Translating apartment hunting lingo

I’ve spent the last month trawling craigslist for a 2 bedroom apartment in Capitol Hill. Yes, my escape from the Apartment From Hell is nigh! While I haven’t found a replacement yet, I’ve learned a lot about what the various lingo on apartment ads really mean:

  • “Cozy” = Tiny
  • “Old world charm” = Ancient and falling apart
  • “Homey” = Ugly, probably wood paneling
  • “Basement” = I hope you’re under 6 foot tall and don’t have seasonal depression
  • “Near the bustling…” = Noisy
  • “Parking available on street” = Parking never available
  • “Unbeatable prices” = First floor apartment that will get broken into / Next to a fire station / Someone was murdered here
  • “Great location” = If you don’t leave the two block radius around your place
  • “Near Capitol Hill” = A 20 minute bus ride from Capitol Hill
  • “Beautiful” = Not in your price range

And if it seems perfect in every way…the landlord is probably crazy.

This is post 16 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

I’ve relocated!

The last two blogathons I was trapped in my apartment because I only had a desktop. Thankfully I have a laptop now so I’m free, free! I built up enough buffer time with posts that I was able to grab lunch at Ranchos Bravos (yes, mentioning it in an earlier post made me crave it). Now I’m settling into the corner of the awesome little coffee shop by my place:That drink is the reason I keep coming back here. $2.85 for a large everlasting iced coffee. How is it everlasting, you ask? The ice cubes are made of coffee, so as they melt, you get more coffee instead of a sad watered down drink. And they take a surprisingly long time to melt. Perfect for when someone needs a steady supply of caffeine for many, many hours.

Now the real trick will be to still have buffer time when I need to go back to my place.

This is post 15 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

This is my new favorite blog

I’m not racist, but…

Because it’s good to get a daily dose of how depressing humanity can be. Protip: If you’re about to say “I’m not racist, but-” just stop talking. And here’s one of my favorite relevant videos:

…Yes this is Blogathon filler so I can build up enough buffer to shower and eat DON’T JUDGE ME.

This is post 14 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Should we make science girl friendly?

A recent study in the British Journal of Educational Psychology found that using stereotypically feminine examples gets girls more interest in science:

After examining a wide array of science textbooks, University of Luxembourg educational researcherSylvie Kerger concluded that most present real-world examples are “embedded in masculine contexts.” But wrapping scientific subjects — at least initially — around female-friendly topics could kindle interest in scientific fields under-populated by women, Kerger says. Studies have shown that interest counts more than ability toward choosing a major or a career.

[…]Kerger gave 294 eighth- and ninth-grade boys and girls questionnaires asking them whether they would like to study biology, physics, information technology or statistics the following year. Instead of naming these subjects, the questionnaire presented each science through topics found in previous studies to be either male- or female-friendly. “How does a laser read a CD?” was a masculine way to ask about physics, while “how is a laser used in cosmetic surgery?” addressed stereotypical girls’ concerns.

The youngsters rated their interest on a scale from one (not interesting at all) to five (very interesting). Presenting these sciences in a feminine way increased girls’ interest in physics about a half-point, in information technology more than 0.75 of a point and in statistics more than a full point.

But the male-versus-female presentations didn’t affect girls’ interest in biology. (“Watch blood coagulate from a small wound,” appealed to them as much as “reflect on how skin tanning comes about in the summer.”)

“Girls are already very interested” in that science, even when presented in a male-friendly way, says Kerger.

Increasing the girl-friendly content had a predictable effect on boys’ interest. When researchers couched information technology as learning “how to order clothes over the Internet” rather than figuring out “how the inside of the computer is structured,” boys’ interest dampened in that science.

Faced with this zero-sum result, Kerger and her colleagues don’t argue for single-sex classes. This is a cross section, so while some girls aren’t interested in stereotypically feminine topics, they point out, some boys are. The reverse also holds true. So they recommend teachers offer a choice among several modules dealing with the same scientific concepts wrapped around various male- and female-friendly topics.

tl;dr making stereotypically girly science examples increased interest from girls, but decreased interest in boys

I have a couple of concerns before we automatically insert hyperfeminine examples into science textbooks. For one thing, how did they determine that some of these standard examples are “masculine?” What’s masculine about reading CDs or blot clotting? Am I just one of those outliers for finding these things way more interesting?

It seems the real problem is that boys and girls are told from an early age what they’re allowed to be interested in because of their gender. That’s what we should be fighting. We need to destroy the notion that girls can only like science if it’s about makeup and that boys can only like science if it’s about blowing things up. Pandering to these stereotypes only perpetuates the problem.

But on the flip side, that doesn’t mean we have to avoid feminine examples in text books. We shouldn’t leave out the science of skin tanning because it seems too girly – it’s still a relevant and interesting biological question. There’s nothing inherently wrong with femininity, so it shouldn’t be excluded.

