more actively respond to texts than the general public does to voicemail messages and have unrelentingly texted even those friends I know not to have texting plans.

This obviously has a selfish motivation. I like to communicate with my friends and would prefer to do it over text messaging. However, I can't help but see a universal value to society in the text message: it gives you a little time to think. During spoken conversation, your partner will think the call has been dropped if you take more than a second or two to respond to a statement or question. We all want to use our minutes wisely, so wasting any portion of them while "thinking" is ludicrous.

There is no such time pressure with a text. When someone sends you one, you're completely within your rights to contemplate your response for a few minutes. Most likely, they're not on the other end desperately waiting to hear your answer. Here's a magical thing I've learned about myself--and I imagine is true of everyone--when I have a few minutes to think about a response I'm funnier, more insightful and at the very least coherent.

An example:
Spoken Conversation

Friend: Hey, I saw your favorite sports team lost again.
Me: Oh???
Friend: Yes, I did, they are terrible and you are terrible for liking them.
Me: Well you're terrible because you, um, have a car that gets less than 20 mpg.
Friend: I plant a certain number of trees each year to offset my clunker's carbon emissions.
Me: That's very responsible of you.

Text Conversation:

Friend: Hey, I saw your favorite sports team lost again.
Me: Ah, well I saw that your face is still ugly. At least there's a chance my team will win tomorrow.

So, my friends, embrace the beauty of the text message. It gives you a few extra moments to compose yourself. The world moves faster every day, let's try to embrace the few remaining situations in which we can actually take a moment to chew it over. Even when you're not in relationship peril for being a stupid man, it makes life a little better when you can actually think it through.

Remain Seated While the "Don't Be Stupid" Sign is Illuminated

It's clear that I'm an airplane geek. Though I will admit that I don't often blog about aviation-related issues because I generally write about whatever strikes my fancy. This is my little corner of the wired world and I'm not going to restrict myself to limited topics (at least not until someone offers me large sums of money to do so).

Today however, my silence will be broken. My brother Ross forwarded me this from USA Today yesterday (I don't know why he was reading USA Today, maybe he's suffering from dementia). It's an article about a number of injuries aboard a Continental airlines flight that encountered heavy turbulence en route from Brazil to Texas. From the updates, it's relatively clear that a considerable portion of the passengers were not wearing their seatbelts at the time.

This seemed to me to be a good opportunity to discuss the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign, which I think about often. I would assume most people could easily tell you what it means, but I think it is vitally important for a brief reminder of a few things it doesn't mean.

The Fasten Seatbelt sign means none of the following things:

Please fasten your seatbelt...unless you really have to go to the bathroom.

Please fasten your seatbelt...unless you just remembered that you're most recent Luanne Rice book is in the overhead bin.

Please fasten your seatbelt...unless you just realized that trying to wear your coat through the flight was a bad idea.

Please fasten your seatbelt...unless you and your freind need to trade seats because they're not going to be able to sleep without putting their head on the bulkhead.

Please fasten your seatbelt...unless you dropped your pen and it's really important that you finish your Sudoku game before the plane clears 10,000 feet or you'll lose a bet.

Please fasten your seatbelt...unless you know that you're smarter that every pilot, flight attendant, weather forecaster, ATC operator and Airline mission controller AND you've been relentlessly studying the weather charts, forecasts, maps and PIREPS (pilot reports) regarding the air between your exact location (which of course you can't be sure of) and your destination.

I know you think that you're smarter than everyone else involved in the decision to illuminate the sign. Maybe you are. However, the fact remains that the seatbelt sign (and that cute little "bing" that accompanies it) represents an instruction from the crew, which to ignore would be a violation of Federal law...along with an increased possibility that you're going to lose a tooth on the ceiling.

When the Fasten Seatbelt sign is illuminated, SIT DOWN AND FASTEN YOUR SEATBELT. The SkyMall catalog is a great way to pass the time.

Our Wiki-World

Today I was outside of my friend's apartment in Arlington and I saw a window sticker on a car identifying its owner as an alumnus of Johns Hopkins University. Seeing the name reminded me of long minutes spent at my old office (where we dealt often with the names of big research hospitals connected to major universities) trying to explain to coworkers that it was in fact "Johns Hopkins" not "John Hopkins." While plumbing this memory, I realized that I really didn't know what the origin of this interesting name was. Was there one man whose parent's had chosen to name him as if he was a group of Johns? Did two individuals with the last names Johns and Hopkins contribute to the establishment of the university?

Turns out that a single man named Johns Hopkins bequeathed a hefty sum for the establishment of the university in the late 1800's. Twenty or thirty years ago, finding this information would've required some effort and time in research. Today, all I did was check on Wikipedia and found out in all of 20 seconds.

I use Wikipedia often, as I'm sure many people out there do. While it's somewhat beyond my paygrade (I'm a GS-0, in case you were wondering) to consider the implications of an open market for information such as the free online encyclopedia, I have formulated an opinion on Wiki's place in the world of both academic and personal study.

I recently finished my graduate work at William and Mary, and during my time there I heard repeatedly about the taboo nature of Wiki sources in academic research. It's relatively clear that one should never submit a serious academic paper with a citation to the popular website, that would be some shoddy research. However, I think that with the appropriate focus Wiki is both a useful personal tool and also (and I think more importantly) a valuable academic exercise.

What makes me think so is that Wiki contributors are required to offer some type of citation of their own when providing information. Un-cited facts are typically accompanied with some type of warning that a citation is needed. As a result, a conscientious user must check all citations for any information they might choose to depend on. This is a good thing.

There is such a glut of information available to us right now. We can find just about any answer (correct or no) on the internet. Likewise, television and radio are constantly throwing answers to us for questions we haven't even asked. In this world, it can be tempting to just take what people (or machines) tell you and be thankful to finally close the issue.

Sadly, this tempting ease of knowledge is dangerous. We should always be willing to ask where information comes from. Who is sharing? What do they think? Why would they think that way? How can they help us to study the topic more deeply? What we learn in the world is only as valuable as our trust in the tools that helped us find it.

So, I don't think that you should consider a Wikipedia entry on Post-Modernism or the Second World War to be an encompassing education on the topic, but as a stepping off point for whatever you're trying to figure out. If it's a simple thing (like the origin of a university's name) you can probably just find what you need to know and move on. If it's more complex (like the intricacies of European health care) Wiki gives you a friend (or a lot of friends) who can help you decide how to start.

There are a lot of things in the world right now that are very confusing. Our country is struggling to reform its health care system. Every day our soldiers and sailors are putting themselves in harm's way overseas. It is increasingly unclear what type of environment we will be passing on to our children. Our neighbors in this world are struggling through political and cultural turmoil. It can be a lot to try and wrap your mind around.

I don't suggest you try to learn everything about these topics on Wikipedia, certainly not. Instead, I implore you to take the lessons of the online encyclopedia with you as you try to make sense of our challenges. Think about the sources you choose to trust. Dare to ask why you trust them. Most importantly, remember that even Wikipedia entries can be changed, it would be a fool's errand to never allow your mind to do the same.

In case you're wondering, my fact about Johns Hopkins was cited to "A Brief History of JHU" from the university's website.