Kid

When I first learned that for our final exam post, I knew I was going to have a hard time coming up with a new keyword that wasn’t in the New Keywords book already. I thought about using other words for my keyword, but I discarded each one because I didn’t think I would be able to write long enough about them. I was taking a break and reading the 49ers’ message board on ESPN.com, when “kid” fell into my lap. I was reading another poster’s comment about a particular football player, and he/she referred to him as a “kid.” As in “once this kid screws on his head the right way, he will be a great football player.” I was taken aback by the comment, and I thought: “Wait a minute. That football player is 27 years old and I am only 22 years old. Does that mean I’m a kid in the eyes of this poster?” Now, my definition of “kid” is a child 10 and under, so I don’t consider myself a kid. I thought about how “kid” has two different age ranges depending on who is using it and when it is used. Then, I decided this can be my keyword! Great! I already have a situation where “kid” can be used in different ways. I only need to do some research on “kid” and I will be all set.

The original meaning of “kid” was the young of a goat. It did not start to be known as its more common definition of “child” until much later. The “child” definition for kid actually started out as a slang term with its first recorded use occurring in 1599. This definition survived, and a nickname for kid, kiddo, started to show up in the late 19^th century. As the “child” definition stuck around, more phrases utilizing kid started showing up. For example, Kid stuff, meaning “something easy”, came about in 1923. (etymonline.com). Over the rest of the 20^th century, and early 21^st century, kid has developed from “a child” to “a young person” to “a person of any age.” The last definition occurs when an older person is talking about a person that is younger than they are. For example, on the 49ers’ message board, a football player is referred to as a kid by a poster, even though the athlete is 23, 26, or even 30 years old.

The Oxford English Dictionary doesn’t even include the “child” definition as an official definition. It refers to kid, when a person means “a child,” as a slang term, and that slang definition is buried under the list of primary definitions. The OED has 10 definitions for kid. That is 10 different situations in which the word “kid” can be misinterpreted to mean something other than the intended meaning. Kid is listed as being a noun five times, as a participial adjective one time, and as a verb four times.

As a noun, the primary kid definitions are: 1. The young of a goat, 2. A bundle of twigs used for burning or embedding a river bank, 3. A seed-pod of a leguminous plant, 4. A wooden tub for domestic use, and 5. a humbug/joke (as in “no kid” means “no joke”). (oed.com)

As a participial adjective, the primary kid definition is “made known, mentioned, declared, renowned; well-known; famous; notorious.” (oed.com)

As a verb, the primary kid definitions are: 1. To give birth to a young goat (note: only applies to goats, not humans), 2. To bind up brushwood in bundles, 3. To form pods, and 4. To hoax, humbug, try to make one believe what is not true. (oed.com)

On Wikipedia, there are lots of other references for the word “kid.” Kid can be a radio station name (KID 96.1 FM in Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA), video game characters, movie titles, literature titles, song names, television shows, and acronyms. All these references/definitions for the word “kid” are used in some way around the world, and the meaning all depends on what area of the world the word is being used in, and in what context it is used. However, as it states on the top of the Wikipedia page, the usual definition of the word “kid” is a “young goat or a human child.”

Overall, there are many meanings when someone uses the word “kid,” and it can be confusing determining what the speaker’s intended meaning is when he/she uses “kid.” However, the emerging definition, and the definition that is widely used today, of the word “kid” is a young person of any age.

References:

Online Etymology Dictionary. November 2001. July 28, 2008.

Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Oxford University Press. July 28, 2008.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. July 29, 2008.

Reflection on Blog Writing

When I first read what Professor Chris Schaberg was planning, I kind of panicked. I wasn’t expecting a blog-style writing class. I don’t like change and this was a huge change from a normal writing class with three to four page papers due every week (I say “normal” because that is what all of my other writing classes are like). Don’t get me wrong, I hate writing essays because putting together a three to four page paper can take me anywhere from a couple hours to 24 hours (depending on if I know what I’m writing about). I also hate writing lengthy papers because I usually run out of steam well before I reach the minimum page requirement, and I end up adding fluff to the intro and conclusion to make it longer. So, I don’t know why the change from writing long essays to writing short blogs scared me.

For the first weeks, I churned out my blog entries like clockwork. I whipped out each one in under an hour and I thought “This class is going to be a breeze.” Then came the second week and the argumentative genre. The first blog entry of that week was easy to write, but the second and third entries were so hard to come up with. I sat at the computer screen for hours on end, and all I got for it was a soar butt. The rest of the blogs for weeks three, four, and five were a mix of easy and hard.

