For as long as I can remember, I’ve carried one of these tiny Swiss Army knives, and scarcely a day goes by without it being called upon for some humdrum but vital purpose. It’s been such a constant companion that, on several occasions, I’ve had to sacrifice it to airport security when travelling with only cabin baggage (though on my last flight I asked the Airport Security if it was still verboten and they said “no” — so it travelled with me).

Its one drawback is that the scissors is too small for some tasks. So recently I looked for an alternative, and came up with this tiny Leatherman tool.

.

It’s slightly heavier and more bulky, but it has a terrific pair of scissors.

All that remains now is to find if I can take it with me when I fly. And — since you ask — it doesn’t have a tool for taking stones out of horses’ hooves. But then, I sold my horse ages ago and bought a Toyota.

Conan O’Brien came to address the Philosophical Society at Trinity College, Dublin. The first ten minutes or so are unmissable IMHO. Thanks to Lorcan Dempsey for the (tweeted) link.

Lovely review in the New Yorker of by James Wood of Tom Wolfe’s new book.

Tom Wolfe writes Big and Tall Prose—big subjects, big people, and yards of flapping exaggeration. No one of average size emerges from his shop; in fact, no real human variety can be found in his fiction, because everyone has the same enormous excitability. So his new novel, “Back to Blood” (Little, Brown), is supposedly about Miami. But it is about Miami not as, say, “Dead Souls” is about Russia or “Seize the Day” is about New York but more as heavy metal is about noise: not a description of the property but a condition of its excess. If it is about Miami, then “The Bonfire of the Vanities” and “A Man in Full” were also about Miami, not about New York and Atlanta, respectively. The content and the style haven’t changed much since “The Bonfire of the Vanities” was published, in 1987: select your city; presume it to be a site of simmering racial and ethnic civil war, always a headline away from a riot; throw a sensational news story into the fire; and watch the various interest groups immolate themselves.

Woods really nails the excesses of Wolfe’s style. For example:

The real writer, it is understood, must leave the enervating study and the filtered formalisms of postmodern prose, go out and hit the sidewalks (where the exclamation marks cluster in giant, swaying crowds!), and register the teeming ideological and racial realities.

Worth reading in full.

From Paul Krugman’s blog.

Hmm. A late thought about the discussion on This Week. I suggested that it was the job of the news media to check on and report falsehoods from politicians. The response of the other panelists was that the media can’t do that if the opposing candidates didn’t make an issue of it — which as far as I can tell makes no sense at all.

But even granted that, the fact is that the Obama campaign is making an issue of Romney’s falsehoods, or at least trying to. Yet this is apparently considered unworthy of attention, because Obama didn’t make a forceful attack right there on the spot.

So let’s see if I have this straight: it’s not the job of the press to take on political falsehoods unless the other side makes a forceful case in 30 seconds or less. Glad to see that this has been clarified.

Hmmm x 2. I saw the discussion in question and was appalled by the attitude of the other participants. What underpins it is the fatal flaw in American journalism — the ‘balance as bias’ syndrome. Krugman made the point many years ago in a talk to students at Harvard, as this report recounts:

Krugman was a riot on Big Media’s docility. “If Bush said the earth is flat, of course Fox News would say ‘yes, the earth is flat, and anyone who says different is unpatriotic.’ And mainstream media would have stories with the headline: ‘Shape of Earth: Views Differ.’…and would at most report that some Democrats say that it’s round.” There’s “something deeply dysfunctional,” he observed, with established media facing “something we’ve not seen before, an epidemic of lying about policy.”

Jim Al-Khalili has an interesting piece in today’s Guardian arguing that the Nobel prizes need a shakeup.

Of course one can argue that scientific progress has been taking place for hundreds of years and it is just that we are so much better now at reporting it. This is true. But one thing has changed: research disciplines previously unconnected are now starting to overlap and merge, with physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, medics, computer scientists and mathematicians pooling their expertise to attack common problems. One such exciting field that is coming of age is quantum biology – where quantum physicists like me work alongside molecular biologists to attempt to explain a number of baffling phenomena in living cells.

He’s right. The rise of data-intensive science means that the original idea behind the Nobel prizes is beginning to look inadequate.

From John Gurdon’s school report when he was 15 years old:

“I believe Gurdon has ideas about becoming a scientist; on his present showing this is quite ridiculous; if he can’t learn simple biological facts he would have no chance of doing the work of a specialist, and it would be a sheer waste of time, both on his part and of those who would have to teach him.”

Today, it was announced that Gurdon is to share this year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine with a Japanese researcher, Shinya Yamanaka, for their work on stem cells.