Four percussionists play the frozen surface of Lake Baikal.
What is most fascinating to me is how much it sounds like wood, e.g. xylophone and marimba. Not what I would have guessed, but not sure I had a guess.
Anyone feel like helping me brainstorm about this corner I've painted myself into on a story I'm writing? (Where by "writing" I mean "Wrote the first half over a year ago and keep meaning to come back and finish the second half one of these days, and have been working on the outline on and off, though mostly off.")
( Yes, those of you who have read the first half of Victoria's Daughter, you know what I'm talking about. Spoilers under the cut.Collapse )
Huh. I just discovered TalkTo.com. A service that allows users to fire off questions via web or smartphone app to businesses, and their service will get an answer. By calling the business in question, if necessary.
If you go to the main page, there's a list of recently asked questions. Somebody has been methodically going through every bakery in the greater Camberville area and asking them if they have almond croissants.
I now kinda really want an almond croissant.
I assume that the business model is to charge businesses to have accounts -- they have a page "Claim Business" with the headline "Customers hate calling. Let them text you." and a link to "Get Started". But they don't have pricing posted.
Anyways, this looks fascinating and potentially useful. Haven't reviewed the ToS yet.
I don't have any idea what the significance of this is, but I suspect it's not small: Massachusetts' Board of Allied Mental Health and Human Service Providers (my board), is currently drafting regulations for the licensure of Applied Behavior Analysts.
I thought I'd mention, because until I saw the announcements via the Board's RSS feed, I hadn't been aware.
Those meetings for drafting those regulations -- which will presumably include what ours (LMHC's) do: the educational and other requirements for being licensed -- are open to the public. Though the Board and its subcommittees seem mighty surprised when the public does show up.
Just thought I'd mention in case any, say, local ASAN members wanted to know. Not sure if they're already on this, or how to get a word in the right ears if not.
The feed to follow is this one.
Adjectival phrases used to describe (modify) SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS, or more specifically DYADS and CONSTELLATIONS OF DYADS, as to the parties to that relationship's expectations of how others will socially engage with them.
Socially unitary == "Inviting me is inviting certain other privileged parties (partners, children, etc)"
Socially discrete == "Inviting me is not inviting any others. Meta-invitations may be extended to me, for me to extend invitation to my certain other privileged parties (partners, children, etc.)"
Socially disjunct = "Inviting me is not inviting any others. Invite them yourself. I do not extend third party invitations to any others on the basis of their relationships to me."
I already see a failing in this scheme: I'd like to disambiguate between a socially discrete that expects meta-invitations, and, OTOH, a socially discrete that rather doesn't. Or put another way (at least I think this is the same thing) there's socially discrete systems -- they don't presume that inviting one means inviting another -- but they would like to be invitied together as a unit; but then there's socially discrete systems where, "no, I don't particularly want you (nor not want you to) to invite other members of my system, but if you want to, I'd be happy to relay the invite if you want." The former is more of the "and Guest" model of invitation: "the invitation is to me, but I'd consider it a courtesy if you delegated authority to me to invite this other party, as sort of a sub-guest of me."
Now, the point of the exercise isn't merely invitations, but uses invitations as a kind of operationalization for the phenomenon to be encoded. This may be a flawed premise, in that maybe whether or not invitations are construed as applying to more than the party named, may not represent, e.g. information flow through the system, or anything else about the relationship so described. But I'm betting it's not a bad first approximation.
And the purpose is to have a language for system members for negotiating amongst themselves what their expecations of third parties are, and for communicating politely and concisely how they would prefer to be treated. And to avoid the unfortunate baldness of having to actually say, "You're invited, but your spouse isn't."
ETA: My sweetie and I are socially discrete (er, right, sweetie?) There have been a few times when one or the other of us have gotten meta-invitations and it would have helped us figure out what we were doing if we knew whether the meta-invitation was because the inviter wanted the other member of the dyad to show up (but for other reasons didn't do a direct invite of the other partner), or whether they were extending the meta-invitation because the inviter thought they were doing the invitee a favor. And there is seriously no polite way to inquire after that information.