This class is similar to other English classes in the aspect that some writing assignments are a lot easier to write than other ones, depending on if you like what you are writing about. However, this class is a lot more enjoyable than my other English classes (but that’s probably more a reflection on Chris than on the class itself). I like the fact that the blog entries are relatively short because of the reason explained above (second to last line of first paragraph). I like how I am learning something new (how to blog) in an English class. I like how I can see an example of someone else’s post to get an idea on how to write my post. I like reading the comments on other people’s blogs. The fact that each person’s writing is made public to the class (instead of only the teacher reading your writing) allows classmates to get a much better sense of everybody else in the class.

Although I know why Chris made us comment on other people’s posts, I hated having to leave comments. He did it to make sure that we read each other’s blogs (at least I think that was his reason). I read almost all of the posts anyway, so I felt that the comment requirement was unnecessary. All I could think of for leaving a comment was “Great Post”, but I was forced to analyze and interpret the other person’s post to leave a more substantial post. Ok, when I was writing that last sentence I figured out why he wanted us to leave substantial comments, but I still hate doing them. They are just like peer evaluations, which I hate.

Overall, the blog-style writing was a very innovative way to teach the UWP 101 class. I am glad I signed up for Chris’ class instead of the other professors’ UWP 101 class.

Dreams

In Rachel’s post, she describes one of her dreams. In her dream, she goes to this huge pool to play in an IM inner tube water polo game with a team consisting of about 70 people. Her team played with a water bottle as the ball and a napkin sized net as the goal. Throughout her dream she transforms from the captain of her team to a referee to an eye in the sky, which allows her a bird’s eye view of all the action. She is so descriptive and my description doesn’t do justice to her dream, so you should just read her post. Also, she writes about people in her life who make “cameos in my dreams”, which implies (to me) that she has dreams frequently.

This is all amazing to me because I rarely have dreams (I want to say that I have a dream once or twice every four months or so, but I can’t say for sure). Not only does Rachel have dreams, but she also remembers the tiniest details about the dream and is able to clearly recall what has occurred in her dream. From my memories of the few dreams I have experienced, as soon as I wake up from a dream, the dream starts rapidly fading from my memory, and after a while I even forget that I ever had a dream. So, I can’t say when the last time I had a dream was.

I have a couple guesses why I don’t have dreams. (These are my guesses and are not based on scientific knowledge. I’m sure I could search around and spend hours finding and reading articles to figure out why dreams occur, but I’m not going to)

One guess is that I sleep a consistent amount and on a regular schedule. Occasionally, it shifts around by one or two hours, but I get close to eight hours every single night (When I go to bed at 11, I wake up at 7, and when I go to bed at 12, I wake up at 8). I hear people talking about how they only sleep four to five hours, and I am shocked at how they can do that. I can’t function if I don’t have my eight hours. Even if I started drinking coffee (I’ve had coffee ice cream, but that’s as close as I’ve gotten to drinking coffee), I don’t think I could survive on four to five hours of sleep every night. Anyway, I probably don’t get tired enough because I am not sleep deprived, so I don’t get into a deep enough sleep to have dreams.

The other guess is that I don’t eat spicy food. I don’t need to have my food super flavorful to enjoy eating it, so I rarely eat food that is hot or spicy. I don’t know what the connection between food and dreams are, but I grew in a household where during breakfast someone would explain having a dream with the comment: “I guess I shouldn’t have eaten all that garlic last night.”

I don’t feel like I’m missing out on something important by not having dreams. All I know is that dreams are weird and, in my opinion, they don’t mean anything (unless you are on the island).

Front Tire

Note: This is not the picture I took with my cell phone. This is a picture from a google image search for the phrase “bike theft.” It is very similar to the picture I did take with my cell phone. The problem is that when I tried to send the picture from my cell phone to my email, I got all these complicated option things. I didn’t know what the heck to input for the mailbox name, server, etc. So, I took the easy way out. I used google to find a similar picture. My story is easy to verify. I took the picture on campus, so you can find it if you want. On the Hutchinson Hall side of Wellman Hall, there is a place to park your bikes near the stairs leading to the lower level entrance. Search around and you’ll eventually come across something very similar to the picture above.

I came across this bike tire when I was taking my usual path from Hart Hall to the ARC. I actually noticed it last week, but I didn’t know it was going to help me out until today. The first time I saw it, I paused to take a look at it because it was such a strange sight, but I kept on walking. However, when I stumbled across it today, I immediately knew what I had to do. I pulled out my cell phone and took a picture of it. Taking the picture wasn’t that hard, but I was a little worried that the picture would be too dark because the tire was in the shade. I checked that it was light enough and I continued on my way to the ARC.

