John's Miscellany

Some thoughts on one movie rating...

2011-07-29T23:41:00.001-04:00

I haven't seen the new "Winnie the Pooh" movie. However, I do have a question about its rating. According to Jay Leno's Headlines, and also seen in this link to a movie review, "Winnie the Pooh" is rated G for "(violence, profanity)." This begs the questions:

1. Exactly how much violence and profanity can a G-rated movie have?

2. Isn't it really rated G for everything? Obviously not "Winnie the Pooh," but, if a movie only has G-rated violence and profanity and several shots of full-frontal nudity, it's rated R for the nudity. (Then again, Winnie the Pooh doesn't wear pants, and I don't think Tigger or Eeyore wear anything.)

3. Exactly how much violence and profanity has there ever been in "Winnie the Pooh?" Is somebody misunderstanding words like "Pooh" and "heffalump?"

(OK, I know I'm making way too much out of what's almost certainly an editing mistake, but the idea of a movie rated G for violence and profanity still amuses me.)

Ramdom thoughts on the Atlas movie...

2011-04-16T16:13:00.001-04:00

Usually, I'm not too particular about when I see movies that I want to see. Often, as long as I see it on the big screen, whenever will be fine. The movie "Atlas Shrugged, Part 1" is different--knowing how much stock Hollywood puts into opening weekend returns, I want to see the movie this weekend; I'd have seen it opening night if the mall weren't a madhouse on the weekends. Ever since I heard about it, it's been at the top of my list for upcoming movies.

What I'm trying to figure out is why I want to see the movie so badly when I've already read and reread the book. For movies where I haven't read the book, the movie is a quick and easy way to experience the story. However, my enthusiasm in this case seems more difficult to explain.

I suppose it's possible that it's a quick way to experience the book again. As with the books where the movie is the quick way to see what's it about for a first time, it could also be a quick way to experience it again.

Somewhat going against that idea, though, it occurs to me that seeing the movie is a way to see the book as others envision it and get new perspective on it.

A third idea is that the simple idea that a good novel would represent a solid start on the way to making a good movie. This one may apply a bit less to the "Atlas Shrugged" movie than most cases--the movie was made by an entrepreneur who has never produced a movie before, the director has little experience, and I've never heard of most of the stars, and the budget is small by Hollywood standards. So, while I like the actress who's playing Dagny, I have some apprehensions about how the movie will come out.

I think the main reason I'm looking forward to the movie so much, however, is that it's a way to celebrate the book. It's a way of going out and saying, "this is a great book--pay attention!" One reason why I tend to lean most heavily on this theory is that I've been trying to urge Donald to see the movie--alas, it seems, to no avail. I also tend to think this is the case because I really want to see it opening weekend so it'll have good returns in the way the movie industry seems to care about, and have them despite the limited release.

Regardless, though, I'm glad to finally see that Atlas Shrugged will make it to the big screen.

A flood of puns

2010-03-14T22:28:00.002-04:00

I caught a moment of Geraldo's show on Fox News. Apparently Bound Brook, NJ is flooded.

Maybe it's wrong, but I think if it's flooded, it should be UnBound Brook. It may be the Raritan river, but it doesn't seem that rare...

I know I'm being pedantic, but...

2009-11-05T00:38:00.003-05:00

I heard TV newscasters say this on TV the other night, and again read it online in the New York Times. "Warren Buffett is buying the Burlington Northern."

No, he isn't. That is, unless he invented a time machine, went back to the mid '90s, and bought it before it could merge with the Santa Fe, in which case I would think the development of time travel would be the main focus of the story. Berkshire Hathaway is buying the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation. At least get the railroad's name right.

Resurfacing?

2009-09-22T11:07:00.003-04:00

When I was in Cumberland, MD on the Capitol Limited, heading west on our trip to Alaska (so we're talking Monday, August 17 here--I'm writing this on the 18th in Chicago but not posting it immediately), I wanted to access the Internet. There's free WiFi that you can access from the train in Cumberland, so I took advantage of that.

Well, when I completed the now required sign-up page (which seriously limited what I could do online, since that took time and the train's schedule didn't give me much to begin with, and which also made it look like it might not be free next time we pass through, but that's another matter), up popped an ad for "Surface" available on iTunes.

Why on Earth would they advertise a short lived show from so long ago? Was it a new offereing when they WiFi system was set up (they had a copyright date of "2007-2009")? Or has "Surface" developed a cult following that I'm unaware of? Or something else? That one just mystifies me...

Until the cows come home...

2009-08-21T01:54:00.000-04:00

My dad recounted a story from his days as a banker the other night: He once asked a prospective dairy farmer if he knew anything about raising cows. The farmer replied that he didn't, but the cows knew.

Happy thoughts?

2009-08-18T10:08:00.000-04:00

Last Wednesday, I was having dinner with my dad when I heard The Partridge Family's "C'Mon, Get Happy" on the TV. My first thought was surprise that "The Partridge Family" was on in primetime; before I could turn around and determine that it was, in fact, background music for some Disney movie, the thought occurred to me that it might have been a commercial.

Now, for the core of my thought: You could probably use the song "C'Mon, Get Happy" for ads for any product except life insurance...

Oddball on the tracks...

2009-08-03T22:37:00.002-04:00

Every now and then, I'll see something while train watching that will baffle me. Tonight was one such night for me.

Coming home from dinner tonight, we were stopped at the crossing for Greenridge, (I think the exact time was 10:24 PM, but I'm not sure--it was close to that, but I didn't look at the clock at the exact moment the train passed). A CSX engine (a wide cab model, but I don't know the exact type of engine) passed southbound with a single Amtrak Auto Train car carrier. I know it was an Amtrak carrier--I could read that in the streetlight.

My first thought was that something went wrong with the carrier and it was being taken back to Sanford. However, that doesn't seem to make sense to me--it seemed to be running at normal track speed--at least for a freight train. If there were a serious enough problem to require it to be pulled from the consist, wouldn't they need to move it beck to Sanford more slowly, and why not take it to Lorton? On the other hand, I'm hard-pressed to think about where else the carrier might come from. If it were accidentally left off yesterday's train, I'd think it would have simply been put on today's train. If it's returning from maintenance in Beech Grove, I'd think Amtrak trains would take it to the Washington area (perhaps not D.C. per se due to wire clearances, but the Cardinal could take it to Charlottesville or Alexandria, and CSX only handle it to Lorton), or mix it in with freight cars (though all Amtrak cars have "do not hump" written all over them--that seems like it might be problematical)--a special CSX move from Indiana seems wasteful and unlikely.

I've also got to wonder if passengers cars were in the carrier. If so, there will be some seriously ticked-off and upset people in Lorton tomorrow morning.
'

My old movie review website is closing!

2009-07-25T07:46:00.004-04:00

Well, an era of indecision is ending.

Eleven years ago, I started an online movie review service. For about a year and a half, I posted regular movie reviews on the web on GeoCities (free web-hosting--an essential component when no one is paying you), and sent them out in e-mails to subscribers (also free). Then I got a writing job with a magazine in Washington, and subsequently, burnout. The result of that was that since 2000, my website had been in limbo--I never officially closed it, but didn't post any new reviews either.

Yahoo!, for whatever reason, is closing down GeoCities for good. I can only fault Yahoo! for this--it was great to have free web-hosting even if it meant carrying their ads and bandwidth limitations. Corporate greed (there‘s a heavy push for us on GeoCities to move to their very expensive paid hosting--I'm not going to pay), incompetence (blogger.com, YouTube, MySpace, and a zillion other sites prove there‘s still a place for free hosting online), and shortsightedness (there are very few web services with a 15 year history--that alone would be a reason to try to keep it open) are the only explanations I can imagine.

In the meantime, I’m going to officially pull the plug. I plan to redirect the domain name here (another free writing project I don’t tend to as often as I should, but that’s another issue), and copy the content over here (marking it with the tag "ReviewsbyJohn"). That way, I’ll be able to keep the reviews online without having to maintain a new site. However, ReviewsbyJohn as a separate service is no more. I will, however, leave the reviews over there for the benefit of anyone with old links, and so they’ll still be available here, if Yahoo! reconsiders.

And I will miss the film-reel graphic--I made that myself with Windows Paint.

Here’s looking at you, kid.

Old English/New Mistake

2009-03-15T16:27:00.004-04:00

"Monday on 'Good Morning Jacksonville,' the works of Shakespeare were done in Old English, but one performance troupe has found a way to translate it into hip hop."

The above quote is from a commercial that aired during Saturday's "Jeopardy!" I caught one grammatical error (the antecedent for "it" is "the works of Shakespeare") and one factual error (Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English). I don't think I can deal with journalism such as this at 6AM on Monday.

Dulcinea's shocking experience

2009-02-13T01:43:00.001-05:00

It was cold here the other day. (OK--not cold by objective standards--but it got below freezing, which is cold by Florida standards.) And Dulcinea was rolling around on the new carpet for reasons known only to her. And she meowed, and I knew she wanted me to pet her. And I did--and zap! A nice, pretty strong, static shock. The poor cat was so scared she took off and ran under the bed.

And the chicken said...?

2008-12-14T19:30:00.006-05:00

Earlier today, I was trying to think about what my earliest memory was. One of the candidates was a memory of a trip to the Staten Island Zoo when I was very young (three or four--so this trip would have been in 1977 or 1978). What I remembered in particular was a talking chicken exhibit. I think the chicken had a name (I want to say Rodrigo or something like that, but I'm very, very far from certain about the bird's name). I also remember seeing a speaker (a metal box with slats on a post)--which makes me think that the whole thing was faked. At the very least, I'd be sure that the chicken's vocal talents were played-up greatly.

My dad had no recollection of the chicken, and a Google search found nothing that stuck out. So, I thought I'd ask if anyone out there had a memory of the "talking" chicken.

Black friday run amok...

2008-11-29T18:21:00.003-05:00

I will defend the commercialism of the holidays as much as anyone. Gift giving is an ancient way to reinforce friendships, and goes back to the very origins of Christmas. (I'd like to think the wise men bought their gifts.)

However, I don't participate in Black Friday. The malls and stores are too crowded--and it's not like there aren't other chances to buy Christmas presents.

The story about the Wal-Mart worker trampled to death really, really disturbs me. I have one very close friend who works in Wal-Mart in the Daytona area, and another in Indiana who recently quit her job with the store, so the thought of a worker at the chain being killed is especially chilling to me. What the HELL was wrong with the shoppers who burst into the store? Never mind the employee who was killed--once he fell, shoppers further back wouldn't have known he was there, and could have tripped over him unaware it was a person. It's horrible that the man was killed, but it was arguably an accident. But the shoppers who wouldn't leave are deeply disturbing--the shoppers who refused to leave the store and said "I've been on line since yesterday morning," are just insane--they not only apparently blew off Thanksgiving with their families to go to Wal-Mart (hello--Wal-Mart will be open again between Friday morning and Christmas), but they wouldn't leave even after someone had died! I'm cheap, but a Ferrari for $1 isn't a big enough bargain to make that behavior to seem reasonable to me.

I'd also add my condolences to the family of Jdimytai Damour; whether it was an accident or homicide, what happened to him is undeniably a tragedy.

Lipstick on a pig

2008-09-11T14:58:00.001-04:00

If you're wondering why I'm already sick to death of the election cycle, this whole "lipstick on a pig" brouhaha is a perfect example. Let me share a few thoughts on the subject.

1. I don't for one moment believe McCain, Palin, or any of their partisans actually believe that Obama called Palin a pig, or meant to. Cut the crap. If this is a comment that merits an apology, then let's also demand to hear one from McCain, Cheney, Petraeus, and everyone else who has used this expression also.

2. As long as I'm questioning the sincerity of the Republicans' indignation, I would note that Palin compared herself to a dog with the original joke. "Pig" is not much better or worse than "dog." "Bitch" and "dog" are insults themselves. At this point, I would wonder if the whole point of that stupid joke was to create a lipstick reference so that if Obama used the cliche, they could cry foul over nothing.

3. Being fair to both sides, if Obama is as great a rhetorician as his partisans claim he is, why on earth is he using such a hackneyed old cliche?

4. Getting back to McCain and Palin, if they're really this mad over such a trivial perceived insult, then you certainly shouldn't want either in the oval office. It would be extraordinarily dangerous to the human race to have such a sensitive temper in control of the nuclear trigger. If these two get elected, you can count on four years of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, etc., using the word pig to excess.

5. Am I the only person who has noticed that there is very little discussion of agricultural policy in all this discussion of pigs? Or any real issue, for that matter?

Don't tell me this is news.

2008-08-27T19:14:00.004-04:00

Pretty much ALL of ABC's 6:30 nightly newscast was devoted to the Democratic National Convention. Specifically, to the fact that they nominated Obama to be their presidential candidate.

If they had nominated (either) Clinton, that would be news. If that had nominated Richardson, that would be news. If they had nominated Ron Paul, it would REALLY be news since he's a Republican. The fact that they nominated Obama--the apparent candidate for several months--simply makes it an orchestrated and ridiculous formality to confirm what had previously been decided. Not news. It merits a one-sentence mention on the news broadcast; it doesn't warrant more than 24 minutes of live coverage.

