Black Friday

Going shopping today? Traditionally one of the biggest shopping days of the year, the day after Thanksgiving is now called "Black Friday." Why? Because it's the day when many businesses are certain they will be in the black for the calendar year. That's right, your dollars could push a company into profit today.

With the Internet, retail pricing is a whole new game. Of course the stores want to offer competitive prices-- not $5 more than the guys down the street. But how can they know what their competitors will offer on a day when pricing is pretty much a free-for-all? There are now websites devoted to announcing Black Friday pricing ahead of time, although some businesses might put up fake prices in order to fool the competition, then actually go a bit lower. Ah, the tangled web we weave.

If you find this sort of thing amusing or intriguing (or if you're playing the role of consumer and want to find the best deal), check these sites out-- for instance, http://www.bfads.net/.

Alex and Tyler -- and Katrina

Last night my cousin called to ask if I could shelter two cats for a couple of days, and could she bring them over immediately? I was surprised, but said yes. It turns out they had followed her daughter home for about two miles along a bike path recently (the classic case of lost pets "adopting a person"). My cousin put up flyers everywhere in the neighborhood and even went door-to-door along the bike path, but no one knew these cats. The problem is that my cousin is violently allergic to cats, and was starting to get asthma attacks even though they were confined to the bathroom.

Apparently she has found someone to take them, but they can't get them for a couple of days. So I am the temporary caregiver for Alex and Tyler.

They are clearly brothers, and poised at the brink between kittenhood and cathood. Sleek and healthy-looking, they are brown tabbies with leonine faces and curious dispositions. Alex is bolder about wanting to explore, but Tyler is better at playing, and even growled at Alex when he tried to play with the same piece of ribbon. They are dearly attached to each other, and meow when separated.

It's not clear how they got out and their owners couldn't be found, but the situation suggests that they may have been abandoned. My cousin called a couple of local cat rescue outfits while looking for someone to take these cats, and learned that all the shelters are bursting with animals right now. Why? Because of the hurricanes.

Hurricanes affecting animals here?

Yes. After Katrina, huge numbers of pets were, of course, in big trouble. Many died along with their owners or died later because no one was there to feed them. But many were taken out and flown to such faraway places as California. Many pet owners have still not been reunited with their animals. There are entire websites devoted to helping the animals, and helping to reunite owners and pets-- for instance, KatrinaPetsNeedHelp.com.

It's very unlikely Alex and Tyler have anything to do with Katrina, but I hadn't realized that all the local shelters are full right now, even this far from where Katrina struck. If you are thinking of adopting a pet, now might be a good time-- many are in need.

Watch one, do one, teach one

This short phrase is a humorous summary of how medical personnel learn to do procedures, although sometimes it may not be so far from the truth.

I am a volunteer at a local children's hospital. I've done it for a couple months. My training was quick-- basically, I was shown where everything is, and then I shadowed a more experienced volunteer for one evening. The work isn't anything difficult; we just go from room to room, asking people if they want to check out a video or books, and then deliver the goods back to the room. And yet, there is subtlety. Each room is a different world, and it's necessary to be sensitive to what is happening in order to know how to behave most kindly.

Last night, there were two new volunteers. The more experienced volunteer that I had followed around was not able to make it. So I became the teacher, the one that the newcomers were shadowing. I did some explaining, but also just forgot about them and did my thing at some moments.

I realized that the most important things I can convey verbally are the rules and basic procedures: Don't go in rooms that require an N-95 mask; make sure to obey the isolation door protocol at the rooms that have it; try to get a signature on the check-out card, but don't be too anal about it; go ahead and leave the movie list with people if they seem to want it. The rest.... well, they'll just have figure out their own style, like I did.

Watch one, do one, teach one.

Foreign English

We had a few of our international staff in town today, so the meeting was quite a linguistic jumble.