I can understand the practical desire to get more girls interested in science, but overall this just rubs me the wrong way. Instead of trying to get them with girly things when they’re almost in high school, why not cultivate a gender neutral interest when they’re even younger? If we fight stereotypes when they’re little, it helps both science and equality.

This is post 13 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Why I’m an atheist activist

Another question from a top donor:

“I’m curious to hear more about how you first got involved with the SSA and/or what it was that made you decide to become an atheist speaker.”


I co-founded the Society of Non-Theists at Purdue University the summer before my sophomore year. This was after a year of culture shock down at Purdue. I grew up in a part of Indiana that was fairly secular and liberal (yes, it exists!). I wasn’t used to being in such a religious environment, where people were constantly trying to recruit and convert me, or would literally run away when they found out I was an atheist. I wanted to make a club that could act as a safe haven for students like me.

But I didn’t really know about the SSA when I was getting started. If I recall correctly, they found me. It took our group about a year or so to really utilize their services and realize what a big help they were. When I attended my first SSA conference after two years of running the group, I wished I would have gone sooner. It was so helpful for practical skills like fundraising, getting media attention, event planning, and networking – everything we had learned through two years of annoying trial and error.

After that, I was kind of in love. I realized how great of an organization it was, and I wanted to continue helping out. That’s why I ran for the Board of Directors. It’s cheesy as hell, but us young people are the future for secularism and rational thought.

As for being an atheist speaker… I think it just accidentally happened. I’ve always been comfortable giving presentations, and I gave a couple talks for my group. Then I started getting invitations to talk after boobquake exploded. Then I was added to the SSA speaker’s bureau. Then CFI’s speaker’s bureau. Then I started getting invited to major conferences. Then people who saw my talks would go back to their home town and tell their local group to invite me.

And I keep saying yes because, well, they’re fun! I basically get to go on little mini vacations to different parts of the US, not to mention talk to a room full of really bright people for a night. How does it get any better than that?

Well…okay, maybe if I got super famous where people would pay me lots of money to do it (…or any money, for that matter). Or if groups in Europe or Australia would invite me. That would be pretty damn cool. (Did you hear that, international readers?!)

But even if that doesn’t happen, I’ll keep doing it. Like I said, it’s a lot of fun – I wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t. And I think part of my brain considers it a back up plan if the whole academia thing doesn’t work out. Which isn’t totally unlikely – becoming a professor is hard and partially based on luck, and I’m still not totally sure if that’s what I want to do with my life. So might as well enjoy doing what I’m doing now, and maybe it’ll help out in the future!

This is post 12 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Solve these critical thinking puzzles, win a prize!

I love logic puzzles, and a friend showed me some particularly good ones the other day. These are based on puzzles written by the Mathematician from AskAMathematician.com.
If you’re the first to get all three of them correct with correct explanations for all of your answers, you’ll win a prize! Skepticon will send you either 4 Skepticon pint glasses or 6 Skepticon shot glasses. To be eligible for the prize, include the work “banana” in your comment.

And as a bonus just for fun – these questions were from a larger set of 8, and I included the only question I got wrong. Which one did I mess up on?

Question 1: In front of you are four cards. You know that each card has a photo of a famous person on one side, and a photo of an animal on the other. The four sides that are visible to you are as follows: Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins, a narwhal, and a T-Rex. I let you know that all of these cards follow the same rule – that if a card has a religious person on it’s famous person side, it has a dinosaur on its animal side. What’s the lowest number of cards you’d need to flip to determine if this rule is true or false for these cards, and which cards would you flip?

Question 2: Because I’m super nice, I give you a giant one hundred pound watermelon as a gift. You determine that this giant watermelon is ninety-nine percent water by weight. Unfortunately you let the watermelon sit out in the sun, and some water evaporates. Now the watermelon is only ninety-eight percent water by weight. To the nearest pound, what does the watermelon now weigh?

Question 3: While you were at TAM9, you decided to suspend skepticism and gamble – specifically, by playing roulette. But since you want to have some sort of strategy, you decide to flip a coin before each bet to decide whether to place a bet on red or on black (which should have a 50/50 chance of happening). Sadly, you lose sixty seven times in a row – that is, the ball always lands on the opposite color that you pick. If you turned your skepticism back on, it would be most rational to think:

A. You just have shitty luck
B. It’s terrible strategy to flip a coin to pick what color to bet on in roulette
C. You should keep up this strategy because you’ve really likely to win the next bet
D. The roulette table is obviously broken, but you can’t assume that’s intentional
E. The casino or the staff are dirty crooks who have rigged the game against you somehow
F. You can’t reasonably decide which of the listed options are more likely

Good luck!