The only news on the show was the story about Olympian Dara Torres getting surgery on her shoulder. So we're talking about six minutes. Give me a break!

The only interesting thing about such fluff is is thet don't do it again for the Republican Convention, does it reveal bias or learning that it was a waste of time with the Democrats?

Two (somewhat belated) thoughts about Sen. Edwards

2008-08-19T04:10:00.000-04:00

I watched Sen Edwards' interview on ABC's Nightline on August 8. The truth be known, I did so more from habit than desire. I don't like him (or most politicians) and didn't really care what he had to say about his adultery. However, having done so, I did have two quickthoughts on the interview. Cheap shots, perhaps, but I feel they're fair.

1. I have a hard time thinking of a case where a politician seemed sleazier to me than that interview. Being in the Senate alone is usually enough to earn my mistrust, but in this case, the feeling I had after watching the interview wasscuzzy in the same way, but to a worse degree, that I felt after dealing with the flood when the toilet overflowed.

2. Although John Edwards said in the interview that, “My Lord and my wife have forgiven me.” I would note that neither of them actually appeared on the program to confirm this. We have only the word of an admitted liar.

Fielding questions

2008-07-31T04:32:00.003-04:00

Some news stories just leave me skeptical. The recent investigations about lead in AstroTurf is a case in point.

On the one hand, I don't trust the government to look honestly into the safety of AstroTurf. Not with who know how many public schools on the hook to replace the stuff if it were dangerous.

On the other hand, I question whether this might not be a tempest in a teapot. After all, it's not like people are eating the stuff. You walk or run on it, wearing shoes typically. Isn't it possible, even if there is lead in the stuff, that it still might not be worth the expense to remove it?

Out of season springs to mind.

2008-07-21T14:11:00.004-04:00

We're waiting on the AC repairman. So I'm answering the phone more quickly than usual, and generally trying to keep the line clear. (Of course, this trip online is an exception to that, but we'll let that pass.)

We got a call from a telemarketer. Female voice--99.999% sure she was recorded--selling satellites. I hung up, and them I had a "did she just say..." moment.

She said (I believe), "we're calling to promote our new spring packages." [Emphasis mine.]

Is once a quarter too often to change the recording? It hasn't been spring in several weeks. Or they're way early.

Missed it by that much

2008-07-20T15:22:00.007-04:00

"Get Smart:" *** (out of 5)

Warning: here be spoilers!

With the AC on the fritz, my dad and I decided to take in a movie after dinner. We had both wanted to see "Get Smart," and the timing worked well, so that's what we saw.
It has been eight years since I shut down my movie review service. I want to get in the habit of blogging more, so I thought I'd try writing reviews here. This movie is not an easy one to review, either.
"Get Smart" pretty-much takes its cue from the '60s TV show of the same title. Maxwell Smart (played by Steve Carell) is an analyst from Control who desperately wants to become a field agent. When the terrorist organization Kaos attacks Control Headquarters and steals files with the identities of most of the field agents, he gets his chance.
In the end, Carell holds his own as Smart, and the chemistry between Smart and Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) is very good. The film also does one thing that the original series never did--it explains how the bumbling Max got to be Agent 86 in the first place.
The real problem with the movie is that it never makes it out of the shadow of the original TV series--which was one of the best shows in the history of television. Two prominent gags in the movie--the fly and the beaded curtain--are lifted straight from the television series, and the cone of silence gets an electronic makeover. There are also nods to the original show--an amusing cameo by Bernie Kopell (the original Siegfried), and a Control Museum that figures prominently. With the museum, however, we do, however, come perilously close to suggesting that there's a new Maxwell Smart and Siegfried in the same universe as the old ones.
The movie also contains some iffy elements. At one point, Siegfried--who is described in the film as the leader of Kaos--gets a call from someone who seems to be his superior, but that idea is never developed. (Sequel setup-perhaps? There does seem to be a spin-off DVD in the can already.) There are also sequences in the film where the Chief (Alan Arkin) is inexplicably violent (and not towards Kaos agents). It also stretches credibility that even an agent as bumbling as Maxwell Smart would use a match to remove gum from his shoe while on an airplane. Some muddled "fat acceptance" messages also appear, but still feel out of place.
The movie does take advantage of the new medium--the stunt sequences go beyond what could readily be done for the TV show. For example, the miniature crossbow and flamethrower on Smart's Swiss Army knife are both put to very good effect. There is also one very funny sight gag at the end that simply could not have been on 1960's TV. The movie definitely earns its PG-13 rating.
I enjoyed "Get Smart." The challenge in reviewing it is that I'm having trouble figuring out how much I enjoyed the movie on its own merits, and how much it was simply making me nostalgic for the superior television show.

Home on derange

2008-07-20T05:24:00.004-04:00

In my blog entry about the railroad sites in Colorado, I just want to know why the spell checker thought it would be a good idea to change "Durango" to "Derange."

They're helpful for proofreading, but sometimes the spellchecker is just deranged.

The AC unit is dead--and nearly took the house with it!

2008-07-20T04:33:00.001-04:00

While we were out on the road, we got a call from Donald--the AC unit died.

We got home at 11 on Friday night. I tried calling the AC repairman--to my amazement (since they didn't with American Home Shield), they came on a Saturday!

To make a long story short, the problem is that the cutoff switch basically fried itself. It's not clear whether it burned, blew up, or simply melted. One thing is sure--it very nearly burned the house down: what was left was clearly charred. The outside unit has been nothing but trouble since we got it--ever since American Home Shield had it installed in 1997, we've had an average of at least one heating or AC failure each year. It was clear they only paid for the cheapest unit possible and they installed a piece of junk. The failure of the unit in 2004 is why we finally dumped the company, and the cutoff switch that the outside unit overloaded was installed in 2005. (That was because of a crooked repairman: he said that it wasn't safe to work on the unit without a cutoff switch, and that he could install it for a couple of hundred extra. When I asked him to sign a paper to the effect of the work being substandard, he backtracked--we still needed the switch installed, but all of a sudden, he couldn't install it; we'd need to get an electrician.)

The repairman today recommended that we replace the outside unit, saying he thought it overloaded the cutoff switch. Since it has caused so many problems--including an obviously serious one this week, I agreed to replace it. We're even getting a new cutoff switch and a new thermostat thrown into the deal.

And good riddance to the old unit!

The Great Railroad Tour of Colorado

2008-07-20T03:34:00.004-04:00

I was lax blogging from the road this last trip. Mainly, I wanted to recover from the chaos of the flood, and unwind. A big part of the trip was the Mensa AG, but the other half which was just for my father and myself was our great railroad tour of Colorado. We got to six railroad-related landmarks. I enjoyed all six greatly.

The Monday before the AG, I went to the Colorado Railroad Museum. It's a nice museum. One highlight for me was seeing the Galloping Geese--the first time I'd seen one. (They have two: #2 and #6; I have always had an odd fascination for those railcars.) The other highlight was the Santa Fe Super Chief observation car Navajo; I kept going back in my mind to the thought that my mother may have ridden in that car on her west coast trip when she was young. (Perhaps a longshot, I know, but possible.)

The Monday after the AG, I rode the Georgetown Loop Railroad. That was my least favorite of the narrow gauge railroads--mainly because it's shorter than the others and is currently using diesels. However, I feel it's unfair to describe it negatively--it's still pretty good, and well worth the ride. Also, if you're there, take the mine tour.

On Tuesday, I took the Pikes Peak Cog Railway. That was definitely a high-point of the trip! (Sorry--I couldn't resist a pun.) I was pleased that I had few problems at 14,110 feet. (I was a little short of breath for a moment up there--enough to make me glad my dad elected to remain at the hotel.) I lucked out with my ticket--I had a seat right in front of the cab window of the downhill side of the train. I've never summited a mountain even nearly that high before, and that is definitely the easy way to do it.

On Thursday, my dad and I took the Royal Gorge train. That is a beautiful line--and I recommend spending the extra money for the dome car.

On Friday, we took the Cumbres and Toltec. As a libertarian, I hate to admit this--since this is the only government run operation of the five railroads--but this is probably the best of the five railroads. The scenery along the line is great. The only downside if the line is that you need to ride a bus one way to take the whole line in one day.

The final line we took was the Durango and Silverton. Like the Cumbres and Toltec, it is also a very well-run scenic railroad. The scenery is perhaps the most spectacular of the five routes I mentioned--especially along the High Line. They also have a nice museum at the Durango station. The biggest downside is that it was very crowded.

In short, if you're out in that part of the country, all five railroads are well worth taking and the museum is worth a visit, and all six attractions are very enjoyable.

Finding different roots than expected

2008-07-10T04:17:00.003-04:00

I've been bad about blogging about my trip. I've been away nearly two weeks on the railroad tour of Colorado/Mensa AG, and this is my first blog.

Today was a sightseeing day in Colorado Springs. This afternoon, I saw the Manitou Cliff Dwellings, Cave of the Winds, and Garden of the Gods. Before dinner this evening, my dad and I tried to find the location of Freedom School, where my parents met in 1962. We took off following the directions in a Gazette article online, and weren't convinced we were on the right track. So, we went back to Palmer Lake, and stopped in the Depot restaurant. They provided directions to a school we passed before. We took another look up (the school was founded in 1927, so if they took over Freedom School's property, they did so late in their history), snapped a picture, and left again.

Since they had been helpful and were convenient (and train themed), we ate at the Depot. In the "too appropriate for words" category, the picture on the wall across from our booth was of the Hopewell station--as in the Hopewell, NJ where we lived in the early '80s. I wouldn't have expected another bit of my past to show up on this side trip!

They're fast--like Greyhounds

2008-06-26T03:39:00.002-04:00

The headline "Six Arrested in Alleged Brothel Bus" pretty much says it all.

This redefines the whole concept of "Pimp My Ride."

On the other hand, it could get more people to ride mass transit. And I do mean ride.

And I'm not going to read anything else into the closing paragraph's line, "The three-day initiative led to the ultimate arrest of 69 other people..." just that it's an interesting number of arrests.

License to promote government websites

2008-06-25T22:36:00.002-04:00

Today was the day for the trip down to the tax collector's office to get a new license plate for the Camry.

I would note: I live in Florida. I do not live in myflorida.com; that's not even a state. If the State of Florida is going to promote their website on license plates, they ought to pay car owners for the advertising; the $37 check that changed hands did not go from the county to me.

As long as I'm griping, two other points. First, what genius decided that Floridians need a new license plate every five years? Is the aluminum lobby in Tallahassee that strong? I mean--it's not like the old plate wore out. Second, I note that Florida's website is a .com. The .com domain was intended for PRIVATE companies. Florida is a state; it should have a .fl.us domain.

Snowy and death

2008-06-24T03:24:00.004-04:00

Snowy passed away today. It wasn't unexpected--the vet said back in January that he probably had less than six months less to live. Last weekend, he stopped eating, and was clearly had trouble walking. When I took him to the vet today, she said what I had feared--his death was imminent, and euthanasia was the most human choice.

I believe in an afterlife, and I believe that animals--at least animals as evolved as cats--go there. One of my main reasons is a story where Snowy was the center. Since I've been recounting it today, I thought I'd offer it here, also.

In 2002, Mrs. Heinlein went into the nursing home. Snowy came out to live with us. He was aloof. This didn't surprise me, he had always been aloof, at least to me. My main contact with him before he came to live with us was things like hurricane evacuations and computer repairs--which I'm sure he regarded as disruptions in his life.

In any case, on the night Mrs. Heinlein passed away, I was up late on my computer. (BTW--as an aside, the cat pictured with Mrs. Heinlein in the above link is Snowy.) At about 4:30 that night/morning, Snowy started yowling. Peabrain yowls randomly--but that was always uncharacteristic for Snowy. For a couple of minutes, he was yelling his head off mournfully. Then he settled down. Sometime around 5:30 or 6 that morning, the nursing home called--Mrs. Heinlein passed away in her sleep. The following evening, Snowy jumped up on my lap. He had barely approached me before then. After then, he was a habitual lap cat.

Somehow, Snowy knew Mrs. Heinlein passed away--and before we did, probably exactly when she passed away. The only explanation that makes sense is that he sensed her soul leaving her body.

My belief in the afterlife presents me with a philosophic quandary. I prefer reason to faith, and I don't like to believe in things I don't understand and/or can't prove. While the episode with Snowy is a compelling anecdote in my mind, I didn't have the presence of mind to even haul out a tape recorder when Snowy was acting up--I have no evidence to prove it happened. (Not that a tape recording of a cat meowing would prove anything metaphysical.) I also have to admit, I also want to believe something of our minds live on after death, beyond what's shown in our works and our progeny--and that desire could color my judgment. At the same time, I don't have a hypothesis of HOW the soul could separate from the body and live on. Nor do I have a great deal of confidence in any particular traditional description of the afterlife. But I don't have a better explanation for what could have set him off. A "psychic bond" is just as tenuous as an "immortal soul"--that explanation also has scant proof and involves the mind reaching beyond the body; in the sense that both involve the cat sensing her soul, it's essentially the same explanation. Could he have heard something, or could something have set off that magnetic sense cats are supposed to have? Atlantic Beach is more than 30 miles away, with the city of Jacksonville in between--I'd think that would drown out any sensory information.