Imagine these attendees:

3 plain-vanilla Euro-Americans
4 Indians (3 naturalized citizens, 1 green card)
1 Nepalese (naturalized citizen)

1 Taiwanese
1 Korean
1 Japanese
1 Brit

We spoke English, but nearly everyone had a different accent. There were also varying levels of language competence among the Asians-- the Taiwanese guy is the best.

I have little difficulty understanding all of these people. It's my native language, and I am used to hearing all kinds of accents. English is, after all, the most universally mangled language across the globe. So many people are trying to speak it! Even many people in America speak with a heavy foreign or regional accent.

But the Japanese fellow said the meeting was hard for him because people speaking with accented English are really hard for him to understand. That makes sense to me (the same is true for me in Japanese or German). But what surprised me was the accent he finds hardest.... Indian!

To me, Indians are easy to understand. They speak with a lilting, semi-British-sounding accent that is pleasant and quite comprehesible. Furthermore, I don't detect an enormous difference between different regions like Calcutta, Mumbai, Goa, etc. in how they speak English.

But to my Japanese colleague, different Indians sound quite different speaking English, and furthermore, the accent is harsh and almost ugly-sounding to him. Not lilting at all.

Intriguing.

Words of Wisdom.... with plenty of humor

I tuned into part of the webcast of the Dalai Lama at Stanford University today. He held a meditation and discussion for students in the morning, and a more serious spiritual dialogue in the afternoon.

I missed the first hour of the morning session, tuning in just as he was explaining how to do meditation, and then having the auditorium sit for five minutes. It was interesting to watch the webcast during those five minutes of silence. Most people closed their eyes and did some form of meditation or rest, but a few kept their eyes open, somehow unwilling or uninterested in participating. The Dalai Lama looked serene, as did his translator.

Then he answered questions from students (submitted in advance and read by a university official who was serving as host). One that I recall in particular was about whether Buddhism was a religion or more of a philosophical approach. The questioner was uncertain it could be called a proper religion without belief in a creator.

The Dalai Lama talked for a long time about how he thinks about Buddhism. First he positioned it as a "Middle Way" between the extremes of belief in an external God and pure materialism/atheism, which is the equally extreme belief that there is no God. Buddhism exists at the level of the human, not so concerned with omnipotent beings, but also not downplaying the importance of human consciousness in the world. I find this appealing.

Then he gave another view of how he thinks about Buddhism. He said it can be thought of as containing three mutually supportive components:

• Buddhist science: The teachings on cosmology, the organization of the world, and the details of how the mind works
  
• Buddhist philosophy: The ideas behind the Buddhist stance in the world, ethics, and other conceptual teachings
  
• Buddhist spirituality: Rituals, ceremonies, religious practices that have meaning for supporting the Buddhist path
  

The first part is the part that can engage with Western science. (The Dalai Lama loves science. He once said that if he hadn't been a monk, he probably would have become an engineer). He pointed out that in regard to the natural world, Western science is far more advanced that what Buddhists came up with 2,500 years ago-- hardly surprising! In fact, he called it "wasteful" that Tibetan Buddhist monks have to memorize the entire Abidharma, a text that contains a long chapter on cosmology that is, quite frankly, wrong.

In fact, the Dalai Lama has encouraged the introduction of science teaching into the monasteries. Not all monks learn science, but some are selected to receive teachings in physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines. The Dalai Lama is happy to modify the Buddhist texts where they erred because of a lack of science knowledge.

Name another religion that does that.

On the other hand, he also pointed out that Buddhism really knows a lot more than Western science about the workings of the mind. Western neuoscientists and psychologists are indeed waking up to the fact that what they are studying has been researched thoroughly by Asian monks and mystics for millennia, and they might be able to learn a few things. I would agree with the Dalai Lama here-- Western psychology seems pretty infantile in its descriptions of the amazing thing we possess between our ears.

I also like the fact that the Dalai Lama is explicitly saying that only one-third of Buddhism can really engage with Western science. The other portions lie outside of it, and hence Buddhism cannot be fully understood or encompassed by approaching from a scientific perspective. Some parts are simply inaccessible. (And conversely, the same is true if Buddhism is approached only from a religious or only from a philosophical perspective).