As I said the last time, I have at least one more post about schools in me. This one I've been wanting to write for nearly a year, but baby-free computer time is so very rare. This is my reaction to my personal experiences in selecting a school for Margaret (and eventually her two brothers), and the opinions that I formed.
Recently, my computer at work died.
I work for a small clinic. We don't have much network architecture to speak of, and we don't have an IT department. We have one server -- it's our file server and everything-else server -- which allegedly has backups made of it, we have antiquated desktop machines in the clinicians' offices, and we have a company we can call to come, eventually, and take care of our computers.
I'm enough of a geek to be concerned about the security ramifications of this situation. So I set up TrueCrypt on the computer in my office, and I made an encrypted volume to store my Highly Confidential Patient Data files (and everything else). If I recall correctly, it's 200MB. Or maybe 2G. I forget.
But the important thing here is that it was big, as far as transporting it on our network goes. It took about 20 minutes, plus or minus depending on network congestion and device contention, to move the damn thing up to the server or back down from it; because of that, I couldn't mount it from the server and run it across the network. I couldn't keep the volume on the server with its alleged backup system. So I kept it on my desktop machine, and periodically remembered to make a backup copy (and header copy against corruption) up to the server.
So, now, my desktop machine died. I discovered that, for a while, if I let it cool down for about an hour (minimum), I was able to boot into it for about 6 minutes at a time.
My most recent backup was two months old. I had all the critical stuff in hardcopy (yeah, we still do paper charts), so this wasn't a catastrophe, but it was mondo inconvenient. So I attempted to use those 6 minute windows of up time to get my TrueCrypt volume off the dying box.
It was too big. I would get to about 4 minutes left to go, and the box would seize before completion.
Ultimately I managed to rescue my bytes by -- as unlikely as it seems -- mounting the TrueCrypt volume where it was on the dying device, and copying as much off the volume as possible onto a USB drive, until the box seized, then waiting an hour for it to cool down and picking up where I left off. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I succeeded, to the best of my knowledge. I got everything.
The whole experience is pretty frustrating, because it seems that this illustrates an example of how good security practice is directly opposed to system robustness and proper backup policy.
1) Windows XP (which is what I'm stuck with, but for all I know, all versions of Windows) will not let you copy a TrueCrypt volume while it is mounted.
2) We're not supposed to leave machines on over-night.
Consequently, for me to manually (or otherwise?) make a backup of my TrueCrypt volume to the server, I have to shut down everything I'm doing, and take a 20 minute break from my workday, to do so. (In case you were wondering, my lunch breaks are about 10 minutes.)
It would be neat if there were a way for me to manually launch a process which would (1) make the backup, (2) fire me off an alert somehow (email?) if it doesn't succeed, (3) shut down the computer once it was done -- or if it hangs. So that I could do that last thing before leaving at the end of the day. (Please note: cron jobs are the wrong solution to this problem, because I don't leave at the same time every day, and I need to manually authenticate against the server to copy there, no really.)
3) I made the TrueCrypt volume the size I did because I want all my confidential materials in one place, and so I only have to authenticate once to get in (well twice -- once for the computer and once for the volume) and get to work. I can think of various ways to slice my pie -- for instance, each patient's folder is its own volume, or the Current Patients in a separate volume from other things -- but none of those would have saved me much: there were new files in all of them, so I would still be stuck having to copy all of them off; and meanwhile, I'd proliferate the number of volumes I had to authenticate to access every day.
I'm open to suggestions for how to improve things. I do have administrator privs on my box, so I can install software there. I cannot run processes against the server, and no, I'm not even going to ask. I'm pretty ignorant of Windows, so I'm kinda stuck in bad-attitude "if only this were Linux" land, and would be pleased to learn how these problems are solved in the Realm of Gates.