In any event, today was Snowy's turn to find out the real story about the afterlife. Believing that something of him lives on out there somehow, doesn't make his death any easier. Rest in peace, Snow Cat.

Chef's plans are hard to stomach.

2008-06-08T18:12:00.002-04:00

According to a recent Reuters story, chef Gordon Ramsay is advocating fining restaurants that serve out-of-season produce. I don't know anything else significant about Ramsay's business plan or political views (I've seen ads for "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares" which is/was hosted by him--that's all); so this could be a sarcastic comment, or a proposal suggesting a law where he doesn't really want the law, but does want to push people into eating only in-season fruits and vegetables. However, the report from Reuters seemed to indicate this was a serious proposal, I'm taking it as such, and on that basis, using it as a perfect example of someone wanting to misuse the law for personal benefit.

Ramsay is perfectly entitled to not want imported, out-of-season produce for any reason he may want. I'm sure he has his reasons to choose not to eat such fruits and vegetables: he may feel the energy used to import those products is wasteful and bad for the environment; he may feel that foreign agricultural workers are mistreated; he may feel it undermines traditional culture in some way. He is free to refrain from eating, buying, or serving that food he finds offensive for those reasons. No one should stop him from advocating the same course to others, either.

What is distressing about his desire to impose new laws and fines is that it goes beyond those choices. Everything I mentioned in the previous paragraph is something he is within his rights to do, but others are within their rights to do differently. Ramsay is trying to take away the choice. His reasons may be aesthetic--i.e., he simply finds it distasteful that people are eating foods in ways he doesn't like. Or they could be economic--i.e., his restaurants are losing business to other establishments because he won't serve foods that others will and that the public wants. Or they could be a combination of those reasons, or others I'm not thinking of. However, whichever of those motivations is behind his position is irrelevant. Others should be as free to make their culinary choices as Ramsay is to make his, but if the law he is advocating ever went into effect, the British public would have Ramsay's choices imposed upon them.

The bottom line is this: freedom requires tolerance. Other people will certainly do things that we think are stupid, wasteful, annoying, distasteful, or otherwise wrong. However, if those poor choices don't hurt us or others, then the proper course is to try and dissuade people from making such poor choices, but accept it and move on if they do anyway. Just because you or I don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Bubbles in the oil?

2008-06-07T03:57:00.003-04:00

While I was watching the news tonight, I caught a comment that intrigued me. George Soros testified before the Senate last Tuesday that part of the run-up in oil prices was due to a speculative bubble.

I had always accepted what seemed to be the conventional wisdom about the high prices: that strong demand (economic growth in China, India, etc., Americans' refusal to drive more fuel efficient vehicles), and tight and uncertain supplies (instability/tension/war in Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Columbia, etc.; price manipulation by places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, etc.; our own government's ridiculous refusal to drill in ANWR and offshore despite the presence of known oil reserves) lead to high prices just due to the laws of supply and demand. Since oil is relatively inelastic--people can't stop going to work, heating their homes in winter, buying food grown using diesel-powered machinery and petrochemical-based fertilizer and pesticides, etc.--the price was destined to rise until something gave; i.e., supply increased because the price was too high to resist entering the market, and/or demand dropped because the gas or whatever was simply unaffordable.

However, if part of the equation is pure speculation, then it suggests three things: first, it means that prices could go much higher than they otherwise might--in part because it's not rational forces controlling the market, but rather simple greed. Second, it suggests that at least prices won't stabilize anywhere higher than they are now--if part of the price now is due to speculation, and the speculators give up, then prices should drop. Third, it means it's going to be a lot harder to predict where prices are going, since it'll be hard to tell when when the bubble will burst.

I'm not sure Soros is right about this, but I'm not sure he's wrong, either. We'll see what happens in the future. It is something to think about, either way.

Random thoughts on the Green Line crashes

2008-05-31T01:35:00.003-04:00

Last Wednesday, there was a crash on the el in Chicago, and also a crash on Boston's trolley system. Curiously, both crashes were on their respective cities' Green Line route.

1. I didn't catch any mix-ups where reporters made claims about one city's crash when they meant the other (such as referring to a trolley in Chicago). This is not to say it didn't happen, but I didn't catch it.

2. If you're looking for a real-life example of a true coincidence, this seems to be it: there is no common cause between the two accidents. (Also note: nothing happened on Washington, D.C.'s Green Line.) It is certainly odd that both accidents were on the "Green Line." (I should note that both cities use letter codes to indicate the final destination of the train; I suspect those codes were different, but I'm not 100% sure of that, either way; so, in some sense, it might not have been the same line.)

3. I'd worry if two crashes in one day will discourage mass transit use; in this day of rising gas prices, that would only make things worse.

The flying prince

2008-05-08T02:19:00.002-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, Prince William flew a military helicopter to his girlfriend's house. There's nothing more romantic than a whirlybird on the front lawn.

What I find interesting about the story is that while critics called the flight "ridiculous and inappropriate," the government defended it, claiming "he achieved essential training objectives," that it was "fully authorized," and that the RAF claimed, "Battlefield helicopter crews routinely practice landing in fields and confined spaces away from their airfields as a vital part of their training for operations." Granted, helicopters in battle don't have great choices for landing sites, so picking oddball sites makes some sense. However, the obvious question that, it seems at least, no one has asked: when have RAF pilots previously flown to their girlfriends' homes?

Flood at home and no room at the inn

2008-05-08T00:54:00.006-04:00

You might not have noticed because I am irregular with my blogging, but the past couple of weeks, I have been online much less than usual.

On April 20, we went out to dinner. Donald used the bathroom before we left the house. By the time we were back, the water was to the front door. The handle of the toilet had stuck before, but this time (unlike before), it didn't drain through the bowl and out, but flooded the house. By the time we got back from dinner, it was to the front door.

I called Servpro, realizing the cleanup was beyond my abilities. Their estimate was over $10,000. It was covered by insurance, so the cost was not an issue. However, we had to clear out of the house.

My dad and I booked into the Comfort Inn Orange Park along with Snowy, Chessie, and Peabrain. (I planned to board Dulcinea and Ninotchka at the vet from the start--their history of hiding under beds made them poor candidates for a hotel stay, and five cats in the room was too much.) On the following Tuesday (the 22nd), they came into the room to clean the carpet. Later that night, one of the cats urinated on my bed. The desk clerk gave me new sheets, and told me to contact the maid to spray disinfectant the following morning, so I figured no great problem. The following morning, when I spoke with the maid, she responded, "Oh, you're checking out today." I called the front desk to clear up what I thought was a misunderstanding, and learned that way we were being evicted. The manager complained about the cat urinating on the bed, but also claimed the smell in the room was intolerable--a claim I find curious based on the fact that no one complained to my father or me when the carpet was cleaned (and if any hotel staff were in the room after that time, it was without our knowledge), and the fact that the only smell I could detect in the room was whatever solution was used to clean the carpet; the manager's further complaint about lost revenue (based on the need to deodorize the room) was also very dubious, since, even if the cats needed to be boarded, we'd have been willing to stay in the room (which I think further comments on the overall decent state of the room). In short, the reasons given by the manager don't mesh with the facts as I know them, and I'm still furious about being evicted for, as I see it, little reason and on very short notice; I'm on a crusade to discourage people from staying at the Orange Park Comfort Inn.

So, as of now, we're staying at the Rodeway Inn across the street. The cats are all boarded at a vet in Mandarin (their usual vet has a two-week limit on boarding; I went there first, but moved the cats the other day). A week ago Monday, Servpro declared the house dry. Sometime next week, the general contractor will do his work (mostly baseboard and trim work--repainting and recaulking, maybe some minor repairs beyond that), with the flooring people coming in when he's done.

The whole experience has been frustrating. Some people (such as State Farm and the contractors) have been very helpful in getting things back to order. Others (especially the Orange Park Comfort Inn's manager)--well, I'd be happier if they never stepped into my life.

This mistake always leaves me shaken up.

2008-04-20T08:50:00.004-04:00

No! No! No!

In an article about the recent Mt. Carmel, IL, earthquake, CNN wrote, "The epicenter of the earthquake -- the strongest in the region in 40 years -- was about seven miles below ground and 38 miles north-northwest of Evansville, Indiana, the USGS said."

That was wrong. CNN was wrong, period. The epicenter was probably 38 miles north-northwest of Evansville, but it was not seven miles below the ground. The focus likely was seven miles below ground. However, the epicenter is ALWAYS on the SURFACE of the earth. Without exception. Ever. That's what "epicenter" means.

FAA--Fouling American Aviation

2008-04-11T01:37:00.003-04:00

American Airlines, at the order of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has canceled thousands of flights this week, inconveniencing many thousands of passengers and costing the company tens of millions of dollars.

So, what exactly was wrong with the MD-80s. One would think that the engines were about to blow up or the wings fall off or something equally dramatic. One would be wrong. The twist ties holding bundles of wires together are a quarter of an inch too far apart.

How much do you want to bet that if McCain and Bush are still buddy-buddy in October, that the FAA won't be enforcing rules this disruptively right before the election?

A train wreck of fact checking

2008-03-27T04:04:00.003-04:00

I know I'm nitpicking, but I'm still disappointed--apparently, no one at the Boston Herald knows the difference between a boxcar and a bulkhead flatcar. It wasn't a boxcar that hit the train near Canton Jct., and you can see that clearly in the slideshow with this story. Just get the facts right, please!

They also apparently have a buggy comment program also--I tried to post the above as a comment with the story, but I kept getting an "Invalid security code" error--I'm guessing their webpage doesn't like Firefox.

On the positive side--it seems the engineer of the commuter train in the wreck deserves some kudos.

Not Egg-aggerating

2008-03-23T23:20:00.001-04:00

ABC News mentioned that Cadbury Eggs--a product I enjoy (perhaps too much) have gotten smaller. They think it's a way of increasing the price, as many products will do.

I, however, blame environmental problems. There's more bull these days. I think the heightened levels of bull have had an impact on the Easter Bunnies' habitat. This has lead to the clucking rabbits laying smaller eggs, and perhaps--though ABC News said nothing about this--fewer eggs, which will end with fewer egg-laying rabbits if we keep taking as many eggs as we have in the past.
The situation is dire!

Happy Easter.

Like father, like son--it's all Greek to me...

2008-03-21T03:03:00.004-04:00

Would the royal palace and outbuildings at Thebes be called the Oedipus Complex? (I suppose not not repressing that question might be called a Freudian slip.)

We may have to Laius low for a while after puns that bad. Call it a tragic flaw.

Perhaps prostitution is exploitation

2008-03-12T18:00:00.002-04:00

In the scandal that has resulted from Eliot Spitzer's tryst with a prostitute, the person I feel sorry for is Kristen. Kristen had to have sex with that self-righteous sleazeball for only $4300 without even the benefit of a bag on his head. Talk about an indecent proposal!

Land of the free?

2008-02-29T12:28:00.000-05:00

As Americans, we tend to think of ourselves as living in a free country. The phrase "land of the free" is still in our national anthem. And I still believe we can certainly do things that people in many countries can't do.

However, there is one persistent fact that calls our free status into serious question: a VERY large number of Americans are in prison. By "a VERY large number," I mean more in either raw numbers or per capita than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Any other--that includes brutal tyrannies like Burma, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Cuba. (And, before you say "well, the tyrannies execute you instead of imprisoning you, the story linked to above mentions that we rank sixth worldwide in the number of executions--so that's not the explanation.) If the prison population were in a single city, it would be the fourth largest city in the nation.

Still feel free?

Dis-charging

2008-02-01T22:46:00.000-05:00

My dad and I ate tonight with a friend at the restaurant where he works (so I don't want to mention his name or that of the restaurant here). We picked up the check as usual--it was $52 and change not counting the tip. I handed the waiter our charge card. He comes back with a receipt reading, "DECLINED: Amount Cannot Be Less Than One Dollar" (sic--I don't know why they capitalized each word). I asked the waiter to run the card again, and the same thing happened again. We finally had to pay with a different card.

Two thoughts crossed my mind: that we were less than $1 from the limit, or that the code might have been a euphemism used for suspect charges. So, I called the credit card company. We're more than $10,000 below the limit (which shocked me, since I thought that card had an $8000 limit), and the charges the lady read off were all legitimate ones. Further, the credit card company didn't even know there had been an attempt to run the card.

Have you ever heard about something like that before?

Specter haunting the Patriots

2008-02-01T16:56:00.000-05:00

I would like to set the record straight--I am NOT a fan of the New England Patriots. Mind you, I can't prove any of this: however I believe the "Spygate" scandal was the tip of the iceberg. I do not for one moment believe that an otherwise honest team cheated only once against a much weaker team. I think the cheating was endemic, that it was partly what led to their successes in past years, and that continuing cheating was responsible for their "16-0" regular season and playoff success this year. Even though I had long wanted to see a team go undefeated, I was very sad when New England did it this year because I don't believe they did it honestly. As harsh as the NFL's penalties were, I believe they should have fined the team far, far more. My personal name for the team is the "New England Cameramen." I hope the Giants tear them to shreds in the Super Bowl this Sunday.

