what to do with old pills?

So, I found a bottle of expired prescription strength Ibuprofen in our med cabinet. I was about to throw it in the trash absent-mindedly, but luckily came to my senses before I did. What if some dumpster-diving druggie finds it? Or worse, what if the pills spill and some curious animal or child finds them? And there is always the silent danger of the stuff leaking its way into the water table from the land-fill.

The second option is to flush them down the toilet. This again can be a environmental hazard - because, apparently, sewage treatment plants are not designed to filter pharmaceuticals. So the chemicals can slip into lakes, rivers or the ocean, or end up in the sludge used as landfill covers or fertilizer. Even worse, they can find their way back into water supply - as has been rather sensationally reported several times recently.

So, what is a good citizen to do?

These are the options:

1. drop them off at a local hazardous waste handling facility
   
2. check with your pharmacy if they can take it back (and dispose it off responsibly)
3. find some charity that can (legally) accept (unexpired) meds to redistribute to those who can't afford them
   
4. if none of the above works, you still have the trash or flush options. picking between these two is a toss up. but if you must throw it in garbage, take some measures to protect your own identity and anyone who may get harmed, by:
• scratching off any ID info in the container
• pulverizing the pills, perhaps mixing with something unpleasant like cat litter, packing tightly first in a child-safe container and then in water tight bags perhaps

But I think the best action one can take is avoiding purchasing too many pills which they are unlikely to use.

what did i learn in the classroom?

While thinking about futuristic education for the last post, a little reflection back to my education, inevitably, happened. And I realized that, when I came out of my 16* years in classrooms, I :

• knew nothing about time management
• could not prioritize tasks
• had little idea about money
• had no clue about what kind of career i'd really like to purse
• had no idea what my career choices were (unless you want to count "doctor or engineer")
  
• didn't understand politics
• didn't understand government in any practical sense
  
• didn't know my basic rights or responsibilities as a citizen (i do remember memorizing some stuff for my 5th grade Civcs class, though)
  
• had little organizational or leadership experience
• didn't know anything about nutrition or exercise
  
• had no idea how to do research or complete a project
• had no confidence to stand up and speak to a group of people (it still hurts!)
• had no "extra curricular" skills (still don't)
• had no clue about art of any form (still don't)

Is it me, or was my education a bit off the mark?

Okay, not all was bad. I did pick up some good math and science skills. The math skills do help me out till today, both in my job and personal life (especially finances). I also (hopefully, obviously!) picked up some decent English writing skills - that's helping in griping about the system today ;)

(* I am not counting KG or the stupid extra year I spent in 6th grade, because I was "under aged")

education factories

Another quote from the book Future Shock. Here Alvin Toffler is discussing how the (western) educational system of his day (early 70s) was inadequate in preparing young people for the future. He argues that the school system was a hang-over from the industrial era, and the coming era of "super-industrialism", as he called it, demanded a radically different model.

"...the whole idea of assembling masses of students (raw material) to be processed by teachers (workers) in a centrally located school (factory) was a stroke of industrial genius. The administrative hierarchy of education, as it grew up, followed the model of the industrial bureaucracy. The very organization of knowledge into permanent disciplines was grounded on industrial assumptions. Children marched from place to place and sat in assigned stations. Bells rang to announce changes in time.

"The inner life of the school thus became an anticipatory mirror , a perfect introduction to industrial society. The most criticized feature of education today - the regimentation, lack of individualization, the rigid system of seating, grouping, grading and marking, the authoritarian role of the teacher - are precisely those that made mass public education so effective an instrument of adaptation for its place and time.

"Young people passing through this educational machine merged into an adult society whose structure of jobs, roles and institutions resembled that of the school itself. The school-child did not simply learn facts that he could use later on; he lived, as well as learned, a way of life modeled after the one he'd lead in the future.

I don't know about you, but this quite accurately describes the schools and college I passed through back in India in the 80s and 90s. And I am not sure things are much different now, unfortunately.

The only practical flavor of education you could get there was what's called "vocational education", which was a stream parallel to higher secondary and college (the "academic stream"). The kind of fields available in those "polytechnics" and "industrial training institutes" were pretty limited, and rather backwards-looking in terms of scope.

To be honest about it, there was a definite classism between the two streams: you'd consider the vocational stream only if you were not "good enough" for the academic stream.

Looking back, that doesn't make any sense. Because of that social attitude, a vast majority of us went through the academic stream, while a tiny minority went through the vocational stream; while you'd expect a developing economy to require the reverse. However, it has turned out to be a serendipitous blessing for India, thanks to the coming of the "service economy", information technology and globalization.

