Not Your Typical Day at the Office!

This VOB is a little different from the usual stream-of-consciousness rantings and ramblings. Today we are treated to the work of a guest columnist, Dave, a friend and former co-worker of Bruck. Dave submits the following dispatch of valor and courage, detailing the apprehension of the (alleged) perepetrator of a one-man crime spree. The situation is described in Dave’s own words, with some minor editing by Bruck to remove any potentially identifiable details (names have been changed...).

It was nearly 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday. I was working at my desk, when I saw a man dressed neatly in an oxford and dark pants peer cautiously around the edge of my cube wall. When he realized that I'd seen him, he approached and asked to use my stapler. "Sure," I replied in a somewhat hesitant tone. He withdrew from the cube area for a moment, but I could hear the clank of the stapler coming from the area near Rob's desk. He returned it, thanked me, and went on his way. A few moments later, and still suspicious, I got up to see if he was still around. As I approached Rob's desk, I noticed his stapler was in plain sight. I glanced around at the office supply desk and noticed two other staplers readily accessible.

I walked out into the hallway outside our suite of offices to see if the man was visible, but I spied only a security guard walking past in the intersecting hallway. I approached him and told him that I saw someone in the building whom I didn't recognize, who had behaved suspiciously. The guard replied, "Well, there's lots of new people in the building," and continued on his way. Turning back, I walked through the cube areas of our suite and again saw the man. I approached him, and I think I asked him who he was in the building to see (or perhaps what his business was in the building). Now we were positioned in an open area with people. Garry, Greg, and Dale were visible and within earshot.

I said something to Garry to bring attention to this mysterious individual, but I don't recall the specific details. Garry then asked him if he had a company badge or a visitor's pass. He replied "no," to both. He then claimed he was here to meet Mike M. Both Dale and Greg, who were sitting at their desks, entered the name Mike M. name into the CDSID application. No current employee of that name did anyone of us know, and none showed up in the CDSID system as a resident of the RIC. The man then claimed that he came with others who were in the lobby, or that he originated in the lobby, or some such tale. None of it made much sense. Garry then suggested that we go down to the lobby to try to corroborate his story. Garry asked me to accompany them.

On the way down the elevator, we were getting more stories about who he worked for, what he was doing in the building, that he worked for a non-profit company, MAAT or something, that they were looking for funds, that he came on the shuttle, etc. When we arrived in the lobby, there was no one there to verify his story. We continued to try to understand his explanation, but at one point, a man Garry knew walked by, and Garry discreetly asked him to notify building security. The mystery man asked why were waiting in the lobby, and Garry answered he was waiting for his supervisor.

After about five minutes, a security guard arrived, and began questioning the man. The security guard requested ID, which was provided. Glancing at the mystery man's wallet, I noticed other driver's licenses behind the one that was presented. I asked the man for his cell phone number. He asked why I wanted it, before grudgingly reading out the digits. (I hoped that a record of a phone call might provide a lead as to the identity of this man). I walked into library where a woman sat behind the desk, the phone receiver at her ear. I asked in an urgent tone if I could make a call. She had a startled look on her face, but after a pause, she hung up the phone, and handed me the receiver. I dialed the number, and the mystery man promptly answered. I hung up, and returned to the lobby.

The security guard directed a few more questions at the man, then Garry asked the guard if he needed us for anything further. He replied no, and we re-entered the building. Garry proceeded to the cafeteria. I went back up to the building services office and told the security guard there was a situation in the lobby that required his attention. I then returned to my desk, grabbed my lunch tote, and headed to the atrium.

Later from the atrium table, I could see many more security guards present in the main lobby. Later, Ryan told me several local police officers had arrived and were 'interviewing' the man in a nearby conference room.

About an hour after lunch, a police officer and security supervisor showed up at my desk. Garry and I were interviewed by the police and security supervisor about the details surrounding our experiences.

Later, I received an email from a company security investigator. He was very appreciative of our actions. He said he had been after this guy for a year, and had footage of the guy using stolen employee credit cards at various stores in the surrounding area. The investigator provided a link to the OTIS system (criminal database) showing us who the guy was and his considerable criminal record.

(A little background: credit cards were being lifted from wallets, jackets, purses, etc., in cubicles in Dave’s building over the last year or so, and then being used in various local businesses until being cancelled. The fellow apprehended is a suspect in these crimes, but of course we must observe that tedious legal principle of presumption of innocence.)

In addition to the appreciation of the local gendarmes, Dave and his colleagues received a personal commendation from the Vice President for their efforts in helping apprehend the (alleged) credit card thief. That would be their division VP, not the honorable Mr. Richard “Buckshot” Cheney.