As much as I dislike the New England Cameramen, there is one thing I unquestionably hate more: showboating politicians. Sen. Arlen Specter chose the week before the Super Bowl to make a stink about the Spygate scandal. I cannot conceive how this could in any way be a matter appropriate for congressional investigation; at the absolute worst possible case, it may rise to a simple criminal case; and I'm not even sure it's that bad. (I'm not fond of grandstanding D.A.'s either, but if fraud laws were broken by high-profile entities, what can you do?) I don't see Specter as standing up for the integrity of the NFL, I see him as unproductively trying to get his name in the news.

Sen. Specter: instead of focusing on the Patriots, why don't you work to repeal the Patriot Act? Do something good for a change!

Something is falling down, though it's not the bridges...

2008-02-01T04:00:00.000-05:00

I might forgive the Travel Channel's Top Ten Bridges program for saying the 8th-ranked Sydney Harbour Bridge crosses "the harbor of Australia's capital;" Sydney is the capital of New South Wales, and since Canberra is inland, I suppose Sydney is as much a port for it as anything else, and in any case, the show wasn't mainly about Australia. Still, I would hope for clearer geographical knowledge from the Travel Channel.

However, the error that made my skin crawl came with the second-place bridge. The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Kobe, Japan--the world's longest suspension bridge--is a worthy choice for the top ten list. However, they kept calling it the "Akashi Kaiyko Bridge"--and spelled it that way in on screen text! It's appalling that a program about bridges would get one of the featured bridges' names wrong, and yet still air!

Sweet, new Chinese food?

2008-01-28T23:33:00.000-05:00

I stumbled on a blurb on a local news website about Dunkin' Donuts opening its first franchise in mainland China. Buried deep in that story (well, as deep as possible in a seven paragraph blurb) was the comment, "The shops also will serve items customized for local tastes such as green tea and honeydew melon doughnuts..."

I can't speak for the local tastes of Shanghai, but I for one would like to try honeydew melon doughnuts--those sound good!

Some questions for Rudy...

2008-01-13T04:20:00.000-05:00

In a recent commercial of his, as well as on his campaign website, Rudy Giuliani promises the biggest tax cut in history. As a libertarian who sincerely believes in lower taxes with fiscal responsibility, I feel someone should ask Giuliani a few questions:

1. What recourse will we have if you don't present meaningful tax cuts to congress? For example, would you be willing to sign a sworn affidavit that you will do this, and that you'll support any effort to impeach you for perjury if you fail to do this?

2. How do you propose to get Congress to pass those tax cuts? President Bush's much more modest tax cuts faced strong resistance and ended up watered--down despite the fact he had a more cooperative congress than you're likely to have.

3. What programs are you going to end to lower government spending to responsibly fund the tax cut? Since meaningful tax cuts would likely require whole cabinet departments to be shut down, might you follow through with Reagan's and Gingrich's promises to abolish the Department of Education? I must point out that tax cuts funded through deficit spending are nothing of the sort--since they defer the taxes to later generations.

4. Assuming you can get a meaningful tax cut passed, how, in any way, does this mitigate your questionable track record as mayor of New York City?

It's a shame no one will ask Giuliani these questions on camera.

Hall of Fame strikes out

2008-01-09T04:02:00.000-05:00

I recognize the controversy around McGwire. I'm not convinced he did violate the rules; I also like the guy. The fact of the matter is I see it as black-and-white: you get 70 home runs in a season, you belong in the Hall of Fame.

A cranky wordsmith reacts to being told "no."

2008-01-09T03:44:00.000-05:00

OK, I'm the first to admit some words are overused. From a year and a half in the computer industry in the late '90s, I still have a hatred of the word "robust"--which I still feel better describes spaghetti sauce than software.

However, I am disinclined to alter my writing because of similar opinions from Lake Superior State University. Some of their over-used words, such as "a perfect storm," "back in the day," or "give back" are over used. "Give back" is particularly grating to me--call that a side-effect of reading too much Ayn Rand.

However, some, such as "post-9/11" or "webinar" (which I don't consider overused since I've never heard it) would seem to have a proper place.

I'm left to conclude that I should ignore the expert opinions in this case. To invoke another phrase I find myself using a lot in casual conversation, sure to invoke the ire of the list-makers, it is what it is.

Mail-order brides?

2007-12-17T00:47:00.000-05:00

Shouldn't mail-order brides be called female-order brides?

I thought I'd post that thought--it should probably shipped abroad.

W00t the heck?

2007-12-13T03:56:00.000-05:00

Call me old-fashioned, call me linguistically conservative, call me uncool--Merriam-Webster's word of the year for 2007--"w00t"--is not a word. It has numbers--those two zeros are supposed to be there--or at least as much as zeros are ever supposed to be in a "word." "Woot" isn't a word, either.

Don't believe me? Go to Merriam-Webster's own website and try looking up "w00t." As of now you'll get this page--which begins with the sentence, "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." and goes on to suggest 20 alternatives , including such prescient ones as "hoot," "ought," and "outlaw."

This is what happens when lexicographers lose their minds!

Open letter to tthe producers...

2007-12-04T05:25:00.000-05:00

The fall/season finale of Heroes tonight was the last episode until the writers' strike is settled.

What new shows were advertised? Clash of the Choirs and a new version of American Gladiators.

I think this proves that the writers are worth far, far more than they're asking in their negotiations. I'd say to he producers that if you think there's a chance I'll watch the reality crud that will replace the scripted shows I enjoy, think again. I'm more likely to give up TV completely. I'd probably come back when the strike ends and the good shows return. Are you sure that all your viewers will? (Remember--some of us still need to buy new digital TVs; returning might mean buying converters or new sets.)

A striking observation

2007-11-05T18:44:00.000-05:00

The Writers Guild of America is on strike. Based on the pictures I've seen on the news, nearly all of the picket signs say, "On Strike"--though a few I saw on TV said, "Pencils Down."

They're writers--couldn't they have come up with something more clever to put on the signs? "Residuals or Reruns?" or "Time to write a new contract!" or "Striking--out!" I know they don't want to write on strike, but they're not writing for the studios. Leno isn't going to get a full hour from reading witty signs!

HMS Falcon--a strange bird?

2007-10-31T17:18:00.000-04:00

Today I saw something of a Halloween Trick in a parking lot--a pick-up truck with a sticker (or magnet or some other type of decoration) on the tailgate reading "H.M.S. Falcon" and "Royal Navy 1776," with a Union Jack (sans the diagonal red stripes) between the lines of text.

Without an opportunity to speak with he truck's owner, I'm left scratching my head. This sticker commemorated an enemy warship. OK--it was two centuries ago, so the wounds are healed, making the sticker considerably less offensive than one reading "Panzer Division," "Viet Cong," or "Taliban." Nonetheless, it seemed odd that someone was celebrating a British warship from the time of the Revolutionary War.

A Google search didn't reveal much useful information. A sloop called the Falcon fought in the Revolution, off North Carolina in May and September of 1776. In 1790, William Bligh (of Bounty fame) served as a commander on the Falcon. It occurred to me that the Falcon might be a museum, but searching for "Falcon" with "museum" finds a museum dedicated to World War II gliders and a couple of websites dedicated to falcons, as in birds. A visit to the Royal Navy's website illuminated absoutely nothing. I even asked friends if they had heard of the ship. Again nothing.

Sometimes, I'm just left to wonder...

Of course the Republicans are ignoring libertarians...

2007-10-31T02:19:00.000-04:00

Recently, I've seen two columns regarding the brush-off the libertarian wing of the Republican Party has been getting. Steven Greenhut, a columnist I enjoy and respect (despite what I see as a misplaced affinity for the Republican Party), lamented how a many of the speakers at a convention he attended seemed enamored more with power than with liberty. Then, on Monday the 29th, Shellie Sullivan called it "baffling" that prominent conservatives are ignoring Ron Paul.

I have long held that the Republican and Democratic Parties have no meaningful difference--that both parties are dedicated to the expansion of their own power before all other goals or ends.

With that assumption, it's hardly surprising that most Republicans are embracing some very authoritarian positions despite their need for libertarians to help vote them into office. It's even less surprising, despite his strong poll and fundraising results (including, interestingly, the most donations from military personal and veterans, despite as staunch an anti-war record as you could hope for), that Ron Paul--a principled libertarian--is being as marginalized and ignored to the extent the Republicans can get away with it. Libertarians and their ideals don't support the expansion of power; for a party dedicated to the expansion of its power, that is an unforgivable sin.

A Jovian attitude...

2007-10-21T00:58:00.000-04:00

Sing after me (to the Disney tune, of course): Io, Io, 'round Jupiter we go!

Call that a little Callisto music...

(Those puns will probably make you want to drink a lot of GanyMead.)

A train to nowhere for those in wheelchairs.

2007-10-13T04:32:00.000-04:00

As long as I'm writing about things that read like bad jokes, how about this?

Not too many stations in the New York Subway have access for the disabled--about 60 out of 400+, and some of those don't have access to all areas of the station. The two busiest stations (according to the 30-year-old stats I have from "Urban Rail in America") in the system are pretty good, however--Times Square, for instance, has access for all trains except the Shuttle, and Grand Central has access for all trains.

The bad joke is something those familiar with the subway may have spotted already: the shuttle only goes to two stations--Grand Central and Times Square. Basically, according to the map, you can get on the shuttle at Grand Central, but if you're in a wheelchair, you can't use it to actually go anywhere. Why they don't say "except the shuttle" for both stations, I don't know. (I thought you had to use stairs to get to the Shuttle platforms at both locations, but I'm far from certain that there isn't a ramp at either station; though the map strongly supports my memory for Times Sq..)

On the bright side, wheelchair-bound riders can at least use the 7 Train between those two stations.

No peace

2007-10-13T02:20:00.000-04:00

When I first heard that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize I thought it was a joke. It isn't.

I know that the Nobel Prize these days is often quite political and left-leaning. But guys, it's the Nobel PEACE Prize, not the Nobel Scare-Everybody-About-The-Environment Prize. If Gore's movie is the most significant work for world peace last year, it would have been a more profound and effective statement to no award a prize (as they did--or didn't do--during most of the years of the World Wars).

Maybe my politics is coloring my opinion, but I still tend to think the Grameen Bank will do more for world peace than "An Inconvenient Truth" in the long run.

A note to myself...

2007-10-13T02:15:00.000-04:00

I'm always leaving notes to myself around the house, so I thought I should leave one on my blog: blog more. Procrastination and trivial distractions make for a quiet blog. I have a couple of blogs tonight, and one more when I find a sheet of paper I need to quote from.

The SLUT gets around...

2007-09-20T05:33:00.000-04:00

Some stories get around more than either a streetcar or a promiscuous woman. One is how Seattle's new South Lake Union Streetcar has been unofficially renamed the South Lake Union Trolley. This has been reported near and far.

This isn't the first railroad acronym to inspire snickers. Switzerland's F.A.R.T. has been in business for years. Of course, that's an official name from outside the English-speaking world.

I must admit, there's a contrived feeling to this story. The name is unofficial. Some of the stories mention that "South Lake Union" is an official name for neighborhoods that traditionally used other names--Cascade, etc.. One wonders if dubbing the light rail system the "S.L.U.T." is someone's revenge for that official designation.

Of course, it could be spontaneous. After all, what else might it have been called? S.L.U.S. isn't a word. (It's close to "slush," but no cigar.) "South Lake Union Railway?" Is S.L.U.R. much better?

Regardless, I'm enjoying the corny and predictable jokes about the S.L.U.T. getting around, about riding the S.L.U.T., about how the S.L.U.T. is easy to access. You get the idea. It's not many $51,000,000 transit projects that take on an air of being loose and lascivious.

Tall Texas Tale?

2007-09-18T04:07:00.000-04:00

I pride myself in knowing more than average about U.S. geography. I might forget the odd city of 20,000 here or there, but I know the major cities. So imagine my surprise when I was looking up something on city-data.com, and found the closest city with a population of more than 1,000,000 was Northeast, TX.

That seemed hard to believe. That population would make Northeast the 7th largest city in the country. It would be the second largest city in Texas--behind Houston alone--and the largest city in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. (Or should that be the Northeast-Dallas-Ft. Worth area?) However, it's not so incredible that I could dismiss it out of hand. After all, the third largest city in the country once disappeared--when Brooklyn, NY, was consolidated with New York City. If several suburbs and unincorporated areas consolidated, it's not impossible that they could become larger than the parent city. (It wasn't consolidation so much as growth in that area; but I'd note that San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.)

However, I am more inclined to believe that the truth is that I found glaring a mistake. Infoplease doesn't list Northeast in their list of 50 largest U.S. cities, though they do note a consolidation involving Louisville, KY. It's always possible that there was a consolidation after 2005, but it seems less likely. Also, Wikipedia seems to know nothing about this: their article "Northeast Texas" is about northeastern Texas--that is, the northeast corner of the state not the city. Their page on "Northeast" doesn't mention the town, either. Further, their article on the "Dallas/Ft.Worth Metroplex" doesn't even list Northeast among area cities--even those under 10,000!