Back to Toffler's point, how can the school or college of today, prepare a student for the future? Today, it's clear that, "16 years of classroom education, and I am set for life" approach is going to land someone in big trouble. Rapid obsolescence of knowledge and skills is not just a phenomenon of the high-tech industry alone.

Of course, the best thing to teach someone is the ability to learn. Beyond that, what should the educational system prepare the young people for: an era of mind-boggling technological revolution, hyper-choice, super-specialization, long life expectancies, a planet-sized "cultural melting pot", accelerating generation gaps, sustainable development? The funny thing is, none of these is really futuristic. All these are just extensions of the trends we already see today. Yet, our educational systems don't seem to ready at all.

Have we really moved beyond the factory systems yet?

can you trust yourself?

Here is a fascinating "visual cognition" test. In the video pointed to below, your brain's ability to track multiple types of events that happen fairly rapidly will be tested. It takes about a minute; make sure you are not distracted; restarting the test is not a good idea. (It also helps to make sure the computer is lightly loaded - because the Java applet tends to freeze up easily - which may ruin the test).

In the video, a bunch of people will be passing and bouncing balls among themselves. Some of them are clad in white and some black. You are supposed to count the number of times the white people pass the ball to each other - count bounce passes and direct passes separately.

After viewing the video come back to read the rest of this post. You are in for a surprise: I guarantee it ;)

Click here for the web page with the video.

Are you done? Do you have the two counts ready? Are you sitting down? If yes, read more.

Did you notice anything unusual in the middle of the video? Any surprising, unexpected event? No? Are you sure? Now go back and see the video again - don't count anything now - just watch.

How does that feel? There is no trick in the computer. It's your brain that has tricked you! "Inattentional Blindness" is the name the researchers are giving this bug in our firmware. If you feel like you need a drink now, I understand ;)

the next big thing

It's not nano tech. It's not fuel cells. It's not wearable computers. It's definitely not a smart-phone-video-player-gps-dishwasher-all-in-one

I think the next truly revolutionary advance in technology will be in transportation.

The communications revolution (internet + cellphones, mainly) is satisfying the human need to "reach" - i.e. to communicate (obviously), to access information and entertainment, and do commerce - instantly, and without regard for geography. It fundamentally changed the way people think about reaching. It is a big deal.

Compared to that, nano-tech or any consumer electronics innovation will fade in impact. Yes, new materials and new medical possibilities that nano will usher, will make life easier (and perhaps longer), but they will unfold gradually, and they will not change people's fundamental assumptions or day-to-day life. (Except if nano-tech can engineer immortality - but I doubt it will happen any time soon to be of use to you or me.)

But instant and distance-oblivious reach is only the second best thing; after the need of "presence". People would rather *be there*. Instantly, if possible. Without regard to geography.

Imagine traveling hundreds of miles in minutes or seconds. Imagine that being affordable. That will turn the world upside down!

You won't have to live where you work; you could live in another country, if you want. You could visit another continent for the weekend. You could visit your parent living in another city after work and be home for dinner. You could shop local produce in the other hemisphere. If you were Angelina Jolie, you could visit the African kid next in your adoption list for every diaper change.

That'll fundamentally change the way people think about distance, commute, immigration, shopping, relationships, commerce, property and perhaps, time.

What do you think? Can there be some thing else more revolutionary?

PS: an infinite energy source will be a revolution of unimaginable impact. but i don't expect it to happen any time soon.

why do we get sick in the winter?

I am patting myself on the back as I write this in great excitement! My intuition is turning out to be right! There seems to be a *better* reason for why the flu is more prevalent in the winter season, than what doctors and scientists have been telling us for some time now: the cold weather makes us stay indoors more, and so we pass on germs among ourselves a lot more... and, it's the school season (unlike in the summer), and kids are unbeatable when it comes to spreading bugs.

Whenever I heard this, I said, "Mmm seems to make sense. But is that it? Something seems to be missing from the equation..."

Now, a study by NIH (National Institutes of Health) scientists is pointing to something new and interesting.

In cooler weather, the flu virus's outer covering hardens to a rubbery gel that could shield the virus as it passes from person to person. Thanks to this protection, the virus spreads successfully. "Like an M&M in your mouth, the protective covering melts when it enters the respiratory tract," Dr. Zimmerberg said. "It's only in this liquid phase that the virus is capable of entering a cell to infect it."