In the picture are the remnants of a bike after a bike theft has occurred. Only the front wheel of the bike is remaining, and it is locked securely to a bike stand. I don’t ride a bike anymore, but I used to ride a bike to elementary school, and my dad would always tell me to lock the body of the bike to the bike stand. If I locked the front tire of the bike to the bike stand, then a potential bike thief could unscrew the screws connecting the front tire to the rest of the bike, and run off with the rest of the bike. Apparently, the owner of this bike didn’t lock the body of the bike to the bike stand, and the end result is a stolen bike.

How Can We Compare the Past and Present?

In Sam’s post, he wrote about the fact that “talking heads” (or TV studio hosts/announcers as they are more widely known as) tend to proclaim that an event that was just witnessed as the best event of its kind in the history of sport. I agree with him that “talking heads” tend to exaggerate and be overly positive when talking about a player or a game. This can be annoying (except when they are talking about how great the 49ers are =)). They get carried away and throw things around like “One of the top five players in history” and “best Superbowl, best Wimbledon match, best offensive performance, best whatever in the history of the sport” all the time. And after several weeks, you figure out that the announcer’s top five list actually contains 12 players or that they have two to three #1 players in the league. They talk first and think later. Sam’s right. They say crazy stuff to attract and get viewers.

But what if they are arguably right when they talk about a performance as being the best in history?

Several years ago, I remember reading a letter to the editor in Sports Illustrated criticizing Rick Reilly’s (He has since moved to ESPN) most recent article in which Reilly wrote that he still considered George Sisler to be the MLB single season hits record holder, even though Ichiro Suzuki had just hit 262 hits in a season, breaking Sisler’s 257 hit record. I don’t recall Reilly’s reasoning since I didn’t read the article, but it probably had to do with baseball having fewer games in a season in 1920 than it does now, and other half-assed arguments. The reader pointed out that Sisler didn’t face the same level of competition that Ichiro did (He had other great points, but, unfortunately, I forgot them all). He didn’t face the quality of athletes that play the game today (for example, he didn’t face relievers that threw 100 mph and he didn’t bat against defensive players with more range and skill in the field). After reading that letter, I have always thought about records differently.

How can we compare records from the past to achievements in the present? Who can say that Kobe Bryant’s 81-point game isn’t as impressive as Wilt Chamberlain’s 100-point game? Was it easier for Chamberlain to score against the players guarding him or was it easier for Bryant to score against the players guarding him? Should Chamberlain’s talent level being higher than anyone playing in the 1960s be a factor in the record? How do rule changes affect the game and the records (like the addition of the 3-point line)? I don’t know the answers.

I don’t know what to think about records anymore. Some records will never be broken, like Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hit streak and Cal Ripken Jr’s 2,632 consecutive game streak. Some records seem impossible to top, but are broken, like Tom Brady throwing 50 touchdown passes in a season to break Peyton Manning’s then-record 49 TD passes in a season. And then there are records that are being destroyed by improvements in technology, not necessarily due to human achievement.

So, next time an announcer is spouting off about how it was the best offensive performance, best Superbowl, best whatever, stop and think about all the different factors that went into the record/event before you dismiss him/her.

One of My Most Prized Possessions

I got my iPod in January of 2006. I remember excitedly opening the box and examining my new, shiny piece of technology. The screen, which now has thousands of scratches, was smooth and crystal clear. The rolling wheel thing below the screen was confusing to use in the beginning, but once I figured out that scrolling clockwise moved down the menu list, and scrolling counter-clockwise moved up the menu list, I had a pretty firm grasp on how to use the iPod.

The iPod itself is a tiny object. It can easily fit into a pocket or can be carried around in your hand. The iPod is only about 4 inches in length by 2.5 in width, and it is only a half inch thick. The screen of the iPod is a 2 by 1.5 inch display, and it displays the song name, the artist, and the album the song came from. It also displays the artwork from the album cover. Underneath the screen is the rolling wheel. The circle inside of the rolling wheel is used to select an item from the list, whether you want to listen to music, watch videos, view photos, etc. The icons on the rolling wheel are pretty self-explanatory. Press down on each icon to do what each one represents. Press the left one to rewind/go back to the previous song, press the right one to fast forward/skip a song, press the top one to go up to the previous menu list, and press the bottom one to play/pause a song. On the top of the iPod is a hold switch, used to lock the iPod so that there will be no response from the iPod if a button is pushed, and a headphone jack. On the bottom of the iPod, is a USB jack used to allow the iPod to be connected to a computer to add songs.