One wonders how something like this could have slipped through. Did they slip it in to combat plagiarism? Did a city booster change the population to get attention? Could it be a typo? If it's a deliberate hoax, I'd think Wikipedia would be the first page to alter. I'm left to ponder.

Nothing to sneeze at

2007-09-13T05:31:00.000-04:00

Gesundheit.

I'm standing out in the kitchen, and Peabrain comes in, walking right by Chessie. Chessie sneezes--right on Peabrain. It's been a while since I've seen a cat that confused--he glared at her for a moment, and walked away. I'd say he was angry until he figured out it was something she couldn't help. I felt sorry for him--it's not fun being sneezed on. But it was funny.

Iraqi WMDs found!

2007-08-31T13:50:00.001-04:00

I've always said New York City has it all. Here's proof! Where else can you find Saddam Hussein's stockpile of phosgene?

Head-first at 60 miles per hour?

2007-08-02T19:02:00.000-04:00

One small quirk about our recent trip on the Auto Train: the porter made up our beds with the pillows at the forward end. On every train trip I've taken in the past (excluding the ones in coach of course, and in bedrooms with beds across the width of the train), the pillow was at the rear end of the bed. I was under the impression that there were safety reasons for this--basically you wanted your feet forward so if there was an emergency braking or wreck, you'd be less likely to hit your head travelling and sleeping feet-forward.

Has there been a new study suggesting the old way was wrong? Did our porter make a mistake? Is there something else going on here? I'll be interested in seeing if we return to Florida head-first.

Riding the parallel universe's Amtrak?

2007-08-02T19:01:00.000-04:00

My dad and I took the Auto Train north for our trip to New York.

That the service was good wasn't too surprising--sometimes, the service is good on Amtrak. That the food in the dining car was good was a bit more surprising, since dining car service on Amtrak has been recently hit with budget cuts--but the salmon was excellent last night. The really astonishing thing was that the Auto Train--an Amtrak train running on CSX rails--got in to Lorton almost an hour early.

I love train travel, however, this train trip was a pleasant surprise, with things going well that recent news and prior train trips would have suggested wouldn't be the case.

Converted lounge cars

2007-07-30T23:58:00.000-04:00

Today, on the northbound Silver Star, I saw what I presume was one of Amtrak's lounge cars converted into a diner or diner/lounge. I didn't get that good a look inside, though.

The overall effect was reminiscent of the Metroliners where there were two cafe cars--one with the first class section, and the second actually serving as a lounge.

Debunking nothing...

2007-07-28T02:49:00.000-04:00

You knew I couldn't leave well-enough alone if I encountered an article entitled "Debunking Ayn Rand's Objectivism." I posted this comment ("Bemused," BTW, was a commenter who wrote, "Gosh, the Rand-ites do come out of the wood work when anyone critcizes [sic] Mother Ayn." and then complained about another comment's length.):

Regarding Bemused’s point:

I wouldn’t say I’m coming out of the woodwork. I set up a search in Google News for “Objectivism” to try and confirm something a Randroid said in an article about Objectivism receiving positive mentions in the news every day. (Closer to every week, if that, would be my impression. I’d tend to chalk that up as a symptom of what’s wrong with the world, but we’re straying from the point.) That’s how I found this article.

A title like “Debunking Ayn Rand’s Objectivism” was bound to pique my curiosity—I’ve picked up some Objectivist memes over the years. I wondered whether someone had found solid reasons to attack Rand’s philosophy, or whether this was a flawed argument I could pick apart for intellectual exercise.

I didn’t bother to read Prof. Gimbel’s blog based on the summary provided here. The only two quotes by him provided were “If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny, ... what’s left are the writings of Ayn Rand.” and “narcotic to the upper-middle-class white male of above-average means and intelligence.” I know the former to be untrue from reading Rand; Rand wasn’t funny (she didn’t try to be), but she was VERY interesting and often insightful. The latter seemed mainly designed to equate Rand with religion in the minds of Marxists by echoing the famous “opiate of the people” quote, and strongly implied that the Objectivism was irrational and a system of evasion. (I would think philosophic ideas that appeal to people of “above-average … intelligence” would merit closer scrutiny, not dismissal. Maybe that’s just my bias from being a member of Mensa and it’s sloppy of me to try and argue from authority on that ground.) Neither quote substantially attacked Objectivism; both were more ad hominem attacks—against Rand in the former and the “average objectivist” in the latter. I took Mr. Goldstein’s selection of these quotes to be indicative of Prof. Gimbel’s piece as a whole. The previous comments seemed to bolster this view. It’s possible this article and its comments mischaracterized his views; however, while the cosmos may be infinite, my time is not.

In short, I think I agree with Allison W. Land’s comment.

It’s been fun. I’m moving on to other things.

— John ... Jul 27, 09:00 PM

Well, my reply was killed. Why? Because I was mildly obnoxious and/or verbose? (I was--but not as bad as some of the other comments.) Because I didn't number my comment like everyone else did? (Mine would have been 11--I didn't because I thought the computer did that automatically.) Because Mr. Goldstein correctly predicted I wouldn't move on? (I went back to look for replies, and checked out the Gimbel blog before posting this; it pretty much confirmed my instinct--though there was a somewhat meatier attack on excellence there.) Who knows? I tried posting the comment again, just in case the disappearing comment was due to technical reasons. (It'll be #13 now--we'll see if this one sticks. If it does, then I was an idiot and the computer was the co-conspirator.)

Rand was an elitist; so am I. I do believe the great artists, the great scientists, the great businessmen do more for society than the average joe. (I also think most "average joes" have much more potential than they realize. I don't think I've tapped my full potential either, and I keep hoping to find that better side of myself, and the sooner the better. But I digress.)

I suppose the real irony is that someone who purports to debunk Rand has strengthened my regard for her. A subsequent commenter, Rajendra Lakhotia, wrote, "ironical that ayn rand has described mentality of such commentators in such detail." (Sic; he didn't even use caps in his own name.) He's dead-on. I'd always thought Ellsworth Toohey was a little unrealistic in his attacks on excellence. Prof. Steve Gimbel and his defender Evan Goldstein convinced me otherwise--there really are some Tooheys out there.

This time, I think it really is time to move on to other topics. Of course the last time I said that was before this blog.

In defense of violent video games

2007-07-11T03:42:00.000-04:00

In a study that seems to have gotten surprisingly little coverage, researchers have found that violent video games, "help teens deal with their emotions like stress and anger." They also said that the games don't cause violence.

At the risk of saying "I told you so," I've been citing this as a benefit of video games for some time. It is also consistent with my experience as a video game player. I'm glad someone seems to have found some proof for the idea.

Hanging around with lanyards...

2007-07-11T03:05:00.000-04:00

OK--question for all my readers: how do you define the word "lanyard?"

Somewhere, I'd heard that "lanyard" was a term for a badge that hangs from the neck. The "badge-holder"--as the convention organizers called it--seemed to fit my understanding of he term perfectly. The thing in question is a pouch, the front pocket designed with a window designed to display your name tag; the whole thing is worn dangling from your neck by a cord.

I noticed that no one else was using that term, and it made me wonder whether I might be misusing the term. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary--my usual online source for definitions--says that the term might apply to the cord holding the badge-holder, but not the whole badge-holder (cord included) itself. Another free online dictionary and Wikipedia both also back up this idea--though the former it was less certain that the term could be applied to the badge-holder's cord. (The definitions are consistent that it's a term for the cord suspending a knife or whistle.)

So, my questions for the Internet is simply these: Has anyone else used/heard he term "lanyard" (or "laniard," as it sometimes seems to be spelled) applied to a hanging badge/name tag? Also, is there a better term for such an object than "badge-holder?"

So charge me with battery...

2007-07-09T04:21:00.000-04:00

I know the problem with my laptop's battery is not that it produces irregular voltage, but rather that it won't hold a charge anymore; that said, I still don't think it's living up to its potential.

And the lightbulb goes on...

2007-07-09T04:17:00.000-04:00

As long as I'm blogging about the Sheraton, how about this?

Don't take this as badmouthing the hotel--there has been some griping within Mensa because of a mess relating to some plans for homemade food that the hotel feared would violate the health code. Not knowing the local health codes, the exact contract with the hotel, or what else may have happened behind the scenes within Mensa, I have a poor idea of who's right or wrong--though I do tend to think National handled things badly, if only because the official information was cryptic and really uninformative. The hotel, for its part, does have to worry about these sorts of things--if something did go wrong, they'd wind up getting sued for something that wouldn't be under their control or their fault (if anybody's). But I digress. In any event, at least from my standpoint, the hotel's service was good.

However, there was one quirk of our hotel room (1110) that bears comment. Not counting the bathroom, there are five lights in the room--a ceiling light by the door, a desk lamp, a floor lamp, a wall-mounted lamp over the dining/reading table, and a wall-mounted lamp over the nightstand. Of those five lamps, no two are turned on the same way--you use a light switch, a rocker switch on the cord, a knob by the bulb, a rocker switch on the bottom of the lamp, and a push button on the bottom of the lamp respectively.

I think this hotel was chosen for the AG because the room's lights are an IQ test in and of themselves.

...But it's free at the motel.

2007-07-09T04:11:00.000-04:00

Why is it that fancier hotels charge for in-room Internet access, but cheaper hotels don't?

I have stayed in 17 different hotels (I think--I may need a recount) since I've gotten my laptop computer. Of those, I believe all but four had free, in-room, high-speed Internet access. (At least in theory--some of them had Wi-Fi that didn't work, and there were a couple where I stayed for one night on the road and never even took the computer out of its bag.) Most of those were chain motels--Sleep Inns, Comfort Inns, a Best Western. Of the four that lacked in-room high-speed 'net access, one had no Internet access of their own--a stand-alone, non-chain motel in NJ--and they had free local phone calls, so I could call my dial-up ISP for free without problem.

Of the four "luxury" hotels I've stayed in since I've had my notebook, one--a boutique hotel in Great Neck, NY, had free Ethernet-based service. The other three--a Marriott in New Orleans, a Disney Resort, and the Sheraton in Birmingham--are the only ones that charge for the service. And, the least expensive of those three, the Sheraton, at least offered free Wi-Fi in the lobby (I'm writing my blog from there now). Perhaps worse, those same three hotels were among the minority in charging for local phone calls--meaning that my dial-up approach wasn't a free option, either.

I'd just love to hear an explanation--other than "they figure you can afford it"--of why the expensive hotels charge for what the cheap ones give away.

Yeah, I'm talking about my trip.

2007-07-09T04:04:00.000-04:00

The Mensa Annual Gathering--the main point of our Birmingham trip--was fun. If you're in Mensa and haven't gone to an AG, go to one. If you're not, talk a Mensan into taking you to one or join and go on your own. They're addictive.

However, if you're in Birmingham at any time, I have two suggestions for attractions to visit. The first is the Aldrich Coal Mining Museum in Montevallo. The genteman who runs it was kind enough to open for my father and myself on Tuesday--usually, they're closed Tuesdays; though their website does say they'll open by appointment, we didn't give them much lead-time on the appointment, calling about 45 minutes before we arrived. The museum is in an old company store and office/workers' recreation hall/school building--the former housing a collection of town history artifacts and pictures and the latter housing some more of the collection, but being closer to a building restored to its period appearance. It's a small museum, and hard to find, but I think it's worth a look.

The other attraction is the Irondale Café. This restaurant--the inspiration for the novel Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café and the movie based on it--offers some great trainwatching. And the food is good, too.

Speaking of the Constitution...

2007-06-28T16:25:00.000-04:00

In recent decisions, the Supreme Court decided that a government school could punish a student for his out-of-school expression, and that the key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance (read: censorship) bill are Constitutional. Never mind "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"--as the student's sign read in the former case--if the Court genuinely believes the First Amendment is that limited, someone has arranged bong hits for the Justices.

Cato goes unconstitutional...

2007-06-28T16:04:00.000-04:00

Well, I now have a small problem. When I previously cited the U.S. Constitution in my blog, I linked to the Cato Institute's online version. That version disappeared sometime in the past few weeks--the links now direct to a page selling hard copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. There are several government websites that have it, but I'll probably go with either the Cornell University Law School or the Emory Law School online versions. Not sure yet where I'll go for the Declaration of Independence.

The Ballad of Andrew Speaker

2007-06-05T06:00:00.000-04:00

There once was a Georgia attorney,
Named Speaker, who flew o'er the sea
He's now disrespected
'Cause he knew he's infected
With a quite nasty strain of TB.

(OK. I probably need to put better poetry up here. I didn't know what else to do with a topical limerick.)

Someone's blowing the hurricane prediction...

2007-05-23T03:14:00.000-04:00

I'm not a weatherman, but I play one on this blog...

When this active hurricane cycle began, meteorologists had said that active cycles last between 10 and 30 years.

Last year, hurricane predictions were dire, but the season wasn't particularly bad. (After 2004 and 2005--it seemed like a breeze, but it was really average.) El Niño was blamed. The forecasters changed their tune, and were saying it was going to last 10-30 more years. The predictions for this year forecast another pounding.