If the weather is warmer than 60 degrees F (16 degrees C), the virus' fatty, protein-studded coating stays melted while it travels through the air, weakening it and exposing it to drying out, and so the virus loses its ability to spread from person to person.

More here.

I am pretty sure something similar applies to the common cold virus as well. Look out for that announcement soon!

The other day when I was talking to my mom on the phone, I mentioned how all of us here are down with cold. She immediately said, "it should be the climate change". "Wow", I thought, "global warming can do this?!" Then I realized she had meant, "weather change" :)

Ironically, this age-old misbelief (that going out in the cold will cause you to catch a cold), seems to have been a bit right - though it's proponents didn't have a clue how.

easy ways to do some environmental good

doing environmental good is not that difficult. here are a few simple things (that you probably don't see in the usual lists):

1. you don't really need a dozen paper napkins to clean up after going to a public restroom. i have found that i can do with just ONE, or at most TWO
2. stop junk mail. this would be all those coupons and ads and flyers that you never even look at and throw into the trash can right out of the mail box. i found that it's not very hard to stop almost all the junk mail i used to get. it took me a few phone calls and one letter. there is even a website now that gives step by step instructions, letter templates, etc.: www.stopjunkmail.org
3. use a piece of cloth (an old t-shirt or pant, for example) to plug the gap between the door and the floor/carpet. this insulation can make quite a difference to the amount of heating the room needs
4. remove dead weight from the car. if you have some heavy junk sitting in the trunk forever, it's just reducing your mileage for no good reason

tracking guns

I believe in gun limits. I haven't learnt about this enough to take an extreme stand like calling for a ban on all personal fire arms. But I think I'll end up there, sooner or later. According to the NRA, there are 250 million guns in the USA. I can't see how that can be a good thing. Especially, given the statistics and studies (which are contentious, for sure) that show that most domestic guns kill people in the household - not strangers or intruders.

I heard a story on NPR recently about a couple of ideas to make gun control work. Both don't work. Not yet, at least.

Micro stamping: Micro stamping uses lasers to engrave an alphanumeric code on a weapon's firing pin. When the gun is fired, the pin stamps the code on the bullet cartridge before it is ejected. Police who collect cartridges at a crime scene would be able to use a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms database to match the code to the exact weapon that fired them.

California has already passed a law requiring all new semi-automatic pistols sold in the state from January 2010 to be micro stamped (else deemed "unsafe").

Problems with Micro stamping include unreliability (code can be illegible, especially, after some amount of use of the weapon), not being tamper-proof (some claim the stamp can be obliterated with in minutes using only house-hold tools), cost (to manufacturers and in maintaining the computer database), the fact that cartridge cases can't be recovered many times (apparently many guns don't automatically eject the cases), that crime guns are illegal or old or both anyway, and the theory that it'll increase gun thefts.

Ballistic Markings Database: The second idea is the creation of a national database of images of toolmarks from all new guns sold in the U.S. The toolmarks, as any one who's watched a T.V. cop show knows, are akin to fingerprints for a gun, left on the bullets or cases fired from that gun.

Maryland and New York already operate such databases for guns sold or manufactured in those states.

We can expect many of the same objections to this method as with microstamping. In addition, and more importantly, a recent study found that the science behind the theory that each gun leaves an unique toolmark is not solid. The study also pointed out that the imaging and matching technology is not good enough, and will throw up too many false positives to be of practical use.

Fair enough.

However, I just can't believe that technology can be the main stumbling block for a viable gun control scheme to be implemented. Living in the silicon valley, I can't conceive of a situation where it's the computer algorithms and imaging technology that are the limitations. Surely, if there is an incentive to innovate, it'll be done. Keeping the politics aside for a moment, why are there no such incentives for us, the hi-techers? Isn't this a fantastic opportunity to do good? If we can come up with a cheap, effective solution, I am sure the consumers and the public will be willing to pay for it. Even if the politics is the main problem (and a turn-off for the innovators), I am sure there are smart people who can out-wit the politicians and the gun-lobby. Companies and VCs who do community outreach, employer match charity programs and what not, can fund this venture.

So, how about a non-profit silicon valley startup to solve the gun control problem?

get that big but out of the way!

