Speech software finds missing ‘a’ in astronaut’s famous quote

What do you do with something that changes history as you personally experienced it? I remember hearing the live broadcast in which Neil Armstrong said,

That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

Now I’m told, “nope, he didn’t say that.” Instead he said,

That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

This is a pretty dramatic change. Honestly I favor the original words that we’ve all heard and read for these almost 40 years. But I suppose that rather than maintaining history as it really happened we’ll rewrite to reflect how we ’should have’ heard it if there was not some communications glitch.

Now I can’t believe my own ears.

• Balao Class Submarine
• Keel laid: October 29, 1942 at Portsmouth Navy Yard, Kittery, ME
• Launched: December 24, 1942
• Commissioned: may 10, 1943
• Displacement: 1,526 tons surfaced; 2,414 tons submerged
• Length: 311′ 9″
• Beam: 27′ 3″
• Operating depth limit: 400′
• Complement: 6 officers, 60 enlisted
• Armament: ten 21″ torpedo tubes, six forward, four aft, 24 torpedoes, one 4″/50 deck gun, one 40mm gun, two .50 cal. machine guns

Cisco sailed from Panama 7 August 1943 for Brisbane, Australia, arriving 1 September to assume local patrol duties, until 18 September, when she docked at Port Darwin. She put out on her first war patrol 20 September, but never returned. Japanese records tell of sighting a submarine leaking oil on 28 September in an area where Cisco is known to have been the only submarine then operating. Japanese records state this submarine was sunk by bombs and depth charges. Cisco is thus presumed to have been lost in action 28 September 1943.

Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Patch(es) were obtained from:
NavSource Online (Submarine Photo Archive).
Originally contributed by Mike Smolinski.

My home has 3 iPods, I am proud NOT TO BE the owner of one of these evil devices. My kids have the sweetest aunt that anyone can imagine, not to mention a pretty nice sister-in-law for me. She has helped them set up and maintain their iPods of various flavors. But there comes a time when dad has to jump in because they want to purchase music from iTunes and can’t wait for their long distance aunt.

Well, dad has several computers and only one works with the iPods without bizarre manifestations on said computers. Reluctantly, dad installs iTunes and struggles through issues such as sporadic iPod loss of formatting and wiping out song libraries that came from a second computer. After many hours of work (not to mention complete frustration with Apple), things are up and running. Then there’s iTunes. Inevitably, I try to find my account preferences for the store to change and verify my account – and you think I can? Nope.

Most recently one of my daughters received an iTunes gift card that she was so excited to use. She selects her music in the store and hands me the card. Me being a thinker, I search for preferences to ensure that my credit card will not be billed, can’t find them anywhere. So I figure, well maybe I’m being paranoid here, all I have to do is select PURCHASE and it will ask me how I want to pay, then I enter the gift card and I’m done. Nope. BUT after I am all done I find the option to enter the gift card. Now I have credit for songs that I have already purchased on my credit card. In order for me to get my cash back, my daughter has to purchase more music and pay me and I suppose iTunes will auto deduct from the “credit” before deducting from my credit card. But you know what happens when you make assumptions.

Three iPods shared between two computers – you’d think it wouldn’t be a big chore, but it is. You would think that when I go to iTunes store it would be simple, but it’s not. You’d think using a gift card would be painless, it’s not. It’s embarrassing, I work in technical support for a major software company and can’t figure this stuff out. How in the world can the iPod be so popular when your basic mp3 player is so much easier to use?

All this for an average iTunes collection of 3,500 songs of which 64% are NEVER played and 23% get 80% of the play (do a Google search yourself).

Is it really worth it?

• S-48 Class Submarine
• Keel laid: December 22, 1919 at Lake Torpedo Boat Co., Bridgeport, CT.
• Launched: August 20, 1921
• Commissioned: June 24, 1922
• Displacement: 903tons surfaced; 1,230 tons submerged
• Length: 240′
• Beam: 21′ 10″
• Depth limit: 200′
• Complement: 4 officers, 34 enlisted
• Armament: five 21″ torpedo tubes, 16 torpedoes, one 4″/50 deck gun

On September 25, 1925, the U. S. submarine S-51 left the New London base for sea exercises, carrying a crew of regular and student officers under the command of Lieutenant Rodney H. Dobson. That night, while off the coast of Block Island, the approaching steamship City of Rome, spotted the lights of the submarine, about five miles away. However, the City of Rome continued its course.