When I first got my iPod, it represented something new and shiny to cherish, but now it represents an object which helps me boost my mood and distracts me from what’s going on in my life. When I listen to the songs on my iPod, I tend to let my mind wander and I escape from reality. That is why I can’t listen to music while studying, or doing anything that requires all of my concentration, because it’s so easy to get distracted by the music.

I don’t know how to end this blog entry. I thought about leaving a link to a song I like to describe the types of songs that I have on my iPod, but there are just too many to choose from, too many different song genres, too many songs I like depending on what I'm doing at that exact moment. Eventually, I decided to go with this relaxing song.

My Backpack

Before I read the “mobility” essay by Jody Berland in New Keywords, I didn’t really think about movement up the pay scale or not having physical mobility because of a disability as a form of “mobility.” I only thought of geographical mobility. I thought of people walking from one place to another or people moving/migrating to different areas. I still mainly think of geographical mobility when I think of the word “mobility,” but now I am more aware of the other meanings of mobility.

Above is a picture of a backpack. Backpacks are very useful when you are carrying stuff and moving around. The backpack allows you to carry more stuff because typically your back is a stronger muscle than your forearm (the forearm is used to grip the handle on a suitcase or other piece of luggage). I use my backpack everyday to carry my belongings, and it is very important to me because it allows me to be mobile with my belongings. I stuff almost everything in my backpack, even if there is only a 0.01% chance that I will use an item during the day, I stuff it in my backpack.

The backpack has two shoulder straps that are used to carry the backpack. These shoulder straps are taken for granted, but they are a very important part of the backpack. They free up your arms and hands, so that you can run (it’s harder to run with your hands occupied), and even carry more stuff if you need to.

There are multiple zippers on the backpack that separate the different compartments/pockets or “packs.” The biggest one is located nearest the shoulder straps, and the pockets progressively get smaller as you move away from the shoulder straps. For my backpack, the big pocket contains the big items and the small pocket contains the small items. My backpack has four pockets, which allows me to carry a lot of stuff.

The first pocket contains my textbooks, folders, notebooks, and sometimes, my gym clothes. These items add the most weight to my backpack. The second pocket contains an umbrella (it has rained in summer before), a water bottle, and three peanut butter sandwiches (my lunch). The third pocket contains my TI-86, my iPod, a cell phone adapter (to recharge my cell phone if the battery runs out), an iPod adapter (to recharge my iPod if the battery runs out), deodorant, a flashlight, and a beanie (that I never, never, never wear, but in case my head gets too cold). My fourth pocket contains pencils, pens, a solar powered calculator, a stapler, a pair of scissors, a pack of cards, and two locks that I use to lock up my stuff at the gym. I used to have a ruler, but it broke.

Why put so much stuff in my backpack? Well, it gives me reassurance that if I take my backpack with me, then I’ll be prepared for anything (probably). I am free to go mobile any time I want to.

My Hour As A Spy

Today, we looked at the keyword “diaspora”, and so I’m writing a blog entry on my observation and description of an area of dispersal.

I am sitting in the computer lab in the 1101 Hart Media Distribution Room in Hart Hall located on the UC Davis campus. I usually come here around 2 to 4 pm every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday to either work on my blog or just waste time browsing the internet. This time, it’s different. I am here secretly observing people as they enter and exit this computer lab and writing a description of my observations for my blog entry.

There are two types of computers to choose from as people walk in the computer lab. There are stand-up computers and sit-down computers. There are eight sit-down computers (five PCs and four Macs) and eight stand-up computers (four PCs and four Macs). People prefer working on the PCs, and usually all the PCs are taken before a single Mac is taken (I prefer PCs, too. I like the Apple commercials, but that's about all I like about Macs).

The stand-up computers are there for people who just want spend as little time as possible in the computer lab. The stand-up computer is intended to get students in and out in 30 seconds. They are located along the left wall, and are the computers nearest the entrance, so people don’t have to wade through chairs, people, and backpacks to get to a computer. This speeds up the already quick process of using a stand-up computer. People walk in, log in, print out whatever they wanted to print out, and leave.

