Also, there's this Body Browser from Google. They do streets, museums, and now the human body.
It's an interesting anatomy tool. You can look at muscles, organs, nerves, bones. There are a lot of anatomy tools out there, so I don't know that the students on the medical campus will be relying on Google, but they do bring their massive world-bestriding brand name to the task, so now when people have anatomy questions they'll promptly find a resource.
.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Confinement of Information
Have you ever been curious as to whether there were any government files kept on your suspicious behavior?
Have you ever considered filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get access to said hypothetical records?
Erich Vieth of Dangerous Intersection tried it with the Department of Homeland Security, and offers some illuminating commentary on the unhelpful response he received.
As a librarian, I was particularly struck by the fact that DHS states it "does not maintain a central index of records about individuals."
This means that in order to access records, you must "describe the records you are seeking with as much information as possible," including "the type of record you are seeking, the DHS component you believe created and/or controls the records, the precipitating event that you believe warranted the creation of records and the time period that you believe the records or files were created and compiled."
So you have to know what happened, before you can get information about what happened.
And if you don't know of a specific precipitating event that might have resulted in records-creation, and you just wonder if your name shows up anywhere in their files, too bad, they have no way to find it.
Is apparently what they're saying, although that seems ridiculous.
Because seriously, no central index? You can't just look up a person's name?
That's grand for privacy purposes, perhaps, since it means it must be very difficult to find out what you know about anyone unless you know exactly what they've done and when, but it's kind of incredible to me from an information organization standpoint.
How do you ever look anything up? I suspect there's some twisty language trick going on, like maybe they have several non-central indexes that they consult one by one, or they officially call it 'main index' instead of 'central index,' or something.
If not, they really ought to look into that, because if you're trying to keep track of people who've done or who might do things, being able to look them up by name and find all the references associated with that name (maybe even cross references to alternative forms of the name, if you want to get fancy!) can really help.
I know, because I use this trick with authors of books all the time.
It's super-handy, DHS folks! Talk to your local librarian for more information about how you can use indexing to make your job easier!
.
Have you ever considered filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get access to said hypothetical records?
Erich Vieth of Dangerous Intersection tried it with the Department of Homeland Security, and offers some illuminating commentary on the unhelpful response he received.
As a librarian, I was particularly struck by the fact that DHS states it "does not maintain a central index of records about individuals."
This means that in order to access records, you must "describe the records you are seeking with as much information as possible," including "the type of record you are seeking, the DHS component you believe created and/or controls the records, the precipitating event that you believe warranted the creation of records and the time period that you believe the records or files were created and compiled."
So you have to know what happened, before you can get information about what happened.
And if you don't know of a specific precipitating event that might have resulted in records-creation, and you just wonder if your name shows up anywhere in their files, too bad, they have no way to find it.
Is apparently what they're saying, although that seems ridiculous.
Because seriously, no central index? You can't just look up a person's name?
That's grand for privacy purposes, perhaps, since it means it must be very difficult to find out what you know about anyone unless you know exactly what they've done and when, but it's kind of incredible to me from an information organization standpoint.
How do you ever look anything up? I suspect there's some twisty language trick going on, like maybe they have several non-central indexes that they consult one by one, or they officially call it 'main index' instead of 'central index,' or something.
If not, they really ought to look into that, because if you're trying to keep track of people who've done or who might do things, being able to look them up by name and find all the references associated with that name (maybe even cross references to alternative forms of the name, if you want to get fancy!) can really help.
I know, because I use this trick with authors of books all the time.
It's super-handy, DHS folks! Talk to your local librarian for more information about how you can use indexing to make your job easier!
.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
My Secret Cooking Tip
Every now and then, in places too numerous to cite, I read or hear people stating that rice is hard to cook. This baffles me.
Rice is one of the easiest things in the world to cook.
Here's how:
Take some dry rice, keeping in mind that it will approximately double in bulk once cooked. (Usually it doesn't quite double, so err on the side of more if you really need a certain amount of cooked rice for a recipe.)
For example, let us say that you want to end up with a couple of cups of cooked rice, so you take one cup of dry rice.
Put the dry rice in a pot big enough to contain it plus twice that much water.
Add twice as much water to the pot as you added rice. In this example, since you are using one cup of rice, add two cups of water.