I'm hoping/wondering if the recent active cycle may have just been a short one. And/or maybe global warming will mean fewer hurricanes. In either case, I'm making a bold prediction: this year's hurricane season will be average. I lack firm data, so don't plan your insurance based on this prediction, (and even light seasons can be bad in their way--Andrew was the only named storm in 1992,) but I suspect the doom and gloom may represent more agenda than science. Only time will tell.

Since when do we have "approved" religions?

2007-04-25T01:53:00.000-04:00

The Pentagon has finally approved the pentacle, the Wiccan symbol of faith, for tombstones. In the New York Times' account of this decision, President Bush was quoted--from a 1999 interview regarding a decision back then to "allow" Wiccans stationed at Ft. Hood to worship--as saying, “I don’t think witchcraft is a religion, ... I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

I find two aspects of this story troubling.

The first is the then governor/now president's quote. I don't think an elected offical should be deciding what is or isn't a religion. I also wonder what else he might not consider a religion. Atheism? Deism? Islam? Judaism? Catholicism? Who knows?

The second troubling aspect isn't quite that the government took so long to approve the pentacle as a symbol of faith--but rather that it could approve or disapprove at all. Doesn't Article VI of the Constitution pretty much cover that? That bit that goes "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." seems pretty clear to me. If not, what about the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."? The Constitution is crystal clear--there is no official or unofficial religion in the United States--it's a matter of conscience, the government stays out of the issue. I would think the proper course would be that each individual soldier decides what his or her symbol of faith is, and that that's what's used on his/her gravemarker.

Something fishy? Is a sponsor all wet?

2007-04-25T01:42:00.000-04:00

I just note the irony: ABC's "20/20" last Friday (April 20) was all about the environment in honor of Earth Day. One of the problems they mentioned, albeit very briefly, was overfishing. One of the show's sponsors (at least locally) was Captain D's--a seafood restaurant.

Does global warming mean FEWER hurricanes?

2007-04-19T03:56:00.000-04:00

Conventional wisdom had been that global warming would mean warmer ocean temperatures, and therefore more hurricanes, although there is some doubt as to whether or not this is happening.

However, I began to privately question that aspect of the theory last summer. Something I'd heard on the Weather Channel last summer made me put together facts I hadn't considered in relation to each other--though I should emphasize that I don't believe it was an idea of theirs as such. Global warming theory predicts that northern Africa will get drier. However, storm systems coming off of Africa are what ultimately form Cape Verde hurricanes. It seems logical to me--though no one else has said this, to my knowledge--that if Africa is drier, there should be fewer storm systems, and, ultimately, fewer Cape Verde hurricanes. It's worth pointing out that that not all hurricanes are Cape Verde systems, many severe storms are. (Gloria, Hugo, Andrew, Frances, and Ivan are notable, recent Cape Verde storms.)

It seems I'm not alone in thinking that global warming doesn't mean more storms are certain--though my Cape Verde-African drought hypothesis is not what the scientists thought of. There are some scientists who think global warming may increase wind shear--which could counteract the effects of warmer ocean temperatures.

If you've read my blog, you'll know I'm cautious on the issue of global warming--both on Earth and other planets. These new questions about the hurricane predictions of global warming theory undercut one of the most alarming aspects of the theory. The bottom line here is what I've always been saying--panicking about global warming is counterproductive. Environmental policy should be based on facts, not alarm.

Will this joke put me in Jeopardy?

2007-04-19T00:21:00.000-04:00

Tonight's "Final Jeopardy" category on Jeopardy was "A Real Renaissance Man." If the category had been "A Reel Renaissance Man," I'd have bet money the answer would have been "Izaak Walton."

(I know--you're probably saying there's something fishy about that pun. I'm always angling for puns. Call it stream of consciousness writing. I refuse to pole everyone on whether I should keep casting out puns.)

Reflections on the Duke case

2007-04-13T05:01:00.000-04:00

The Duke lacrosse rape case--still called that for lack of another term, even though it's a misnomer since the students from the Duke lacrosse team were innocent and it's likely there was no rape--is one subject that makes my blood boil.

I'm not sorry to hear that the two of the accused who didn't graduate are not going back to Duke. The way that the University turned on its innocent students, it deserves to have it's name besmirched by this case--unlike the accused, whose names I have chosen to withhold here because even false accusations bring infamy. (I also withheld the name of my mother's friend in the anecdote below for that same reason--that was a little more difficult a decision, since he has passed away and there is--as far as I could tell--little other information about his case online.)

Why does the case make me so angry?

Partly, it's because I bought into the accusations early on. I bought the rhetoric about privileged college athletes thinking they could get away with anything. It happens sometimes, but it didn't happen in this case. I was duped into believing them guilty, and I echoed the condemnations of their non-cooperation--non-cooperation I now see as an appropriate reaction to an attempt to throw innocent men in jail for political expediency. When Attorney General Roy Cooper said, "A lot of people owe a lot of apologies to other people," I feel I'm one who owes an apology to the accused for not believing in their innocence from the word go. I feel I, in a small way, wronged people who didn't deserve it.

Partly, it's because it could happen to any guy. There is no evidence a rape even took place, and the accuser never had sex--consensual or otherwise--with the accused. It's scary to think that all a man needs to do is offend a crazy woman, and he may spend the next year stigmatized by the press and fighting for his freedom--if not the rest of his life.

Partly, it's because this is an egregious, obvious, and famous example of the sort of

prosecutorial corruption that I know really happens frequently. The case of Tulia, Texas comes to mind. So does the case a photographer who was a friend of my mother's; in that case, my mother's friend took nude pictures for a pediatric anatomy textbook--I'd add, with the consent of the children's parents and with the parents present for the photography. That did not stop the D.A. from prosecuting and sending her friend to prison for child pornography charges. (My mother's friend passed away a few years before she did--I'm vague on the details; I don't even remember if she told me when this happened; when I met her friend in 1988, he was living in New Orleans, but I don't know if that's where the prosecution took place or not.)

Those cases, as with the Duke case, make me wonder how many people are sitting in prison right now because they couldn't come up with video footage of themselves somewhere else at the time of the alleged crime, a friend of the accuser saying the accusation was a crock, and more than $1,000,000 for legal fees.

I'm glad that Crystal Gail Magnum has been named. She deserves it. In the words of A.G Cooper, "...in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night." Apparently, now that details about Magnum's life are coming out, she seems even more unstable. There is a possibility she made a false rape accusation in the past, and it's known that she stole a taxi and fed in a high-speed chase while drunk in 2002.

I hope Nifong is disbarred. There is a possibility that it could happen today (Friday, April 13). I would further hope that every case touched--even if he just looked at the file--gets a new trial. Expensive? Consider it the bill Durham should pay for electing and reelecting this nimrod.

I would also hope that Nifong and Magnum both wind up in jail and penniless from the civil suits. Sadly, I'm not even sure it's possible--Nifong may be protected by prosecutorial immunity, and Cooper's statement implied that Magnum won't be prosecuted.

The Duke case promises to have two very different types of fallout--both chilling. It's not hard to imagine that somewhere out there, an unstable woman has heard about this case and will be inspired to take revenge on someone she hates through a false accusation. Nor is it hard to imagine that somewhere, there is a woman who'll really be raped--but because of little evidence and a dubious background, will be unable to find justice. I don't see how it's possible to prevent one of those things from happening without making the other more likely. About all that can be done is to come down hard on Nifong and Magnum for creating the problem, and for doing real and great harm to three innocent men.

They fixed the crossing, finally, I hope

2007-04-13T03:49:00.000-04:00

Well, after several instances of CSX or the country (I'm not sure who was doing the repairs) "fixing" the Woodland Dr. railroad crossing, only to have the potholes reappear in a matter of weeks--if not days--they started more extensive work on it yesterday. I've been worried about the safety of the crossing (on the theory that if sinkholes kept appearing in the asphalt, the tracks couldn't have been supported well enough either). I'm hoping that the repairs will be more thorough this time.

Travel as a citizen or fly like a turkey.

2007-04-08T04:05:00.000-04:00

“You ride a train because you can get on a train as a citizen. You can only get on a plane as a subject of the government.”

Those are the words of Kirk Thompson of Montana, as quoted in an online Missoulan article about activism for a new Montana train route.

It's not completely true--after all, passenger trains are heavily subsidized.

It's also partly true for cars--there's a freedom to driving, but I at least always get a little uneasy when I see a police car on the road--second guessing my driving decisions and actions for the past few blocks when one appears.

All that said, I enjoy flying, but I so hate and fear airport security so much that it's a no brainer for me--if I can, I stay on the ground when I travel.

Quick thoughs about the Quiznos coyote.

2007-04-06T04:08:00.000-04:00

As you might have heard, one coyote in Chicago seems to prefer Quiznos subs to the Road Runner.

I imagine it's far from uncommon for animals to wander (or be brought) into businesses. When my dad was still teaching, he also worked part time in a movie theater. One night, someone released a number of bats into the theater. It took days to get all the bats out of the multiplex.

In the case of the bats, the only news accounts we saw were a story in the local paper, and, about six months later, a supermarket tabloid that incorrectly claimed they were six-foot vampire bats. Other cases, such as the coyote and the recent case where rats that took over the KFC/Taco Bell in New York get wide nationwide coverage with commentary. (Case in point, I'm writing about the coyote!)

So, why some stories like that get little or no press? To me the explanation of the different levels of coverage lies in whether someone got pictures. As the old saying goes, "seeing is believing." The picture of coyote in the drink cooler is memorable, funny, and arguably cute. No one got a picture of the bats in the movie theater. So, the world knows about the coyote, and the bats are a family anecdote.

Police Radar and iPod FM Transmitters?

2007-04-06T03:50:00.000-04:00

When I was coming home tonight, I was crossing the Buckman Bridge and something interfered with my iPod's FM transmitter. It was the same kind of interference I get when I get a call on my cell phone. Anyway, I got off the bridge, I saw that the car right behind me was a police car. (The transmitter was on 90.3 FM--if that means anything.)

My guess is that the cop was using the radar gun on me, and that's what was interfering with the iPod. Anyone know if my guess about what was going on is right? Has anyone else observed this phenomenon? I'd wonder if it's reliable enough to serve as a stand-in for a radar detector (one that would be legal in places where radar detectors are illegal). It also make me wonder about the safety of police radar--though I do tend to think most of the fears about cell phones, radar, and related EM emitters strikes me as baseless technophobia.

Konsumer protection at its dumbest

2007-03-31T00:55:00.000-04:00

I had dinner at Koko's (a favorite local Japanese restaurant) tonight, and, as usual, ordered sushi. When I looked at the menu, my usual imitation crab was labeled "Krab stick." This struck me as very odd, since it was previously spelled correctly. Thinking they redid the menu and had a typo, I pointed it out to the waitress.

After my meal, she informed me that the restaurant indeed intended to spell it that way--it seems the state of Florida prohibits using the proper spelling of "crab" for imitation crab. Hence "krab."

Not wanting to dupe consumers is all well and good, but I think most people would not assume misspelling meant that the product was artificial or imitation on that basis alone. "Lether" wouldn't make me think "plastic," "golde" wouldn't make me think "less than 10K, if not zero gold," and "Teevo" wouldn't make me think "DVR but not TiVo." If I thought the crab stick were crab, "krab" wouldn't make me think otherwise.

Of course, "crab stick" is--at least at the restaurants I've been to--sushi code for the imitation crab, anyway. Changing "crab stick" to "krab stick" doesn't make that clear to someone who doesn't know what a "crab stick" is to begin with. And, in any case, the waitress didn't know why it was misspelled until she asked someone else--if the whole point was to call attention to the fact that it was imitation crab, the misspelling wouldn't have done the trick, since I only found out why it was "krab" when I had already eaten the sushi and was about to pay the check.

News flash to the state of Florida, department of health or whatever: insisting that imitation crab be called "krab" does not protect consumers--it needlessly makes innocent Japanese restauranteurs look illiterate. Don't state inspectors have better things to do than meddle with orthography?

The fall of the infamous code

2007-03-31T00:31:00.000-04:00

As you may have noticed, I'm no longer using the "infamous code" in my headlines. However, Blogger.com's new "Labels" feature does what I wanted to do with the code, only better. So, the code is gone from new post titles. I'll probably leave it on the old posts, if only because the permanent links depend on the title, and removing the code would change the title. (Has anyone linked to an old post? I don't believe so, but why do work that isn't necessary or really beneficial and could cause someone problems?)

I've also used more than one label for posts that cover multiple topics. In the (I hope near) future, I plan to create links on the page template to the pages for each label, to add additional relevant labels for past posts, and to redo the labels into actual labels as opposed to the codes they're replacing.

Why life is brief

2007-03-26T04:42:00.001-04:00

A very dear friend of mine lost her mother today (or rather, since it's after midnight, yesterday). I did so over the phone, but I should again offer my condolences here.

I'd been trying to collect my thoughts to write some sort of longer poem--my friend's loss was a jolting reminder that today is the fourth anniversary of my mother's fatal heart attack, and I've never managed to write through my thoughts and feelings on her loss.

While I was composing my initial thoughts, I kept thinking back on how many philosophers and theologians emphasize that one of the things that makes live precious is its brevity--that scarcity and value are inexorably linked. Dwelling on that thought, I came up with a haiku--posted below.