People choose the sit-down computers when they aren’t as rushed and have more time, or just want to sit down while they work. The sit-down computers are located on the right side of the room and when every sit-down computer is taken, people stand in line to wait for one. When a sit-down computer is open, people sit down, log in, spend an average of 30 minutes (a rough estimate based on my observations from previous stays in the computer lab), print/save to a flash drive the document they were working on, and then, leave. Most people prefer sit-down computers, so the flow of people entering and exiting the computer lab is slowed down by this.

Regardless of what type of computer they choose, people treat the computer lab like a study lounge. Most people enter and leave silently, and most take their cell phone calls outside the computer lab, maintaining the silence of the computer lab. People usually enter and leave alone. Each person comes in alone, does what he/she came to the computer lab to do, then leaves alone. I enjoy coming to the computer lab, even if no one else seems to like coming here (Everyone seems like they want to leave as soon as possible). It sure beats typing in my non-air conditioned apartment.

One (easy) step for health

America has an obesity problem. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 66.3% of adults 20 years and older are overweight or obese, 17% of adolescents ranging from 12 years of age to 19 years of age are overweight, and 19% of children ranging from 6 years of age to 11 years of age are overweight. That’s a lot of people. There are many health problems associated with being overweight or obese. To cut down on this dilemma, people should start to regularly engage in physical activity, and they should pay attention to what they eat.

For the physical activity part, I can’t do much. I’m not a licensed physician or anything like that, so I can’t tell you what you should be doing.

Same thing for the diet part, I’m not a nutritionist, and I can’t help you with what you should and shouldn’t eat. However, there is one thing that is super easy to do, and since it is a logical, but overlooked thing to do, I can and will tell you about it:

No soda. No more soda. Cut out the soda from your life. Drink water to quench your thirst (Even bottled water is better than soda). Switch to diet soda (be careful though, diet soda has its own problems) instead of soda. Soda is full of empty calories. It has no nutritional value whatsoever. You will not help your body one bit by drinking soda.

The only thing that drinking soda does is it adds 250 calories (that’s how many calories a bottle of soda has) to your caloric intake. And since there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, all it takes is two weeks of drinking one soda a day to get a pound heavier. Unfortunately, it isn’t as easy to lose a pound of fat, as it is to gain a pound of fat. Cutting out the soda in your, your brother’s, your sister’s, your dad’s, your mom’s, your future son’s, your future daughter’s, and anybody else’s life will be one step towards preventing their obesity.

I like learning about nutrition. I like learning about what foods are good for me and what foods I should avoid. I like reading those nutrition articles put out by msn.com, such as 8 Foods You Should Eat Every Day. I know some (or all) of you are thinking “BORING!!!”, but I find this stuff truly interesting. If you are like me, then you might find this informative (I especially liked watching the program).

History helps determine the future of television

During our discussion of history, one person made an interesting comment about a Reality Show on MTV that spawned other similar Reality Shows with one or more of the same cast mates. I thought that was really funny, and a memory of me seeing a Reality Show on MTV flashed through my head.

I remember watching a MTV Reality Show once in my freshman year (4 years ago) with this really distinctive cast member participating in some game. I only watched that episode once, but that guy stayed in my memory. A year or so ago, I was flipping through the channels when I came upon the same guy participating in a MTV Reality Show. I thought “That guy looks very familiar. Wait a minute… He’s still on this show?” Now I know what really happened. The original show created its own historical following, and MTV designed a spin-off show using some of the original cast members.

The history of success of a show motivates creators/producers to make similar products with changes, but essentially keeping the core of the show intact. This can be seen in other shows on television, namely Law & Order and CSI (Crime Scene Investigation)

The original Law & Order was a very popular show. Dick Wolf, the creator of the show, created spin-offs based on the popularity of the original. The original Law & Order spawned Law & Order: Trial by Jury (which was canceled due to low ratings), Law & Order: Criminal Intent, and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Each show is a little bit different than the original, but it has similar sound, setting (New York area), and music. Even the signature thunk-thunk sound has a historical following of its own. The episodes of all the spin-offs are so popular that even the past episodes are shown over and over again. They are shown on the TNT, USA, and Bravo! networks for hours at a time. I remember being a freshman (that spent too much time watching television) and watching episode after episode of Law & Order: SVU on TNT.

CSI is another popular show. CBS (the network that shows CSI) created CSI: Miami and CSI: New York based on the popularity of the original, which takes place in Las Vegas. The shows have different cast, setting, and music, but they all follow the same plot. A murder happens, the CSI crew comes to the scene, they collect evidence (fingerprints, a fingernail, a finger, anything that can be used to obtain DNA), and they catch the murderer (usually).

So, if the original show is a hit, history tells you that a spin-off is right around the corner.