"Sale" out

I saw a web site today expressing the differences between men and women. One of them said that a man will spend $2 on a $1 item he needs while a woman will spend $1 on a $2 item she doesn’t need. This is, of course true. It’s been shown through studies that a woman will spend more money at a store that is having a sale than she would if they are not. I don’t know if any such studies have followed the spending habits of men but I would imagine that men would be at least a little more likely to buy an item if it’s on sale or at least to chose the sale item over a comparable non sale item. I, myself, have purchased items that were originally priced higher than competing items but were on sale for less.

Here’s the thing though. I HATE sales. I consider them to be insulting. And the bigger the sale the more distaste I have for the store hosting it. I especially hate “perpetual sales” like those you see at the jewelry counter at K-Mart. Why would I hate stores for giving me such great deals? Well, it’s simply a desire not to be reamed.

You see, we all know that each and every item on the shelf has to pay for a certain number of things. It has to pay for the materials to make it, the truck to ship it, the lights to illuminate the associate to help you decide you want it and the cashier to take your money. If it can’t do that and still have a few cents to spare then it’s not worth it to the company to sell it. Another thing we all know (deep down) is that when an item is on “sale” it is still paying for all of those things but has fewer “cents” left over after the sale. No company is going to take a loss on their sales. Now it’s true that they may sell one item for less than the total costs of the aforementioned list hoping the sale will entice you to buy other things. That, however, leads me to my problem with BIG sales.

If a company can afford to sell one or two small things for less in order to get you to buy other items that’s fine. But when you see a “store wide” sale you KNOW they’re still making a profit on the items they’re selling. So if you go in and buy an item that was $10 and it’s now marked down to $6 but they’re still making a profit it just goes to show you how much they’re reaming you when you are purchasing the item at the regular price. For this reason it really bothers me when the sale is for high percentages.

The last thing that bothers me is the perpetual sales. I hate it that every time I go in to K-Mart I see a 70% sale on their Jewelry. If it’s ALWAYS 70% off it’s not a sale…that’s the price you’re selling it for. Do not try to insult me by pretending that the item is worth more but that you are offering me a great deal. If you have to TELL me it’s a great deal then it ISN’T a great deal.

-----------------

Edit: I just had to add this. I would accept this as the one exception to the rule that sales are bad

Is Hollywood killing people?

Most of my blog posting are rather humerus in nature but this one is something serious.

I am one of those Harry Potter fans who was looking forward to the Half Blood Prince release for evil reasons. I won't spoil anything but I have not been happy with the editing or directing in the most recent installments. I am amongst the many fans who have begun to lose interest in the movies as they stray further and further from the characters we've come to love in the books and have leaned increasingly on sensationalism and computer graphics to awe their audiences. Warner Brothers is aware of this lack of enthusiasm and they have worked hard to try and overcome it. They have even pushed back the release of the film. I think one reason they've done this is so that those who have been given the pleasure of viewing the film can write their (hopefully glowing) reviews and get people interested in the film before it's release.

Something else happened prior to the film's scheduled release however. Rob Knox who played a supporting role was stabbed and killed in a bar fight. Now these kinds of terrible things happen every day. It's not that uncommon an occurrence. I might even look past it as coincidence if it were not for other prominent deaths preceding movie releases.

The movie the Dark Knight was rumored to be a very good movie. It was, however, to be very dark and much askew from the previous installments of the Batman movies. As such there was some trepidation that it may not be received quite as well by the standing fan base as the others were. You can only put so much of a movie into a trailer so the producers needed to come up with another way to make people interested in this movie. People who were loyal fans as well as those who may never have seen a Batman movie before.

What happened prior to the release of the Dark Knight to garner this interest? There was the sudden and unexpected death of the costarring actor Heath Ledger. What better way to get people to watch a movie than out of respect for the dead right?

Then we move on to the last recent and prominent example. The movie Frost/Nixon was set to be released on a limited basis in select cities. Being a political movie it was standing on a rather narrow line to begin with. People could love it or they could hate it. Now I've seen some of the earnings for the movie from it's first week but it's hard to tell what they mean. As the movie was released only in select cities you can't compare it to the massive earnings of nation wide releases. However, it seems to me that in the time it's been out there the 1.8 million it's earned is somewhat meager.

What is a movie production company to do? Well, you don't want to kill off too many Hollywood actors or you have to go and train new ones and who wants to go through that hassle. So what's the next best thing? Kill off someone famous associated with the story the movie tells. Who could they kill off without being too conspicuous? Well, the options are limited when you're dealing with a movie about the Watergate scandal. There are not too many people still around who the public associates with it. But the powers that be managed to find someone. On Decenber 18th, Mark Felt (A.K.A. Deep Throat) who helped break the scandal died in his home. Yes, he was 95 and in poor health but in light of the other deaths I think his could be considered one in a long line of famous deaths associated with and in close proximity to the release of major motion pictures.

Maybe I'm crazy but Rob Knox, Mark Felt, Heath Ledger, Bruce Lee, Brandon Lee, Bella Lugosi, Richard Harris and a startling long list of others might disagree.

How do they define "most" surfaces?

I got an air freshener about a week ago and decided to instlal it. It is the type that sticks to the wall and you press down on it to make it spray. This is quite odd to me in the first place as it sprays right where you have to press down so you get a hand covered with air freshener.

That problem was solved by the thing breaking before I could even install it though.