I recently attended a communication skills class titled "Getting Your Point Across", sponsored by my employer. My experience with such classes has been mixed. But I usually do pick up a few nuggets that are quite useful. So here are some I picked up from this class: (some are nothing profound or new, but still, they are good reminders)

• set expectations: i thought this was a good one. the point is, many times communications fail because the two parties have different objectives and they don't realize that. For example, take the cliche'd "venting woman and the problem-solving man" situation: if only the woman says at the beginning, "i just want to vent. i am not looking for solutions", or, if the man just asked upfront, "do you want me to just listen or try to fix things for you?"!
• focus on what's being said - not what to say next ("Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood" - habit #5 from that popular book)
• people don't usually mind "clarifying questions"; it's "problem solving questions" that irritate. "interjecting" and "interrupting" are different things
  
• "listen with empathy" - i have no clue how to do this
• use open ended questions as much as possible. example: "do you think you can get this done by the deadline?" is a closed ended question, and most people will want to say "yes" even if they believe otherwise. however, the same question could be asked as, "what do you think about this deadline?", for which they may be more forthcoming.
  
• avoid email, when it can be talked face to face. if you need a record, send a summary email after the face-to-face
• and get that big "BUT" out of the way: "I like your idea, but ..." translates to "I don't like your idea."

So, an ideal communication session might go something like this, between Raj, who recently took this class, and his Boss, who's not enlightened yet :

Boss: Hey Raj, how is it going?
Raj: Do you really want me to answer or that's just the programmed first line you always use before giving bad news?
Boss: Well, I thought we should discuss last week's release, which was late by a month and had more bugs than the max row limit in Excel.
Raj: I can understand how you feel. Microsoft products are so user unfriendly.
Boss: The customers are threatening a class action law suit. With the quarterly results due...
Raj: Which class of customers are these? The ones we beg to download our product for free, or the board's family members who "buy" the product?
Boss: We may have to trim some resources.
Raj: Oh. How will you feel about losing me?
Boss: Very good.
Raj: Please send me an email about this, then.
Boss: Your account has been disabled already. We are withholding your last pay check to pay for that communications class you took. Bye bye.

genes and success

From Richard Dawkins' "River Out of Eden"

"It is not success that makes good genes. It is good genes that make success, and nothing an individual does during its lifetime has any effect whatever upon its genes."

This is a profound and very disappointing fact! The first time I read this (over a decade ago), it hit me like a ton of bricks. Dawkins, who is also the author of "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", explains:

"It is tempting to think that when ancestors did successful things, the genes they passed on to their children were, as a result, upgraded relative to the genes they had received from their parents. Something about their success rubbed off on their genes, and that is why their descendants are so good at swimming, flying, courting. Wrong, utterly wrong! Genes do not improve in the using, they are just passed on, unchanged except for very rare random errors."

The errors he is referring to are mutations, majority of which are harmful. A tiny minority can introduce a new advantage for a gene, and these improvements get naturally selected: the process of "evolution".

Now, there may be something a crooked individual can do to improve his genes: expose himself to a lot of radiation, and hope one of those mutations happens to be an improvement ;)

It's NOT just a game!

Every so often we hear some sportsman or a coach or a commentator say those wise words: "It's Just A Game". Every time, I hear that, I am a bit irritated. They are usually trying to rationalize a loss or some other disappointment; or perhaps trying to ease some tension. If it's the former, they are plain wrong in the choice of their rationale, and if it's the latter, it mostly won't work.

Sports fans are as passionate as normal people can get. Many of them are not of the type that easily says, "oh, well" and gets on with it. They invest precious time, emotion and money. I don't think they want to hear the stars they admire think it's not that important. It's very deflating for a fan to hear the team he's been rooting for say "it's no big deal" after a loss. The sports stars and administrators should know better. They are human too, and I am pretty sure, in most, if not all these cases, they are truly disappointed themselves. They are perhaps trying to cope by telling themselves "it's just a game". That's fine. But don't tell the die-hard fan it's just a game. It's not fair to him.

It's bad marketing as well. Sportsmen are entertainers - they should make their audiences feel good about watching the sport; they should make it feel important. The Hollywood types get this right all the time. Ever heard an actor say "it's just a movie"? Instead, they call it "work", "project", and all sorts of fancy things, don't they?

Sport is man's link to his hunter-gatherer past - when those athletic abilities evolved in him. It is also a link to the more recent medieval era, one which made him a warrior and a gladiator. These are strong influences which appeal to his lower brain - the part which can't be rationalized. That part of the brain believes sport is really important - because it still thinks it's about survival!

PS: when I say "man" in the above paragraphs, I don't mean "human". I do mean the male specimen of the species. I have no idea why (some) women like sports; so I can't speak to it.