a word about language: who's winning?

What does it mean to be "winning" a game?

By common usage, you are "winning" if you are ahead by some commonly-accepted measure. In most sports -- and that's where I'm going to stay for the rest of this post -- that means you've scored more points.

In a football game, suppose a team is down by two points with five seconds left, but they have the ball on their opponent's five yard line. They've stopped the clock and they're bringing in their kicker to attempt a field goal. It's an easy chip shot for him. He's perfect from that distance. We may debate which team is likelier to win (and, of course, I set up a situation where the team with fewer points is more likelier to win). Still, we say that the team with more points is winning.

In baseball, if the visiting team team scores a run in the top of the first inning, we say they're winning -- even though the home team hasn't batted yet.*

But I think we're doing it incorrectly. And I'm not saying that we should be indicating which team is likelier to win.

What does it mean to be winning? It means you are in the midst of a process, at the end of which you will have won. If we accept that, then a team is winning of they will ultimately win. It doesn't matter if that team is down by 40 million runs. Or goals. Or whatever it is that points are called in the sport they're playing. If they will ultimately win the game then they are winning.

Yeah, I know. I know. Words and phrases have meaning beyond their etymology. Since we all know what is meant by the simple question, "Who's winning?" there's no need to get all pedantic about it. Besides, communication would be hampered if we could never say who's winning until the game is over.

Still, every time someone asks me who's winning I want to say, "I dunno. Ask me after the game."

*Unless you're my sister, who will indicate which team is winning based on the score after the last completed inning**
**Unless the home team scores and goes ahead in the bottom of the inning, in which case she will acknowledge that they're winning because the visiting team cannot score again until the next inning

vending machine follies

There's a Coca Cola vending machine at my office. The other day it was, apparently, not working.

That's nothing new. That machine is known to behave in odd ways. There was a stretch, a few years ago, when it would give extra bottles. That was at a time when I was drinking soda. I would put in my money, selected the Coca-Cola* button, and out would come anywhere from one to eight bottles. There were other times where nothing would come out, or the wrong kind of soda would come out.

At this point, being that I'm trying to lose weight and all, I'm not buying from the soda machine. But I noticed it wasn't working because of the sticky notes that started collecting on it. First it was one note. "Didn't vend Coke <name and extension>" Then, later in the day, a similar note appeared. Then there was a third note and a pad of blank sticky notes was sitting on the counter next to the machine.

I couldn't resist. "Machine kicked me in the shin and told me I'm too fat."

*Because, seriously, what other soda is there to drink?**
**Unless you're eating pastrami, in which case there's also Cel-Ray

a word about language: the learning curve

At work, I was talking to someone about a new project I'll be taking on. It was noted that there would be a steep learning curve.

The meaning of that expression, as everyone knows, is that it would be difficult to learn what's needed. I suppose the expression came about because it's hard to climb a steep hill. So, steep learning curve means hard to learn. But that always sounds wrong to me. If the learning curve is a graph showing how much is learned over how much time, a steep learning curve means that a lot is learned quickly, which seems to imply that the subject is easy to learn.

So, guess what I found? I did a Google search to find an image to include with this post -- while I have no data to back me up, I am willing to bet that including a  graphic makes it more likely that people browsing this blog will stop and read. And I found a site that seems to agree with me.

I have no experience with that website, but the author made the same point as I did above. Only she made it better, and seems to imply that in technical fields, the concept of "learning curve" is handled the way I instinctively think of it. To quote:

The typical plotting of a learning curve shows the time (or experience) for learning on the x axis and the percentage of learning on the y axis. In science (and contrary to popular usage of the term) a steep learning curve represents a quickly-learned subject. Difficult subjects will have a longer duration to complete learning and, as such, a shallower curve. The relative percentage of learning can show how some subjects can be mostly learned quickly while some difficult aspects may remain resulting in plateaus in the graph where learning stalls. 

Now try convincing the world of that.

el topo (cinema history class)

Session: Inspired by Spaghetti Westerns, Week 3
Movie: El Topo (1970)
Directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A bunch of shit happens, but I have no fucking clue what. Hilarity ensues.

Background and Reaction:
Keith warned us that this movie would be weird. "A Western from another dimension" was one way of putting it. He also made some allusions to LSD. He understated it. This was just completely bizarre, with odd imagery and transitions, and strange goings on.

I spent the early part of the movie admiring the visuals and thinking "Wow! I have no idea what's going on, but this is stunning to look at." As it wore on -- and I still had little clue as to what was going on -- I found my thoughts changing. I was eventually thinking "Wow! This is still stunning to look at, but when is this going to end?" The storytelling was awful. I could usually understand what was going on in a particular scene. But, like a fever dream, it was hard to understand how any of the scenes fit together.

The movie itself was both incredibly beautiful and intensely ugly -- a fact that's a testament to the cinematography. Of course, that was heightened by the soundtrack, which often was a cocophanous mix of various sounds such as sheep bleating and bagpipes. There was all manner of purposeful imagery -- religious, violent sexual.

This was quite the experience to watch. If only I understood it.

Ratings:
First, a note about the ratings. After last week, I was thinking about my ratings, and decided that they are afflicted with grade inflation. I explained all the ways that I didn't care for Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid, and then gave it an 8. Most people would see a rating of 8 and think that means I really liked it. With that in mind, I am trying to avoid giving these too high a grade.

Me: 4 (which was overly generous)
Christina: 10
Dave: 9.0 - 9.1
Ethan: 2
Scott: 3
Sean: 4 out of 4

i'm protected

In an unexpected turn of events, orders of protection have been issued to keep two people (whom I have never met) away from me.

The surprise came with the mail -- four (or was it five?) envelopes from the Queens County District Attorney. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm kind of a nervous person. So I see these envelopes and start panicking. What are these? What can it mean? Am I being accused of something?

Opening an envelope, it took me a moment to figure out what it was. In the middle of the cover letter, in bold print, I saw "INSTRUCTIONS ON READING THE ORDER OF PROTECTION." Did I mention that I'm a nervous person?

When I saw that, I immediately started trying to figure out what the hell I did that someone got an order of protection against me. Finally, when I calmed down enough to read it, I was listed as the "Protectant" and someone else was listed as  "Defendant."

Phew! That's a load off my mind. But wait! Why is there this order of protection? What happened that this person wants to kill me? Oh my God! I'm gonna get murdered!*

Part of what had me so confused is that I simply don't have any experience with orders of protection. I didn't know they can be issued without you even asking for them. Once I calmed down enough to view it rationally. I remembered the water theft that happened last week. I wrote about it here. The police had told me I might hear from the District Attorney. I knew that there may be criminal charges -- if it's determined that the items these people stole (from other porches as well as mine) are collectively worth enough to make it worth pursuing.

I can only assume that these orders of protection are related to that theft. That it's a matter of course** and all the identified victims are also protectants. Maybe it's prophylactic. Maybe it's a way of potentially upping the charges (assuming the thieves return to any of the same homes to steal again).

The one thing that's truly odd is that the document orders the defendant to (among other things):

Refrain from assault, stalking, harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, forcible touching, intimidation, threats or any criminal offense or interference with...members of the family or household of...Marc Whinston.

Seems to me these actions are already illegal. Maybe it's, again, about upping the possible charges in case they come back.

The cover letter lists a phone number for a Crime Victims Advocate Program, but I didn't see the mail until too late in the day to call. I'll try in the morning. As for tonight, I'll keep a baseball bat by the bed.

*Yeah...still nervous

**I hope so, anyway. What if it's not and my family is truly in danger? Did I mention that I'm a nervous type?