Put it on the stove. You can put a lid on it if you have one, or not. Whatever.
Turn on the stove. Use a high setting.
Keep an eye on the pot, and when the water is boiling, turn the heat way down, until it is just simmering. You want smallish, quiet bubbles, not the roiling bubbles of a full boil, but it should be actively cooking, not just sitting there.
Cover the pot, if you have a lid for it, but leave a crack for steam to escape.
Go away.
Check it occasionally by lifting the lid and poking at the rice with a fork. Eventually, when all of the water is gone and the rice is soft and cooked enough to eat, turn off the heat.
Eat the rice.
You really can't go wrong here, unless you leave it on the heat for too long and it burns. You do have to keep an eye on it, but other than that it doesn't call for any complex procedures on your part.
If you find that the rice isn't quite as done as you'd like, but the water is all gone, you can add a little more water, or you can add a little more water anyway and let it cook longer, if you like it sticky. You can add a little salt to the cooking water, if you want, or use broth instead of plain water.
Mess around with it if you like. You don't have to. It works out pretty much fine regardless.
So the basics are, put rice and twice as much water in a pot and simmer until the rice is cooked.
It is super-simple. I mean, I know you can do other things with rice, but for a basic cooked grain product, I don't understand what people are trying to make that causes it to be considered complicated.
Now go forth and make some rice, and then put things in it and create side dishes or whatever. You'll want to do something with it, since plain rice is pretty boring.
.
Rice is one of the easiest things in the world to cook.
Here's how:
Take some dry rice, keeping in mind that it will approximately double in bulk once cooked. (Usually it doesn't quite double, so err on the side of more if you really need a certain amount of cooked rice for a recipe.)
For example, let us say that you want to end up with a couple of cups of cooked rice, so you take one cup of dry rice.
Put the dry rice in a pot big enough to contain it plus twice that much water.
Add twice as much water to the pot as you added rice. In this example, since you are using one cup of rice, add two cups of water.
Put it on the stove. You can put a lid on it if you have one, or not. Whatever.
Turn on the stove. Use a high setting.
Keep an eye on the pot, and when the water is boiling, turn the heat way down, until it is just simmering. You want smallish, quiet bubbles, not the roiling bubbles of a full boil, but it should be actively cooking, not just sitting there.
Cover the pot, if you have a lid for it, but leave a crack for steam to escape.
Go away.
Check it occasionally by lifting the lid and poking at the rice with a fork. Eventually, when all of the water is gone and the rice is soft and cooked enough to eat, turn off the heat.
Eat the rice.
You really can't go wrong here, unless you leave it on the heat for too long and it burns. You do have to keep an eye on it, but other than that it doesn't call for any complex procedures on your part.
If you find that the rice isn't quite as done as you'd like, but the water is all gone, you can add a little more water, or you can add a little more water anyway and let it cook longer, if you like it sticky. You can add a little salt to the cooking water, if you want, or use broth instead of plain water.
Mess around with it if you like. You don't have to. It works out pretty much fine regardless.
So the basics are, put rice and twice as much water in a pot and simmer until the rice is cooked.
It is super-simple. I mean, I know you can do other things with rice, but for a basic cooked grain product, I don't understand what people are trying to make that causes it to be considered complicated.
Now go forth and make some rice, and then put things in it and create side dishes or whatever. You'll want to do something with it, since plain rice is pretty boring.
.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Capture the Elusive Building
The ACLU confirms that you have the sacred right to photograph federal buildings.
This is a relief to me, since I have based my retirement plans on becoming a famous and ridiculously well compensated federal-building-photographer.
Yeah, OK, I haven't. In fact, I have rarely had any desire to photograph a federal building, other than the U.S. Embassy in Jamaica, where I wanted to memorialize the thin yoga mat in someone's cubicle on which I and my sister slept for a couple of frigid nights while Hurricane Dean bore down on us.
Most people do not pack warm clothes when they go to Jamaica, but if there's any chance that you'll be sealed inside a highly air-conditioned building for days, you really ought to consider it.
Anyway, the point is that federal buildings belong to citizens, so go out there and take some photos. Here's the important info:
Do it!
The keen mind will note that the document in question does not actually cover what I wanted to photograph, which was the interior of an Embassy from a space that was not open to the public. But if I want to go back and take a picture of the outside of that building--which I probably will not, but one never knows--I'm golden.