Okay, time to put on the waders; we’re going in a little deeper:

“Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. If there are enough notable exceptions, then protest reaches a critical mass. We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’” [Henrik Hudson School Library Media Centre] (Sorry I can’t find a more specific citation for the whole quotation.)

I offer the preceding story as a suitable anthesis for Mr. Burke’s dreary prescription.

King of the Road

I know how to play exactly one song on the piano, and it’s “King of the Road” by the late Roger Miller. I learned it as a youngster, and haven’t forgotten it. I can play and sing about a thousand songs on the guitar, including some Roger Miller tunes, but on the piano I know only one song and it’s “King of the Road.”

Roger Miller was an absolute genius. If you’re not familiar with his work, I strongly encourage you to obtain, by whatever means necessary, a sizeable selection of his music. Be sure your selection includes “King of the Road” of course, but also, “Dang Me,” “You Can’t Rollerskate in a Buffalo Herd,” and “My Uncle Used to Love Me But She Died.” “Doo Whacka Doo” and “Burma Shave” should make your list if possible as well, and I would recommend “The Moon is High and So Am I” to round things out. He sang some serious songs as well, mostly sentimental ballads.

While visiting friends in Abilene, TX last year, we were treated to an absolutely wonderful steak dinner at Joe Allen’s, and then our friends gave us a tour of the new music department facilities at Abilene Christian University, where I had the singular opportunity to play “King of the Road” on a brand new $85,000 Steinway grand piano on the stage of their auditorium. Our host, a (former) music director at ACU, looked on nervously, but Roger Miller would have been proud.

My dad, probably inadvertently, turned me on to Roger Miller - he was closer to the Roger Miller era, and spun a Roger Miller LP once in a while on the living room turntable. He’s also a very good piano player - quite talented, has played for many years, does command performances, etc., even plays in public once in a while. I, on the other hand, know only one song on the piano, which we’ve already established, and it’s a darned good thing I at least know one:

20 some-odd years ago a friend of mine got married and your faithful editor was in the wedding party. At the rehearsal dinner, my friend’s mother, after having had maybe just half a drink more than she needed, requested that I play something on the piano. I declined, offering what seemed to me the plausible excuse that I was not a piano player. She persisted, thinking I was just being modest and needing a little more encouragement. I continued to insist that I could play the clarinet and guitar, neither of which was on hand, but not the piano. She wasn’t hearing any of it. I realized of course that she had me confused with my father (we were family friends from the old neighborhood), and I shared that with her. Her insistence unflagging, she just about physically pushed me up to the piano bench and I reluctantly complied. I sheepishly played part of the one song I knew, and not very well at that. I think she was finally convinced that I was telling the truth. I did redeem the situation somewhat by having the real piano player play the chords while I hollered out a stirring rendition of “Wild Thing.” If the Jackson, MI Holiday Inn lounge had had aisles, they’d have been dancing in ‘em!

Yes, it’s true, I’ve been playing the same song on the piano for well over 20 years. Consider it my personal tribute to the memory of the late, great Roger Miller.

Update on Cockfighting Laws

A 13 March 07 AP article informs us that cockfighting will now be illegal in NM as of June 15^th of this year. You may recall from the 31 January 2007 VOB on the subject of cockfighting that NM and LA were two states in which this sorry occupation is still legally tolerated. Well now we’re down to just LA, and their governor, Kathleen Blanco, now claims to be disposed to outlaw it there as well.

One down, one to go!

Chi-Square Distribution

A lot of people have been asking lately, “Bruck, please tell me about the Chi-Square distribution.” Applied statistics being near and dear to my heart, I’m all to happy to oblige. But first, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s one of the Chi-Square distribution with ten degrees of freedom (Chi being a Greek letter that looks like a cursive capital X):

Deborah Jeane Palfrey has pleaded not guilty to federal racketeering and other charges from her alleged activities running a prostitution ring in the Washington, DC, area, according to an article in the 10 March 2007 Washington Times.

The next question, of course, is what can you do with it? Some big-brained genius long ago discovered that variances (squares of standard deviations) distribute according to the Chi-Square distribution. Actually proving this is way beyond the scope of your typical VOB missive, but it does make intuitive sense: for a given sample size, which indicates a particular number of degrees of freedom, the probability of a variance being equal or less than zero is zero (squares of simple numbers can never be negative), but rapidly rises toward a mode value. It then gradually tails off, as the probablility of a variance being really large shrinks in likelihood with increasing variance.

Ms. Palfrey was indicted last week on charges related to her purportedly running a prostitution business employing 132 women in DC. Palfrey insists that her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, is a perfectly legal escort service that employed “contractors” and clientele from “the higher walks of life.” The “contractors” were required to be college-educated women, and charged the clients up to $300 for an evening of “fantasy.”