Death makes life precious--
That's not much comfort when faced
With a loved one's loss.

Coming in pairs...

2007-03-14T03:20:00.000-04:00

Last Sunday, there were similar train accidents in Gary, Indiana and here in Jacksonville that each claimed two lives.

In both cases, the drivers apparently went around the properly-functioning crossing gates, apparently thinking the gates were down for a stopped (in Indiana) or slow-moving (Florida) freight, only to be hit by a passenger train on another track at the crossing.

I'd note immediately that it's very dangerous to assume you see "the train" at multi-track crossings. This has been a problem for the railroads for a long time. Folks, if there's more than one track, it usually means the railroad thinks there will sometimes be more than one train.

Beyond that, my only thoughts are on general rail-safety issues.

Locally, some people have demanded extending the gate at the Jacksonville accident site to block both traffic lanes when it's down. This demand always troubles me--what someone making such a demand is really saying is, "people can't be responsible--we need a device to get in the way." The problem is that such gates can conceivably block cars on the tracks, and, if the gate is malfunctioning, it precludes people going around the gates with proper, official direction or in an emergency.

In any case, some general advice bears repeating: if the gates are down, wait for the train to pass. Yes, you may be waiting a few minutes--the gates are designed to go down in time to make sure you're not on the tracks when the train gets there and trains don't always move at top speed on a given stretch of track. It's still best to wait. If there doesn't seem to be a train, turn around and use another crossing. If you really, really must use a given crossing, it's malfunctioning, and there's no official directing traffic--some people (I'd be tempted to join that group) would say not even then, and, then, bear in mind this is both possibly illegal (there may be exceptions for broken gates, but I'm not well enough versed in the laws on that point) with heavy fines (I believe $1500 here in Florida) and at least somewhat dangerous anyway--stop, roll down your window, turn down the radio, and listen and look extremely carefully (if there's a lit signal on the line--whether green, yellow, or red--in many places that alone can mean a train is nearby). In any case, if you see a crossing malfunctioning, call the railroad that owns the crossing and let them know (the number can be found on the crossing gate--this is ten times more important if you should see a crossing gate up when a train is approaching or passing or if you see a gate that's physically broken--it's rare, but I've seen both).

Remember--the weight ratio between a 100-car freight train and your car is roughly the ratio between your car and a soda can. Such a freight train, traveling 60 MPH, can likely stop within its own length (not something your car can do)--but since the train is more than a mile long, chicken games are still ill-advised.

(OK--I'll get off my rail-safety high-horse now.)

The last refuge of scoundrels.

2007-03-10T03:56:00.000-05:00

Samuel Johnson once said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Knowing this, I think many libertarians knew that the so-called "Patriot Act"--passed hastily in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, another bad sign--would be bad news for civil liberties.

The other shoe dropped--the head of the FBI has confessed that his agency has used the Patriot Act to ignore the Constitution beyond what even it purports to allow.

I'm sure there will be more eloquent expressions of genuine outrage. However, I feel I should point out that all this "outrage" from the government is purely for show.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III asked, "How could this happen?" and "Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is I am to be held accountable." Yet, he neither resigned nor advocated a repeal of the Patriot Act.

Then there are the grandstanding senators. Quoted in the New York Times story, we have...

“It is time to place meaningful checks on the Bush administration’s ability to misuse the Patriot Act by overusing national security letters,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. ...

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “National security letters are a powerful tool, and when they are misused, they can do great harm to innocent people.” Mr. Leahy said his panel would hold extensive hearings...

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee (and, like Mr. Leahy, a former prosecutor), told reporters that the bureau had apparently “badly misused national security letters.” ...

Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat on the judiciary panel who voted against the original Patriot Act, said the inspector general’s inquiry “proves that ‘trust us’ doesn’t cut it” when it comes to the F.B.I.

Everyone in Congress seems outraged, but none of them seem to be talking about any meaningful changes to the status quo. All I can say to all those comments are that those of us who truly care about civil liberties and the Constitution don't want hearings, investigations, or grandstanding. We want this unconstitutional law gone, repealed. Firing some of the officials who lead the abusive agencies (Mueller and Gonzales come to mind) would be good, too--not just the minions (who also deserve dismissal).

Anthony D. Romero of the ACLU is also quoted in the story as having said that, “This confirms some of our worst suspicions,” and that "This attorney general cannot be part of the solution. ... He is part of the problem.” True enough, but I think you could say the same about Congress on this one.

Because what the world really needed was fish-flavored orange juice?

2007-01-31T15:54:00.000-05:00

OK. I normally drank Tropicana's Healthy Heart orange juice. It tasted good and it had extra calcium and potassium.

Someone, however, recently thought it was a good idea to add Omega 3 fatty acids to the orange juice. If you don't know the term, that's fish oil. The carton even says in fine print on the back "Contains tilapia, sardine and anchovy"--and don't ask me how they made that selection--because I'd think sardines and anchovies would be among the more potent, flavorful fish--and they'd want something with less flavor. When I heard about the change, I was concerned.

So, I finally tried the new formula with the Omega 3. It does NOT taste like fish. It doesn't taste like it used to, either. I can't quite place what the new ingredient tastes like. Maybe a bit like it's watered down--but that's not completely accurate. It is not an improvement, however. While I try to place the new flavor, I'll be looking for a new brand of OJ..

Found dog, need advice

2007-01-22T02:31:00.000-05:00

Tonight, a dog followed me home.

I saw him earlier when I went over to a friend's house--half a block away, he was following a couple of joggers, and I thought "gee--I wonder why they don't have their dog on a leash." It was because it wasn't their dog. When I came home later, the dog followed my car the half-block up to our driveway, and then up to the front door. He was extremely friendly--I'd be shocked if this animal wasn't someone's well-loved pet. As I write this, I think the dog is still on our front porch.

I took a picture of the dog, and posted ads on Craigslist, Backpage, and Petfinder. Other than that, I don't know that to do. I don't dare bring him in--I can't know he'd be safe or OK in the house. I'm hesitant to even feed him or give him bedding--if he lives near here, I don't want to deter him from going home on his own. However, he doesn't have any collar. Lost it? Indoor dog who never had one and got out anyway? Who knows? I also worry I'm turning away an abandoned dog.

If you know someone who lost a dog in Orange Park, FL, please have them look at the pictures. If you have advice for me, I'm listening.

This one should be junked.

2007-01-03T03:53:00.000-05:00

You really have a lousy car when, if asked what the car is worth, you have to reply, "What's per ton price of scrap steel?"

Who really is mourning?

2007-01-03T03:45:00.000-05:00

I don't mean to in any way disparage or degrade the late President Ford, or minimize the loss.

His friends and family would, reasonably, need time to mourn. There should be some public recognition of the passing of a public figure.

However, consider that a large number of workers in the government and financial sectors got January 2 off, ostensibly to mourn? How many of them were actually mourning?

Also, try this thought experiment: assuming you didn't get that day off, if you called into work and said, "I need to take the day off. I need to mourn the death of President Ford," how do you think your boss would have responded?

I don't have a good answer to this one, but I don't think we're, as a society, completely honest with ourselves on this point. Somber memorial-oriented holidays (think Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, and Martin Luther King Day for three annual examples) always seem turn into a fun days off.

BLOG - I stand corrected.

2006-10-28T01:15:00.000-04:00

Way back in March, based on a spring training game, oh me of little faith expressed apprehension about my team, the Mets.

While they didn't make the World Series, I would note that their 97-65 record was a tie for the best in baseball this year, and they took their fight to the ninth inning of game seven against the Cards--who ultimately won the Series in five.

In the mean time, us Mets fans can only say, "Wait 'til next year."

NEWS - Tobacco bothers them, yet freedom going up in smoke doesn't.

2006-10-27T03:24:00.000-04:00

Well, there are enough authoritarians out there that the "let's ban smoking" meme was bound to make some headway. I left a comment on another site, but thought I'd repeat it here:

The pursuit of happiness is a basic human right. I tend to think smoking is an unwise way to pursue happiness--too expensive and not nearly worth the health risks--but I've never smoked, so perhaps it's much more rewarding than it seems. In any case, if someone else chooses to smoke, it's not my, nor anyone else's business--other people have rights, too.

Don't like smoke in the businesses you patronize, or worried about the health effects of secondhand smoke? Then stop patronizing those businesses until they ban smoking on the premises. If all the bars/restaurants/whatever in your area allow smoking, then quit whining and start a new one that doesn't. Freedom means sometimes you have to tolerate things you personally dislike.

Personally, I find the tamest calls for restrictions on smoking tend to be more offensive than the worst secondhand smoke--it really bothers me to hear people demanding others' rights be violated. However, if you still want to ban smoking, just remember--the next pleasure some moron wants to ban may be one of yours.

NEWS - A small victory for night owls

2006-09-21T18:37:00.000-04:00

A Wall Street Journal article about Facebook said that company's executives told Microsoft executives that an 8 a.m. conference call was not possible, "because the company's 22-year-old founder and chief executive, Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg, wouldn't be awake." I love it! I wish this sort of thing happened more often. Someone has to remind the morning people that they're while still up in the afternoon, not everyone likes to get up early.

LANG - Looking at the planets again

2006-08-24T04:44:00.000-04:00

The other day, I said I didn't have a problem with Ceres being reclassified as a planet. On further consideration, I'm not convinced this is a good idea. However, while not liking the first proposed definition for a planet, I'm not sure I like the IAU's latest proposal, either.

I tend to think that the term planet should be a definition that can be applied to an object that would apply irrespective of location. The more I think about it, the more I tend to think that even if a planet is ejected from a solar system or falls into orbit around a larger planet, it should still be considered a planet.

The core of the problem is that the term "planet" is a pre-scientific concept, and the original concept no longer can be considered valid in light of newer knowledge.

The word "planet" comes from a Greek word meaning "wandering star." Even though Copernicus himself used the term "wandering star" (for example, see the titles of Chapters 1 and 9 of Book VI of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres as translated by Charles Glenn Wallis), the concept of "wandering star" is now obsolete. The old concept arose because, except for the sun, moon, and comets (because of their tails), astronomic objects appear to be a point of light to the naked eye--so it's understandable why ancient people thought they were stars. The sun and moon were also classified as planets because of the way they moved through the sky. (Comets were not--until Edmond Halley's 1705 analysis, they were thought to be unpredictable--and because of eccentric orbits, many still are.)

"An object that is like Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the sun, or the moon, but not like the Earth" would describe the ancient concept of a planet--but would be meaningless. We now know the sun is like the stars--or, using the ancient term, the "fixed stars"-- and different in appearance only due to our proximity to it. The similarity is that stars perform or performed (as in neutron stars) fusion. (For the moment, I'm ignoring brown dwarves.) Even before the underlying astrophysics were completely understood, differences could be seen. Planets in a telescope resolve to a disk, stars (except for the sun of course) to a point. Also, Galileo observed the phases of Venus--meaning Venus, and the other planets, reflected sunlight rather than shone with its own light. Stars, in contrast, do produce light.

The other shoe dropped when new objects were discovered--first Uranus in 1781, and then Ceres in 1801. Uranus clearly was a planet--though smaller in size, it was in many respects similar to Jupiter and Saturn. Ceres was a different story. Ceres was found after a search that was started when the newly-discovered Uranus conformed to a mathematical prediction that also suggested there should be a planet between Mars and Jupiter. (Many people dismiss that formula today--Neptune didn't fit the formula. Pluto would, but only if Neptune didn't exist.) However, Ceres was smaller than what the astronomers expected, so they kept looking. In the early 19th century, three other asteroids were discovered--and then nothing else for many years. As more asteroids were discovered in the asteroid belt, Ceres and the other three recently found "planets" there were reclassified as "asteroids"--though Uranus was not.

When Pluto was first discovered, it was described as being larger than the Earth. The article that cited that fact suggests it was mainly hype--though I'd wonder if expectation based on the location beyond the jovian planets and illusions created by the proximity of Charon and the large amount of ice on its surface might also have played into that claim. In any event, it isn't. However, though smaller than Mercury, it is larger than Ceres.

I tend to oppose Ceres being included in the list of planets because, while the ancient planets were all visible to the naked eye, Ceres--despite being within the orbit of Jupiter--is not. Visibility without magnification alone can't be the qualification since Neptune is much larger and more massive than any of the terrestrial planets, but is too distant to be seen unaided. Ceres generally can't be seen unaided, even though it's between two other objects (Mars and Jupiter) that can. (Visibility can also be subjective. Ceres, Vesta, and Uranus may be visible to the naked eye for a trained observer with sharp eyesight and optimal viewing conditions. In fact, they weren't documented before the invention of the telescope--which suggests naked-eye sightings would be very unusual.)

I don't like Pluto-Charon as a double planet--though I'd be happier with Charon as a planet if other major moons were also considered planets. Partly, it rubs me the wrong way because it makes Charon a planet, even though larger objects such as Earth's moon are not considered planets.

Also consider the case of a planet that only barely qualifies, and a smaller object that doesn't meet the normal minimal conditions for a planet, but is close enough in mass and distance to its planetary partner that the two orbit a common center of gravity above the surface of the planet. Would that be a double planet? If the first proposal of the IAU is adopted, but Quaoar is later determined to not be a planet, then Charon would be a planet solely by virtue of its location.