.
This is a relief to me, since I have based my retirement plans on becoming a famous and ridiculously well compensated federal-building-photographer.
Yeah, OK, I haven't. In fact, I have rarely had any desire to photograph a federal building, other than the U.S. Embassy in Jamaica, where I wanted to memorialize the thin yoga mat in someone's cubicle on which I and my sister slept for a couple of frigid nights while Hurricane Dean bore down on us.
Most people do not pack warm clothes when they go to Jamaica, but if there's any chance that you'll be sealed inside a highly air-conditioned building for days, you really ought to consider it.
Anyway, the point is that federal buildings belong to citizens, so go out there and take some photos. Here's the important info:
The three-page document plainly states that “absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause” security personnel must allow individuals to “photograph the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible spaces.”
Do it!
The keen mind will note that the document in question does not actually cover what I wanted to photograph, which was the interior of an Embassy from a space that was not open to the public. But if I want to go back and take a picture of the outside of that building--which I probably will not, but one never knows--I'm golden.
.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Hungry?
I would like to direct you to this delicious article about eating bugs.
High-quality protein! Much more energy-efficient than meat! In most cases, no more legs than crabs, shrimp and lobster!
You go first. Have some insect-flavored wine to go with it.
.
High-quality protein! Much more energy-efficient than meat! In most cases, no more legs than crabs, shrimp and lobster!
You go first. Have some insect-flavored wine to go with it.
.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Glorious Pigments
The world is abuzz with Google's latest offering, Art Project. It's pretty cool, if you like art projects.
It's much like their street view feature, but indoors in famous museums around the world. The Uffizi! The National Gallery! MoMA! Versailles!
All blissfully empty of other people you have to jostle around to get to the paintings.
You can swing dizzyingly around corners, admiring the decor and peering at works of fine art. It's terribly exciting.
I also just can't get enough of those European exit signs, with the little figure booking it for the doorway. I have such an eye for art and style.
.
It's much like their street view feature, but indoors in famous museums around the world. The Uffizi! The National Gallery! MoMA! Versailles!
All blissfully empty of other people you have to jostle around to get to the paintings.
You can swing dizzyingly around corners, admiring the decor and peering at works of fine art. It's terribly exciting.
I also just can't get enough of those European exit signs, with the little figure booking it for the doorway. I have such an eye for art and style.
.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Hip Hip Hooray!
I was reading MLA News, as one does, in a vain attempt to keep informed about the events of one's profession, and I saw that Steven L. MacCall, of the University of Alabama School of Library and Information Studies, received Library Journal's Teaching Award at ALA Midwinter.
I had a number of classes with Dr. MacCall at ye olde UA SLIS, and I had to give a cheer at the news.
I was especially impressed by the article's noting,
I am no longer subscribed to SLIS-L (in a vain attempt to keep down the flood of messages in my inbox), but that made me wish I were.
I would totally have participated in that email string, for Dr. MacCall's awesomeness is indeed immense and far-reaching.
His enthusiasm for librarianship and for interesting new ways to do address the old and new questions of the work is undimmed even by the inevitable technology issues and the many miles between teacher and students--he definitely proves that distance education can work.
Also, in a feat that will long be lauded by my legions of devoted followers, he is pretty much the reason I have this blog, and part of the reason I work in a medical library today.
Congrats, Dr. M. That award could not have been more well-deserved.
.
I had a number of classes with Dr. MacCall at ye olde UA SLIS, and I had to give a cheer at the news.
I was especially impressed by the article's noting,
Further, the announcement of the award led to a string of congratulatory remarks on the school's online discussion lists with the subject line, "Dr. MacCall's awesomeness."
I am no longer subscribed to SLIS-L (in a vain attempt to keep down the flood of messages in my inbox), but that made me wish I were.
I would totally have participated in that email string, for Dr. MacCall's awesomeness is indeed immense and far-reaching.
His enthusiasm for librarianship and for interesting new ways to do address the old and new questions of the work is undimmed even by the inevitable technology issues and the many miles between teacher and students--he definitely proves that distance education can work.
Also, in a feat that will long be lauded by my legions of devoted followers, he is pretty much the reason I have this blog, and part of the reason I work in a medical library today.
Congrats, Dr. M. That award could not have been more well-deserved.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)