Ben Folds SoM

The new song of the moment is You Don't Know Me by Ben Folds. This comes from his most recent album, Way to Normal, and Regina Spektor joins him on this song. I'll be honest, it took me a couple of listens to enjoy it (because it's kinda different from some of his previous stuff), but now I really like it quite well.

As I was listening to NPR on the way to school this morning, someone gave a review of the album (and sort of Folds in general), which has led to this song receiving the coveted title of Song of the Moment. As a warning, the CD version drops the F-bomb (unfortunately, would it be Ben Folds without a little potty language?). I have edited that out for our listening convenience. At some future point I think I may have a "Best of Ben" post where I share some of my favorite songs of his. We'll see.

Also interesting, my SIL posted about this very song a couple of weeks back. We don't always have congruent taste in music, so it's nice to have a song that we both like a lot. Even if she thinks he sounds like Kermit the Frog...

New song of the moment

Ok, I'll admit that I'm not that surprised at some of the responses that I've received in regards to my poll. As a result, I've put up a new song tonight. It's by The Weepies, and it's called "The World Spins Madly On". It's a nice laid-back acoustic tune, and the band was recommended to me by a buddy in my ward. Tonight I listed to two of the albums that the band has released, and it was calm and relaxing. I may give another listen through to find one more tune to put up.

I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the feature, but I will try to update it more often (by popular request). Kelli: how can I make it clash less? I can change the colors on the player fairly easily--what colors would you recommend?

Song of the moment

Thanks everyone who participated in the poll. It was interesting (and somewhat disappointing) to see the results: 3 people HAD listened to the song of the moment at least once, and 9 people never had. So now I have a few more questions...

If you HAVE listened before, why did you? What did you think? Would you like to see more of any particular thing?

If you HAVEN'T, why not? Do you only view the blog view Google Reader or something similar? Do you think I have crappy taste in music (/are you just not interested)? Are you reading at work, so you can't listen to anything?

And for both parties: any reason to keep it alive? If I were to continue this little blog feature, should I do anything differently (update it more, help you discover new bands, etc)? What would make you listen or cause you to be interested?

Any additional thoughts, comments, ideas and jokes are welcome and requested. Thanks!

Heads up

Just as a heads up to anyone who reads my blog via Google Reader or another RSS feed reader, there is currently a poll on my blog that is not visible as a post--it's off to the right. I'm conducting some research that will lead to a future post. Please participate. Thank you, and good night.

Science rules!

Today's bit of nerdiness has to do with glass. I found this image on Make (a blog about building and making things) a little while back and decided I wanted to share it.

This is called a "Prince Rupert's Drop", and is a piece of molten glass dropped into cold water. The outside cools much faster than the inside and contracts. This means there is an extreme amount of energy trapped in the glass. However, because of its structure, the fat part of the drop is extremely strong and can be hit with a hammer without breaking. The tail of the drop is extremely fragile, though, and if you damage the tail in any way, the whole thing explodes. Pretty freaking awesome, I'd say. Here's a 2 1/2 minute video from Youtube that shows it more dynamically. The best part is about half-way through when they break one in a plastic jar so you can watch the explosion happen.



P.S. Bonus points to anyone who can give the source of the title for this post.

So maybe THAT'S why we didn't get results...

Reader's Digest version: we've been using one-tenth of what we thought we were using, and concentrations that low probably can't do anything against microbes. And I figured it out!

Longer, richer version: Potential good news today. I was working up in the lab today and made a discovery that bodes well. First, though, a brief overview on the project for those who don't know: I work in a Natural Products Research lab, which means we look at things that come from plants. Specifically, I'm working on a project where we're looking for medicinally-active plants from Guatemala. We grind and mash up the plants to get at the good stuff that's inside, then test that good stuff (the "drug") at different concentrations against five different microbes. We've probably run 60-some-odd plants, and we haven't really had any significant inhibition of microbial growth. Unsurprisingly, this has been a little disheartening.

Recently we had discussed tripling the concentrations that we use for the test to see if more drug will provide better results. Being somewhat anal, I went through (on paper) the calculations to make sure that the method I would use to triple the concentrations would work. I checked my method against the normal way we had been doing it, and all went well at first. Then on one of the steps, my numbers weren't working out. So I tried it again, still no dice. I tried again, using a calculator--still nothing. My calculations showed that we were using only 10% of the concentrations we thought we were using! That means that instead of 1000, 500 and 250 ug/ml, we were using 100, 50 and 25. That's pretty much nothing.

I've been known to mess up on my math before, so I thought about it qualitatively. We were trying to go from 400 ug/ml to 1000 ug/ml by diluting. Yeah, that's right--that's impossible. So I tried to find someone else to check my math with, and was finally able to find my professor who I work with. I showed him what I had found, and he was shocked. This was a fairly simple calculational error in our protocol that had snuck past seven or eight people for nearly a year. But it explained a lot.

When Aaron, Mark and I began working in the lab, we were trained by folks working on another similar project in the lab, with plants from Morocco. They were running these plants for a third time to verify previous results. The PhD. student in the lab had recently shown them a faster way to make their dilutions (different concentrations of their drugs) via serial dilutions (that's for the nerds out there), and the new method is how we were trained. Unfortunately, that was where the error came from. Those two students were surprised when their third set of results didn't match up with their first and second sets. We also were unable to duplicate previous results with a plant from Arizona. And we also have gotten pretty crappy results on our Guatemalan plants.

Today all of that strangeness made sense, and I happened to be the one who figured it out. I was rather pleased with myself. Unfortunately, we'll have to re-run all of the plants that we've done so far. Fortunately, I'm paid by the hour. How's that for job security? And this time we may actually get some good positive results that we can publish and present. Fingers are crossed.

Wahoo!!

Okay, I'll post something more substantial in the near future (after mid-terms). Jess told me about Sitemeter, which is a service that tracks visits to your webpage. I've been looking at some of the hits that I've received, and I discovered something pretty awesome. Get ready:

Go to Google. In the search box, type "nerd haircut". Check out the top listing. Sweet! I never thought that I'd be top listing of anything on Google. It's a good day.