Inside the S-51, most of the crew were already in their bunks in the battery room. Lieutenant Dobson was in the control room when the watchman on the S-51’s bridge spotted the lights of the steamship. The submarine had the right of way under the International Rules of the Road at Sea; therefore the S-51 was required to maintain its course and speed. Since the submarine’s stern light was plainly visible to the approaching ship, they felt no alarm; the steamer would change its course and pass them, so they thought.

They watched as the City of Rome drew closer until it looked as if it would run them over in spite of the rules. The submarine turned its rudder a hard right. Just when it seemed that the steamer was turning away from them, to their horror, it changed direction and headed for their right side. In an instant, the City of Rome had struck the battery room filled with the sleeping men.

Through a huge hole, about 30 inches wide, water rushed into the submarine. The steamer ran over the submarine, forcing her underwater, and kept going. It all happened so quickly that there was no time to close the watertight doors. The S-51 sank in less than one minute.

A few men who had been on watch on the bridge and two or three from inside the sub managed to get out. Swimming was difficult in the cold, choppy water, and the few men who had escaped tried to rid themselves of their clothing, which was pulling them down. One by one, they vanished except for three men clothed in only their underwear; they had been sleeping when they were thrown from their bunks. These three swam for nearly an hour. Finally, a small boat picked them up and took them aboard the City of Rome. The S-51 and her crew had disappeared in some 132 feet of water about fourteen miles east of Block Island.

Salvage efforts went on for many months. Divers risked their lives in the icy waters at depths that could crush them. The sub was finally raised in the summer of 1926 and was towed to the Brooklyn Navy Yard. There it stayed on display for some time until it was later sold for scrap. Court rulings found both the City of Rome and the S-51 at fault for not following the rules of the road at sea.

Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Reuters published an article called And the grad students most likely to cheat are…, and in it are figures for the graduate students most likely to cheat. The typical reason given by a business student for cheating is that they’re emulating and developing behavior they will need to survive in the “real world”. In this study cheating was defined as, “copying the work of other students, plagiarizing and bringing prohibited notes into exams.”

Here’s how it breaks down:

• 56% of business students
• 54% of engineering students
• 50% of physical science students
• 49% of medical & health care students
• 45% of law students
• 43% of liberal arts students
• 39% of social science & humanities students

This is a sad commentary on the ethics, values and world view of our future executives and leaders. It devalues education as a whole, as those that work for their grade end up with the same degree as those who cheat. A graduates GPA can mean nothing since half the graduates have inflated grades.

Cheating has always been with us, and always will. The cavalier attitudes that came out of this study are telling us something and we better listen up!

It’s something that we’ve all needed from time to time, it’s also something that we’ve all needed to do for someone else at one time or another.

My question is: “How do we know when complete reconciliation has has taken place?” I mean, for me at least, there have been times when I feel a sincere apology was given and things were truly made right but then weeks or months later I find that something about the original offense is just eating away at me. Maybe it’s a feeling that old patterns are once again emerging; maybe I never really forgave the entire offense. Whatever it is – there’s something that’s just not right.

How can we know when an offense has truly been reconciled and the relationship is righted as it should be?

Wikipedia defines framing as:

In communication theory, framing is a process of selective control over media content or public communication. Framing defines how a certain piece of media content or rhetoric is packaged so as to allow certain desirable interpretations and rule out others.

Experts in this area include George Lakoff who has written the books Moral Politics and Don’t Think of an Elephant and Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. In politics, Lakoff points to an example of framing in the phrase “tax relief.” The use of the word “relief” implies a notion that taxes put strain on the citizen. Another example of framing is the word “progressive” to describe left-wing politics. The word “progressive” implies an improvement, or a step forward, and therefore suggests that right-wing politics are a regression or a step back.