Also, I imagine this is not a Windows-specific problem. Is there some widely shared opinions about Best Practices for backing up encrypted volumes? For setting up encrypted volumes for maximal backupability?
I got an email a couple of hours ago from LJ that says the following:
Did you get this email? It is unclear to me if I am receiving this email because my journal is positively believed to have been compromised, if I am on a cluster or otherwise a member of a set believed to have been compromised, or if just everybody got that email.
Also, is it possible to confirm the authenticity of this email message? The headers look legit, e.g.:
But neither status nor support says anything about a breach.Received: from localhost (theschwartz [127.0.0.1]) by livejournal.com (TheSchwartzMTA) with ESMTP id 11d504db8b90ad673a853b 6249a5af420021563762781; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:25:42 +0000 (UTC)
[* Not a link in the original. LJ is making it a link in my post. Original email has no links in it, and is plain text (Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii").]
ETA: AHA! Abuse responded to my Support request:
Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, this email was sent from email@example.com, and was also posted at http://livejournal.livejournal.comOh, lookie! Another wonderful benefit of being in the Top 100 Users list. *rolls eyes* Goes with the spam friendings.
I wanted to make Lamb and Lentil Casserole but the price of lamb was exorbitant, so I decided to try it with pork.
~1.75 lb pork for stewing
3/4 cup lentils -- used green
5 tsp minced garlic (for a somewhat generous definition of "tsp")
About one onion, chopped -- used frozen
A sploosh of olive oil
1 cup chicken stock
2 cup water
1lb carrots, chopped
1 can (14.5oz) greenbeans, cut
1 tsp cinnamon, ground
1 tsp tumeric, ground
1 tsp cumin, ground
3/4 tsp ginger, ground
3/4 tsp salt, table
3/4 tsp black pepper, course ground
1 tbsp red wine vinegar
Big frying pan with lid.
Big baking dish with lid.
1) Chop carrots; measure all the spices into a bowl (DO NOT BREATHE), and measure the lentils in on top of the spices (okay, you can breathe now.) Pre-heat oven to 350degF.
2) Put oil in pan; saute onion and garlic. The frozen onion will express a lot of fluid; keep sauteing until that is cooked off.
Now, here we diverge into three tracks: What I meant to do, What I did, and What I think I should do next time:
3a) What I meant to do: Saute the garlic and onion into the olive oil. Brown the meat in the sauted garlic and onion. Dump onion, garlic and meat into casserole dish, then deglaze pan with chicken stock. Pour stock in casserole. Mix in lentil+spice mixture. Mix in greenbeans and carrots, and 2 cups water.
3b) What I did: Sauted the garlic and onion into the olive oil. Added the chicken stock, having forgotten to brown the meat. Dumped the garlic, onion and chicken stock into the casserole dish. Put more oil in the pan and browned the meat. Remember, "Hey, I don't care about browned meat in stews. What the hell am I doing, anyways?" The meat expressed rather more fluid that I expected, so I knocked a half cup off the fluid the recipe originally called for (3.5c). Put the lentils+spices + 2c water into the casserole with the garlic, onion and chicken stock, stirred thoroughly, added greenbeans and carrots.
3c) What I should do next time: saute garlic and onion into the olive oil. Mix in chicken stock, 2 cups water, spice and lentil mixture, in the pan. Put greenbeans, carrots and raw meat into casserole dish, in that order. Poor garlic-oinion-spiced-lentil-in-stock mixture in the casserole.
4) Bake covered for a long time (1.25hr? 1.5hr?) at 350degF. Do not proceed to next step unless the lentils are thoroughly cooked.
5) Mix in 1 tbsp red wine vinegar. Re-cover and bake for another 10 or 15 min. Meat should be falling apart and carrots should be cuttable with a fork.
Came out very nice. Not lamb flavored, but don't really care. The vinegar was a great suggestion, thanks fredrickegerman.