EDIT: Katie from Skepticon adds:

“Keep posting! Even if someone has already given your response, I’m strongly considering a small consolation prize (for the first 10 correct folks), so it’s in your best interest to post. Unless you don’t like getting special prezzies in the mail, of course. :)”


This is post 10 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Sarah Palin adds another grandchild to her list of hypocrisy

She’s against comprehensive sex education. She’s against contraceptives being available in schools. She cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. She set up her daughter – who admitted abstinence is not realistic after having a child of her own – to be a spokesperson for abstinence, making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.
And now? She has another out of wedlock grandchild on the way:

In a not so surprising turn-of-events, the news that Sarah’s son Track is expecting a baby with his wife Britta was just released Thursday.

Pictures of the new bride posted on Facebook show that she is rather obviously expecting, while her marriage took place just two months ago.


The quick ceremony prompted many to ask whether Britta was pregnant, but supporters of conservative Sarah became extremely upset, continuing to argue that the new couple was not expecting. It certainly seemed like a shot-gun wedding, and today it was finally confirmed that the pregnancy came before the marriage.


You know, I wouldn’t give a flying diddly about this if Palin wasn’t trying to shove her beliefs down everyone’s throats. I think people should have all the sex they want regardless of their marital status, and that said status shouldn’t matter if you want to have a child.

It’s one thing to force abstinence only education on the public when study after study has shown it to be ineffective. When you’re anti-science like Palin, I can understand that things like facts wouldn’t change your mind. But when you can’t even use your method effectively in your own family, you think that would be a sign that maybe this shit doesn’t work.

But you know what I think is the really scary part of this story? That it’s more important to have shot gun weddings to save face instead of using a fucking condom. You’re going to make a life commitment to someone because you accidentally knocked them up? Really? And these are the same people arguing about sanctity of marriage. The same people who won’t let same sex couples who love each other get married.

Yep, that’s a great system of morals.

This is post 9 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Amy Winehouse found dead in London home

Breaking news from the Washington Post:

Winehouse shot to fame with the album “Back to Black,” whose blend of jazz, soul, rock and classic pop was a global hit. It won five Grammys and made Winehouse — with her black beehive hairdo and old-fashioned sailor tattoos — one of music’s most recognizable stars.
Police confirmed that a 27-year-old female was pronounced dead at the home in Camden Square northern London; the cause of death was not immediately known. London Ambulance Services said Winehouse had died before the two ambulance crews it sent arrived at the scene.

Only 27, sheesh. The saddest part is my reaction was “Wait, I thought she had already ODed? She was alive?”

…Don’t do drugs*, folks >_>

*At least not the ones that are highly addictive and will mess you up. Moderation is a good thing.


This is post 8 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Why did we evolve to die?

Second donor question (might as well get them out of the way when I’m still awake!):

“I would like you to tackle the question of why there is death in terms of evolution.”


What a good question! I should preface this by saying this isn’t my particular field of research, so I don’t know any relevant studies to cite off the top of my head – but I’ll try to explain death in general evolutionary terms.

So, why do things die? At first glance, it seems counter intuitive. The whole driving force behind evolution is “survival of the fittest” – fittest being those who produce the most viable offspring. Wouldn’t it benefit an organism to live as long as possible, continuously producing more and more offspring?

The roadblock is that organisms are constrained by the laws of physics. When you boil it down to the basics, living things are just really complex molecular structures and chemical reactions. And it takes a lot of energy to keep the entropy or “disorder” of a system from increasing (which is a vast oversimplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I know – forgive me). That energy comes from things like the sun (woooo photosynthesis!) or metabolizing food (woooo citric acid cycle!).

Aging is basically the general decay of processes. As you build up more and more errors, things just don’t work as well. And there becomes a point where you make a trade off. Do you expend lots of energy to keep the old structure alive so you can inefficiently reproduce, or do you scrap it and focus on the newly made organisms?

Now, that’s a painfully anthropomorphic view of evolution, but it’s basically how it works. Keeping a decaying organism alive doesn’t significantly increase its fitness. In fact, it can even decrease its fitness! If you’re in an environment where resources are scarce (aka, pretty much every environment), you’re competing with your children for those resources. So resources you use to keep yourself alive could alternatively be going into making grandchildren for you. Sometimes it’s in your best evolutionary interest to die!

I think this can sometimes be an odd concept for humans to grasp, since we’ve recently been able to avoid nature’s typical limitations. Back in our savanna days, we’d usually get eaten or die of disease before aging took place. There was no evolutionary benefit to have mechanisms in place to stave off aging even longer when we’d usually die before getting to that point. Evolution doesn’t care if your joints start hurting or you don’t reproduce as well, because you wouldn’t have been around anyway!

And that’s what differentiates scientists from the rest of people. I find this absolutely fascinating, while I probably just depressed a lot of you by calling you decaying bags of molecules that nature doesn’t care about. Ah well.

This is post 7 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.