Other examples are the phrases “Pro-Life” (which implies its opponents are “anti-life” or “pro-death”), “Pro-Choice” (which implies its opponents are “anti-choice” or “pro-compulsion”).

Terms which frame debate seek to limit the possibilities of discourse by setting the vocabulary and metaphors by which an issue can be discussed. In Lakoff’s view, framing cannot be avoided—it is an inherent part not just of political discourse, but of literally all cognition, both conscious and unconscious—but the effort should be made to do it consciously.

The above description sounds a lot like another term, called “spin”. Isn’t it manipulative and therefore a bad thing?

As with anything, framing can be used for good or bad. I guess it depends on your agenda, or your motives. You can word something to automatically make someone who opposes your point of view wrong, or you can word it in such as way as to be non-offensive and promote peace. Healthy relationships are not ones that try to protect self at any cost. To the contrary, they are ones that assume the best in the other person and truly see any possible wrong or misunderstanding as very likely your own problem. They are ones in which a perceived injustice is expressed but framed in such as way as to promote harmony and peace. This is not to say that you are a doormat. Thoughts and feelings can and should be expressed, they are simply framed in a way that doesn’t say “You’re wrong.” They allow for saving face. They leave room for mercy. They promote harmony rather than sow discord.

Framing can be a great tool to build relationships or one to tear it down ever so quickly. According to George Lakoff we cannot avoid using it. I like the admonition that we should make a conscious effort to use it.

A word out of your mouth may seem of no account, but it can accomplish nearly anything–or destroy it! It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire.
James 3:5 – The Message (MSG)

This weekend my family and I visited the USS Pampanito (SS-383), harbored in San Francisco at Fisherman’s Wharf. This World War II submarine is preserved as a memorial and a museum. During her short life as a commissioned ship in the U.S. Navy (1943-1945) she made six war patrols in the Pacific, sank six Japanese ships and damaged 4 others. Today she stands as a tribute to all the submariners who volunteered and gave their lives.

My service in the Navy was only on “nuke” boats, so I can only imagine what it must have been like to sail on diesel or battery power without the resources of a nuclear power plant. This was tight quarters, even for me. What was surprising was that some items were IDENTICAL to those same items on the boats I was on… 40 years after Pampanito’s heyday. Small things like bill holders, head facilities, etc. My overwhelming impression was that this was very tight quarters for the crew. It is impossible for me to imagine what it must have been like picking up 73 survivors, as she did! My hats off to the men that manned these submarines!

On an average, each World War II submarine carried a crew of 70 men and 10 officers. The submarine service was a small, well trained, elite group. They represented less than two percent of all U.S. Navy personnel, and yet they were responsible for fifty-five percent of all Japanese tonnage sunk, including one third of their warships. This was not without cost, for the submarine force recorded the highest percentage of men lost in the U.S. military, over 20%; more than 3,500 men in 52 submarines that did not return. To this day all submariners are volunteers.

If you are ever in San Francisco, take a few minutes to head down to pier 45 and see the USS Pampanito

Two ships in a big ocean heading toward each other, neither wanting to yield, both insisting on maintaining course, what is it about stubborn wills that do not want to give? Is that much really gained by not giving up some ground? Worst case scenario is that there is a collision and neither ship survives, whereas with even a little compromise on the part of one, the other, or both would completely avoid all catastrophe.

Compromise may mean swallowing pride. It may mean giving up desire. Regardless, isn’t it a kinder, gentler way to live with others?

Did you ever notice that when something someone does irritates or offends that if we start to think about it and dwell on it that over time it becomes a capital offense? The more we think about it, the more egregious it becomes. Soon we find that there is so much wrong with that person that nothing they do can have any good in it.

With this tendency inherent within us the solution is to dwell on only the good, positive things. We really have no control over another anyway, so it makes sense to take the route that leads to less stress and “let it go.”

Maybe there’s something to what we were taught, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say it at all.” and a corollary to boot, “If you can’t think something nice, don’t think it at all.”