I only caught about a half-hour of the afternoon session, but it contained a funny moment. (The Dalai Lama is very light. Even if you ask him about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, he will answer seriously, but then throw in a joke or humorous story to lighten things up). He was asked a highly abstract question about whether a person who believes in multiple lifetimes might "naturally" be more peaceful and less anxious than one who thinks this lifetime is all there is.

He pondered briefly and then spread his hands, smiled, and said, "I don't know."

Well of course he doesn't know. How would he know? What a silly generalization. He went on to give a brief answer about how a person who believes only in one lifetime might actually be more peaceful because it is simpler. You do this life, and then you're done. If you have lots of lifetimes to worry about, then the consequences of actions get more complicated. And the causes for your circumstances are more complicated too, because they might have come about from things you did several lifetimes ago.

The questioner persisted, saying that the root of the question was more about having a violent or a peaceful nature, and how we could live peacefully.

Ahhhh! Now it is making sense. Here is what I think the underlying psychology was: The questioner was thinking something like this: "The Dalai Lama is such a peaceful, non-violent, non-angry, compassionate person. I don't feel that way. I have a lot of anger and irritation, and I think some of it is just part of my nature, not to mention being justified some of the time. And yet, he seems not to have it. Maybe I can think of some way that he is different from me.... ah yes! He believes in multiple lifetimes, and I don't. That must be it! Maybe a person who believes in multiple lifetimes is more peaceful, while people like me are destined to have natural anxiety and violence in them."

See the twistings of the human mind. Our hindrances-- things like sensual desire, anger, hatred, delusion, and greed-- give us all kinds of "logical" reasons why it's OK that they exist. Why we don't have to give them up. Why they are justified and reasonable responses to the circumstances of the world. In this case, the questioner's anger was trying to explain its own existence as perfectly reasonable, indeed "natural."

(Anger is natural, of course. The difference between the Dalai Lama and the questioner is that the Dalai Lama chooses not to be attached to his anger-- not to grab onto it when it arises. He still has it, but it doesn't have him).

My favorite quote of the day: "Expect reality."

Reality is messy. It is sometimes painful. And sometimes pleasurable. Sometimes surprising, sometimes disappointing, sometimes infuriating. That's just how it is. The problem is that we expect it to be otherwise!

Just this week, I had a problem with my car registration requiring me to go to the DMV ("Take a number!") not once, but twice. It was annoying and one day in particular was frustrating because I had to wait 25 minutes despite having an appointment. But what did I expect? This is reality. This is our life. We deal with it.

If you want more Dalai Lama, he'll be on again tomorrow, doing an all-day panel with Stanford neuroscientists and Buddhist monks discussing the nature of the mind and the choices we make in life. Sounds interesting!

RIP: Richard Smalley

Richard Smalley died this week. He was a scientist at Rice University who won the Nobel Prize for helping to discover buckyballs (fullerenes), a form of carbon cage molecule that resembles a soccer ball. Later this interest branched into nanotubes and nanotechology in general.

Smalley founded several companies, trained and taught many students, and was actively involved in applying his knowledge to solve problems in the world. He died of cancer, famously asking the question, "Am I part of the last generation to die of cancer, or the first to be saved by nanotechnology?" The important thing is that he "lived the question" he was asking. How many of us are actively living our deepest questions?

I worked on buckyballs for my Ph.D. thesis. I had one email exchange with Smalley, asking if he might have some knowledge of endohedral fullerenes (carbon cages with other atoms trapped inside). My ulterior motive was to ask for samples if he had any to spare, as my lab did not actually make its own fullerene molecules (we're physicists, not chemists!). However, he replied saying that he was moving in the direction of nanotubes and would not be pursuing the endohedral materials.

Smalley was an early participant in and important cheerleader for the new interest in nanotechnology. He danced his part well, and has now passed on. We can take his example as inspiration to keep dancing well ourselves.