What I Read - February

Current Count: 8

The Barrens and Others - F. Paul Wilson
Wormwood - Poppy Z. Brite
Castaways - Brian Keene
Man in the Dark - Paul Auster
American Buffalo - Steven Rinella

What I Read - January

Total Count to Date: 3

As I mentioned, I only started this about mid-January, and can't for the life of me remember the two or three books, I read in the first half of the month.

Bloodline - F. Paul Wilson (READ)
The Garden of Last Days - Andre Dubus III (READ)
Day by Day Armagedden - J.L. Bourne (DON'T READ)

Keeping Track of What I'm Reading

Back in mid-January, I decided to actually keep track of what I'm reading, so I started recording each book as I finished it, counting the month when I completed the book as the month it counted in. Mostly, I was curious to see how many books I was actually reading.

I missed the first couple of books in January, but since then, I've recorded every book, fiction or otherwise.

Originally, I thought I might do a review for each of them, but that's really too much, so I'm simply going with the 'READ' or 'DON'T READ' binary system. So, starting with January in the next post...

The Fascination with KaKa

My daughter will be 2 years old on Saturday and has recently become fascinated with kaka. Now, it is rarely her own kaka that holds the highest fascination, but rather the kaka of others.

In daycare, she has apparently taken it upon herself to check the other children in her group for the presence or absence of kaka before naptime.

Every night, all of us (Mama, Dada, Wow-wow and Nina) go for a walk. During the walk the dog of course feels the call of nature. Every time he stops to pee, Nina gets quite excited. "Wow-wow kaka?" she asks excitedly. Of course, there are several false alarms to this process but as we approch the 75% point of our walk, Wow-wow (not his real name) has his defecation spot.

So he does his business (to much acclaim) and then I bag the poop, and Nina insists that she be the one to carry it in her hand as we drive the stroller over to the garbage can to be disposed of.

Therapeutic Writing

Dear bad scientists:

I answered that question. I did the experiment last year. I showed you the data when I got it. No, really, I did and you nodded along as I explained it. But you really didn't get it did you? No, was the experiment too complicated for you? Was the complete lack of correlation too clean? Honestly, I wish you could explain why you feel the need to repeat parts of the experiment, but leave out the necessary controls and then claim correlation. You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And the next time you bring it up in a meeting, after me walking you through my experimental design three separate times, I'm going to ignore the fact that our bosses' boss is there and smack you down in an epic fashion. Fair warning and all that good stuff.

And to those of you who refuse to accept that I can design the experiment better than you. That sh*tty data you're trying to pass of as showing a significant effect? Yeah, that graph there that has no labels on the axis. And, yep, that heat map that likewise has no scale. And the things you claim are significantly different without actually including p-values or any statistical measure at all. Yeah, I told you your design wasn't going to work. I told you that nine months ago.

Oh, you did the same experiment ten times? Really, well perhaps you should have tried doing it a few different days instead of using all identical samples on the same day and running it all on the same machine. The differences you see? Yeah, you're just accentuating the noise from the assay method.

Yes, I am pretty sure that's the case. I can take a look at your primary data and demonstrate it. No, no, your primary data, not the crap you have on your slide. Do you understand the difference between primary data and a visual representation of massaged data? Oh, good. Do you have a problem with me looking at your primary data, that look on your face is like I just killed your dog and dressed up in it's skin to parade around the room? I'm pretty sure that we work for the same company and all. Oh, perhaps you're concerned that I'm going to take your data and mis-interpret it and then blather on about it? Yeah, like you did with mine, exactly. Well, fortunately, I am 1) not an imbecile and 2) will ask when I don't understand something.

Yes, yes, I get that you did the experiment ten times, you said so already. Why didn't you do it once, look at the data and then choose the samples that seemed to have the most significant effect so that you could remove experimental biases in the repeat? Oh, it's a lot of work to move the samples around on the plate? Why does your research assistant have her hand over her mouth, but is clearly smiling at me? Is it because it's she who actually has to do the experiment ten incredibly stupid times and appreciates that someone is finally calling you out on this? Do you know what happens when your assistants know that you're an idiot. You're about to find out.

Sincerely,
Tach, Ph.D.

What I Read (What I Will Be Reading?) - Preview

Here are some of the things in my book pile that I plan to get through over the next couple of months.

Some of them I know are going to get a 'Don't Read' rating already. And since I already know that, why am I going through the exercise of reading them? I don't know, but it's partly the reason for the exercise of keeping track of everything that I'm reading.

At any rate:

The Yiddish Policeman's Union - Michael Chabon
American Buffalo - Stephen Rinella
Atmospheric Disturbances
Beware - Richard Laymon

What I Read - February, 2009 - Part 2

Man in the Dark - Paul Auster - READ

Paul Auster is a terrific writer. You do sort of need to be in the mood, but his stories are always compelling. This is an extremely slim volume but eminently readable.

I do always feel when reading him that I'm missing a big chunk of something, but even what I'm getting I enjoy.