I don't like the idea of excluding Pluto and "Xena" solely because they're smaller than Mercury. (Sorry--I don't like unwieldy catalog numbers, either; I'd use it if I were looking for it with a telescope or writing a formal paper, but for writing in my blog, I'm using the nickname until it is formally named.) Consider this hypothetical object: Object X is both larger and heavier than Mercury, but similar composition to Pluto or Sedna and has a trans-Neptunian orbit. I know of no reason why such an object couldn't exist, or why it couldn't remain undiscovered. Sedna has an orbital period of more than 12,000 Earth years and an aphelion of nearly 93 billion miles/1000 AU. It's my understanding that an object large enough to be unquestionably a planet could easily escape detection at that distance, and who knows what's in the Kuiper Belts around other stars. A definition that somehow is designed to exclude Kuiper Belt objects would leave future astronomers stumbling over themselves to explain why Mercury is a planet, but Object X is not.

The second IAU proposal has a major problem in that it requires, "A planet [be] a celestial body that ... is by far the largest object in its local population...." Does that mean that if another star system has two objects just like Jupiter orbiting each other, then neither is a planet? If a rogue object of some sort passed through our solar system and knocked Venus into Earth's orbit at one of its LaGrange points, then both Venus and Earth lose their planetary status? The moon isn't a planet, but the object that hit the Earth to form the moon might have been, and the moon would be again if it escaped Earth's gravity? That doesn't seem like a good definition to me.

It's a nice idea to try to craft a definition independent of units of measurement, but many of the obvious criteria have problems. The existence of an atmosphere would likely include the smaller Pluto (which has a thin layer of nitrogen and methane, at least near its perihelion) but exclude the larger Mercury. Spherical shape doesn't work because different materials seem to be easier or harder to pull into such a shape--so again, you have the smaller Ceres in but the larger "Santa" out. Size relative to nearby objects doesn't work--though not contradicted yet, it's not possible this, too, could let in smaller objects only to exclude larger ones.

I tend to think the criteria should be simply "a planet is an object that is not a star but is above x kilograms in mass and/or y kilometers in diameter." Whether you use diameter, mass, or both and what x and y are will determine what is or isn't a planet.

You can also add to the definition the condition "and is not orbiting another planet." The more I think about it, the less I like that condition, since, in antiquity, the moon was considered a planet; based on that, I would tend to think larger moons should be included if they'd be planets in their own right were it not for their planetary orbit. Since I'm apparently in the minority in that view, I'd propose using the term "planetary moon" for a moon that would be a planet if it orbited independently, and leave well enough alone.

I also dislike the word "pluton" in this context. It has a definite and quite different meaning in geology and could create confusion for geologists who might study other planets. Wikipedia is already using the term "plutonian object." That strikes me as having a nice symmetry with the terms "terrestrial planets" and "jovian planets."

Were I writing the definition that had to exclude moons, I'd say, "a planet is any object that is not a star but is above 10²² kilograms in mass and is not orbiting another planet." That's a nice, round number. Under that definition, there would be 10 known planets--the four terrestrial planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars; the four jovian planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune; and two plutonian planets: Pluto, "Xena." There would also be 7 planetary moons--Earth's moon; Jupiter's Ganymede, Callisto, Io, and Europa; Saturn's Titan; and Neptune's Triton. To me, that is a reasonable definition. It includes the objects that have traditionally classified as planets--except for the relevant moons, the sun, and Ceres. (I think the moons should be included though most people don't, I agree with the consensus that the sun and Ceres they should be excluded.) As of now, there are no known objects near the cut-off line--though Pluto is not much above the line and some similar objects are below that number. (Pluto being near the cut-off is another reason why I like that definition--if there's debate about it, then that's probably about where the line should be.) It would also end future debate: find a new object, ask what it's mass is. Get an accurate answer, and you know if it's a planet or not.

It would be easy to craft a definition that would exclude Pluto and "Xena." "A planet is an object that is not a star but is above 2.0 * 10²² kilograms in mass and is not orbiting another planet." You have a nice round number and Pluto and "Xena" are out. Be very careful if you use that one, though: Triton is a plutonian planetary moon, and that strongly suggests that new discoveries may have the astronomers tripping over themselves with some future discovery of a large plutonian object. I wouldn't agree with the 2.0 * 10²² kilograms cut-off, in part because I think it's unwise to craft a definition that excludes Pluto but might include other plutonian planets. While I can easily live with some plutonian objects being planets while others are not, since asteroids such as Ceres are similar to terrestrial planets such as Mercury, I think that if you have some plutonian planets, then Pluto should be one of them.

I tend to be linguistically conservative--I like definitions that reflect both the etymology of the word and usage of the word--both current and traditional. For the word "planet," the etymology is largely useless--it relates to a geocentric cosmology that we now know to be erroneous. However, there are still useful traditions to fall back on. Pluto has been called a planet for 76 years--three generations is long enough to be a tradition, and is worth consideration. If Pluto is a planet, then the newly discovered "Xena" is a planet. I can live with that, also. I suppose I even like the notion--it's exciting to think that scientists are still discovering new planets in my lifetime.

The only mystery in my mind is the resistance to the idea of plutonian planets by some astronomers.

NEWS - Where's the fire?

2006-08-19T03:50:00.000-04:00

Last week, the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission released a report on racism in the Jacksonville Fire Rescue Department (JFRD). The report was mostly a scathing report, that made the JFRD sound like an anarchic haven of racism and bullying, the final draft culminating in the recommendation that the fire chief be fired.

Don't get me wrong--it is unacceptable for the government to discriminate against any citizen. That said, I focus on the very first sentence of the story about the report--it reads, "A preliminary report issued by the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission found Jacksonville Fire Rescue to be one of the best fire departments in America for fighting fires and saving lives." Firefighters and paramedics should be proficient at saving peoples' lives and property. That they might not be the most politically-correct, culturally-sensitive individuals is a much less important consideration. I would hope attempts to end discrimination within the JFRD don't create disruptions that might compromise the safety of the community in general.

NEWS - Charon as a planet? That Sty(n)x!

2006-08-17T04:02:00.000-04:00

OK. I get why the International Astronomical Union wants to designate 2003 UB313 as a planet. That makes perfect sense--it's bigger than Pluto and it has its own moon. That works for me. (I also note the tentative name of "Xena" is not being used. This means its moon will have to be called something other than "Gabrielle," or future astronomy students will be left scratching their heads.)

I also can deal with Ceres as a planet. When it was first discovered, it was called a planet, and only reclassified after more asteroids were discovered; nonetheless, reclassifying the biggest asteroid as the smallest planet doesn't seem to make that much difference--unless you're writing a textbook or looking for funds to send a space probe.

But Charon? Why? Or, more on my point, why not Earth's moon, Jupiter's Galilean moons, and Saturn's Titan? If you're favoring Kuiper-Belt objects (or former Kuiper-Belt objects), why not Neptune's Triton? If you're going to count large moons as planets, Charon is definitely not the first one you should list. Wikipedia notes in their article on this subject that the Pluto-Charon system orbiting a common center of gravity makes it a "double-planet" system, but Pluto is much larger than Charon. It bothers me that a smaller moon will be called a planet while larger ones aren't.

TRAV - A smart trip to Disney World

2006-08-16T04:01:00.000-04:00

On Sunday, I got back from the Mensa World Gathering. From what I've heard, this is the first time the World Gathering was held someplace other than London--in this case, at Disney's Coronado Springs Resort. As an event, there were plenty fun and interesting events. (There was press covereage of the event, and I intend to write in the coming days about at least one part of one of the discussions.)

However, I did want to share some thoughts about the resort.

First, the service was a mixed bag. Some people, like the check-in clerk, were very polite and helpful. There were many other employees, though, who just didn't seem to care: when I told one housekeeper out of the room in a few minutes, she responded that she was leaving at three--with a definite implication that I wasn't going to get the bed made if I didn't clear out before then; one server in the Pepper Market told me it would they were out of chicken for the pasta primavera and it would take 10 minutes to cook some more--even though I asked her to start a batch and told her I'd return, I had a 10+ minute wait when I returned because she didn't bother to actually start cooking it; two of the glasses in my room were dirty when I arrived, and the ones I used were not replaced with clean glasses. The service problems were all little things like that--but at the rate of $120 a night, that level of service is, in my book, totally inadequate.

I mentioned the Pepper Market above--that was one of the two food options. The other was the Maya Grill--a sit down restaurant that priced itself out of my budget. The Pepper Market was a food court--offering several types of cuisine. However, even with the food court, the choices felt very limited because each station at the food court had only three or four choices. The prices were high--charging sit-down prices for fast-food service. The limited in-hotel food options were particularly annoying since the WG's food service was considerably less than was offered in New Orleans last year. (The story was that Disney insisted that Mensa not provide its own free food so as not to compete with their food offerings; I haven't confirmed this story.)

Another issue was the size of the property. It took 15 minutes to walk from my room to the convention center; to be fair, we're talking about locations on the opposite side of the property--but it somewhat irked me, despite having booked at the event hotel this year instead of--as I did last year--the overflow hotel, I was staying further from the Mensa activities than I was last year. (To give you a good idea of the size of the property, I saw five meteors on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. It may have been the right time for the Persieds, but if you can see five over the course of three nights on a well lit property without making a special effort, then you know you've been out walking a lot.)

I don't mean to imply that the resort was all bad. The main pool was very pleasant. The grounds were very well landscaped, featuring an unusually large number of rabbits (I don't think I ever had a walk to or from my room where I didn't see one--and sometimes I saw several).

Still, the resort did not impress me--unless an event of comparable importance to me is hosted on another Disney property, I don't think I'll ever stay in a Disney Resort on my dime again--not unless they cut their prices dramatically.

(Editor's note: I'd originally titled this blog entry "TRAV - A smart trip to Dizzy World." On reflection, while I tend to think "Dizzy World" is a good label for Disney, I'm not sure it was the best choice for the title of this piece.)

NEWS - No flu's good flu?

2006-08-04T02:00:00.000-04:00

I had very mixed feelings about a study that suggests the H5N1 bird flu virus won't mutate easily into a virus that could cause a pandemic. If the research is correct, then this virus--which has killed nearly 60% of those who have been infected by it--won't easily evolve into a form that can spread readily from person to person. That is certainly good news.

What troubles me is how the scientists learned this--government scientists tried to create a more contagious version of the virus.

I'll grant that the scientists would have taken great care to insure that the virus didn't escape--if only for their own safety. That said, I still have a very hard time seeing how the benefits could outweigh the risks. The hybrid virus they created doesn't exist in the wild--meaning that anything learned from it may not necessarily apply to a naturally-evolved bird flu pandemic strain. Indeed, scientists were very careful to mention that fact; CDC director Julie Gerberding, quoted in the Bloomberg news account, said herself, "This does not mean that H5N1 can't develop into a pandemic strain. We are far from out of the woods on H5N1 on a global scale.''

While the benefits seem negligible, the risk is obvious: if they had succeeded in creating a contagious hybrid, then, in the unlikely event that such a virus had escaped, it could have killed millions! Further, since they would have needed some way to get into the lab--if nothing else, to put the ferrets they experimented on into the lab--I have to believe it would have to have been possible for the virus to escape. Researchers, of course, must work with exceedingly dangerous germs to understand them--but they weren't working with a dangerous natural virus here, they were creating a potentially dangerous artificial one. Certainly, scientific research can be arcane and the benefits of a line of research may not be immediately obvious to the layman, but, based solely on what I read in the two accounts, what the CDC scientists did strikes me as foolhardy and possibly immoral. I don't believe they took the sort of risks one takes when building a nuclear power plant or creating genetically modifying crops--both of which have very real, great, and demonstrable benefits. I think the CDC scientists took a risk more along the lines of drunk driving or randomly shooting a gun on a city street.

I'm not sure which scares me more--that scientists could be behaving so apparently recklessly, or that nobody else (such as Congress before the CDC gets next year's funding or the media who so calmly reported the story in the first place) seems to be asking questions about this.

NEWS - But do they get frequent flier miles?

2006-07-18T22:06:00.000-04:00

In what sounded like a bad promotional tie-in for vacations to Disney World, or perhaps the movie "Snakes on a Plane," a whistleblower recently claimed that an American Airlines 767 had 900-1000 mice living on board.

I wouldn't dispute that having mice living on an airplane--even the airline's estimate of 17 mice--would be a health and safety issue (though, depending on the number of mice, it might not be a great enough safety issue to take the plane out of service immediately). However, I find it interesting that both the first online story I found on the subject (linked-to above) , and the TV coverage that first alerted me to the story both mentioned the figure of 900-1000 mice. Think about that number. A Boeing 767 is 159-201 feet long, depending upon the model--so in every foot of the aircraft, four to six mice supposedly not only found pressurized areas to hide, but enough food to eat for a couple of weeks. I have great doubts as to whether that's possible--let alone likely, yet the media is reporting that claim relatively uncritically.

In the meantime, I have to tell my cats that they've missed their chance to fly someplace with good in-flight meals.