Okay, fine, Bruck, but what has the Chi-Square distribution done for me lately?

The simplest thing you can do with it is compare the variance of a sample to that of a population whose variance is assumed to be known. Let’s say you were producing multiple copies of a particular item, and those items showed a certain known amount of variability when one item is compared to another. Then you change something in the process to try to reduce that variability. You could use the Chi-Square test to determine whether or not the process change made a difference.

For several weeks, Palfrey has been threatening to release her client records to the public, claiming that she needs the money for her legal defense, and also claiming that there are so many “high profile” clients on her lists that the uproar would be huge.

Of course you might say, what if you don’t know the variance in advance, or what if you want to compare the variance of one sample of items to that of another sample. Then what? Why then, of course, you would use the F Test, named in honor of Sir Robert Fisher, and which is the ratio of two Chi-Square distributions.

Of course the tacit implication is that if the prosecution drops the case against her, the records will remain sealed. Presumably this would also allow her to continue to operate her escort service, and of course it would also allow her to continue to apply other forms of extortion as she sees fit.

Another, related use of the Chi-Square distribution is the test for association, or more directly, the test for proportions of attribute data. Let’s say you want to know if one teacher is better than another, based on which one’s students pass a test more frequently. You could use the Chi-Square test for association to make this determination.

But… is she bluffing? Is she holding two pair and raising? Or does she really have a bomb to drop on numerous prominent businessmen and politicians? Bruck says, “There’s only one way to find out!”

A third use of our friend Mr. Chi-Square, is the “goodness of fit” test, which is used to determine whether or not a sample of data belongs to a particular family of distributions - Normal, Binomial, Poisson, Uniform, or even the Chi-Square distribution itself. The way this is done is by geometrically applying the test for proportions to “slices” of the data as it’s naturally distributed.

Of course you might well ask, “Bruck, what gives you the right to cast the first stone?” Well, I’m not really in the stone-throwing business - that’s the prosecutor’s job. I’m just telling you what I think. It seems pretty obvious to me that the charges are true, and I’m actually surprised that it’s taken this long for them to make a case against her. Rumors have been going around for years about this “escort service,” and she advertises for employees (or at least used to) pretty explicitly right in the local “alternative” papers. Whether she’s bluffing or not, we should follow the laws under which we live, and make her play her trump card in the process. If some dirty secrets get exposed, then her clients will eventually thank her and the prosecutors for giving them a good hard shove down the road to redemption.

Isn’t applied statistics fascinating? If you’re really interested, next time I’ll discuss the Student’s T test, another veritable goldmine of statistical functionality.

Identity Crisis

I got some disturbing news the other day. A body composition analysis, sponsored by my workplace gym, revealed that only 20% of me is worth anything. A technician held a foam housing containing a non-contacting sensor to my right bicep, pressed a button on the machine to which it was attached, read some cryptic numbers from its display, and delivered the bad tidings. I’m 22% fat, which is “fair” for a man of my age and IQ; ideal would be in the teens -- I’m working on it!

Another data point the machine deduced from my aura was water content. According to its electromechanical divinations, I’m approximately 58% water. One implication of this is that I’m 2% dehydrated, as I was informed by the technician who appeared far more concerned about it than I was. A far more important implication of this is the result of some simple math: if you take out the fat and water, 100 - 22 - 58 = 20% actual substance remains - that means the working part of my bones, muscle, skin, brain, solar plexus, etc., comprise only 20% of my total being.

So my motivation to get in better shape, in addition to getting my doctor off my back and maintaining my appearance as arm candy for the talented and exceptional Mrs. Bruck, is in part driven my desire to increase the relative amount of substance of which I’m composed. Granted, the best I can hope for is the low 30’s, but it’s good to have something to shoot for anyway.

I won’t bore you with the details of my workout regimen. In fact I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request that the entire human race not bore me with theirs either. Seriously, I’m glad that you’ve found something that works for you, but if I need more detail, believe me, I’ll ask.

Here’s just one piece of advice I would offer regarding physical fitness: don’t listen to Steve Martin on your Ipod while benchpressing.

Speaking of benchpressing, I was reading an article in the Washington (com)Post sports section (which I pretty much never read - I think my male sports chromosome is missing), and I came across an article on Thomas Clayton, a young man with a less-than-perfect criminal record who’s vying to be a running back in the NFL draft. He’s 5’10”, same as Bruck, 220#, same as Bruck give or take, and bench presses 440#, okay that’s a little different - a bit less than twice what I can bench on a good day. Well, as Meatloaf says, two out of three ain’t bad! I wonder what percentage substance Clayton is comprised of. On second thought, I don’t think I want to know.