Here is the kicker, however. The packaging says "Attaches to most household surfaces." and then goes on to say "Do not use on delicate or vinyl wallpaper, or bare wood. Not recommoneded for use on plasterboard or painted drywall.

So it seems that "most" surfaces refers to tile, metal and stone. I've been to a lot of houses and the places I find tile, metal and stone in those houses is floors, countertops and fixtures. None of which is suitable for the installation of an air freshener.

It reminds me of the sunscreen I get. It says in bold letters on the front of the bottle "Waterproof and sweatproof" and on the back it clearly says to reapply after swimming or sweating.

And still there aren't people out there slapping these advertising directors across the nuckles with rulers for lying (I assum because they eventually tell the truth in small letters on the back of the product.)

Ignorance at it's best

I don't know which is worse. The blatant ignorance displayed in this question from http://answers.yahoo.com or the fact that I almost understand what the person is asking.

_____________________________________________

Who r better rite now out mario williams vs ray lewis,willis mcgahee vs steve slaton,andre johnson vs. r. moss?

i personally think all the texans players are better rite now..call it biased if u want..if u disagree try to prove it

Can someone offer a better definition of being Reamed?

I just took a trip to Lancaster with my wife. On the way through Mojave w spotted a gas station with fuel for $1.85 per gallon and decided to fill up on our way back through. This, of course, is due to the gas here in Ridgecrest costing $2.39 per gallon. When we went in to pay for the gas my wife was telling the cashier about how much our gas was. She told us that theirs was due to drop even more in the next few days and I (half jokingly) said that if it did that it would be cheaper to run our van near empty and just drive to Mojave to fill up.

Well, being the nerd I am and having nothing better to do in the wee hours of my birthday I thought I would test that theory.

According to Google Maps the distance from Ridgecrest to Mojave is 58.6 miles.

We drive a 1999 minivan that runs between 21 and 26 miles per gallon on the freeway so I went with a conservative estimate of 22 MPG.

At 22 MPG it would take 2.66 gallons of gas to reach Mojave from Ridgecrest.

Our van has a 20 gallon tank on it.

If I were to wait until I had only a few gallons left and then drove to Mojave it would cost me $37 to fill a 20 gallon tank paying $1.85 per gallon.

Driving back would use up 2.66 gallons of gas which I would then replace at the cost of $6.36 if paying $2.39 per gallon.

If you add those two figures together it comes to a total cost of $43.36

If I were to simply fill the 20 gallon tank here in Ridgecrest it would cost me $47.80 to do so.

It turns out that I would be saving a total of $4.44 by driving 117 miles out of my way to fill up my tank.

So, Schwarzenegger, are you planning on doing anything about this? Everywhere I go in California I see gas prices lower than they are in Ridgecrest. I even took several random city samplings on http://www.californiagasprices.com and in every one of them the price of gas was lower than in Ridgecrest.

And keep in mind I used some of the less expensive gas in Ridgecrest (many places cost more) and used a low estimate for my MPG. My van gets better mileage than that in reality and many cars on the roads now get 30+ MPG on the freeway even going uphill with the air conditioning on while loaded with half a dozen passengers.

Not much to say at the moment. But I just HAD to share this with all who may come across my blog. I was at a site today and found this in the lower left hand corner of their screen.

It kind of reminds me of the question about why Denny's has locks on their doors if they're open 24/7 and at the same time it kind of answers it. Strange that.

My God, it's full of stars...I think...I can't see them 'cause of this blasted monitor though

I haven't made a post in a while so I just thought I would drop a line so that blogspot didn't think I had died and chose to send out searchers to recover my body.

That and I've been reduced to one of the most vile acts against nature. I am sitting outside on a beautiful night, the stars are above me, the sounds of slumbering nature are in my ears (a blessing compared to the cacophony of sounds usually so impressive upon me at this time of night (for a reference see my post about dreams) and yet I have my laptop with me. I'm surrounded by mother nature's glory (granted I'm just in my back yard) but I have dragged this atrocity we call technology out here with me. I have sullied nature with the electric hum of my hard drive and cooling fan.

Now don't get me wrong. Don't think that I've suddenly given up on nature and embraced technology. It's just that for the last week or so normal temperatures have been unbearable to me. I feel as if I'm sitting in 90 degree heat at 60 percent humidity when I'm in a 70 degree house. I'm sitting in a folding chair, it's 51 degrees out, I am wearing a t-shirt, shorts and sandals and I'm sipping on a cold soda and I'm comfortable. I don't know what has brought on this change and will most probably be seeking medical attention for it if it keeps up but for now I'm forced to drag this infernal machine into the bosom of our mother planed and taunt her with that which she cannot create. Ok...maybe a LITTLE over the edge there but I really do hate it when I see people out and about where they should be admiring God's creations and instead they're staring at a Gameboy or talking on a phone or punching keys on a laptop. And on that note I think I'll sign out and stare at the stars for a bit.

Acquired taste.

Scenario:

1) Smack your hand with a hammer (OUCH!)
2) Smack your hand with a hammer (OUCH!)
3) Smack your hand with a hammer (ouch!)
4) Smack your hand with a hammer (ouch)
5) Smack your hand with a hammer (ow)
6) Smack your hand with a hammer (mmph)
7) Smack your hand with a hammer (ooh)
8) Smack your hand with a hammer (wow!)
9) Smack your hand with a hammer (Yeah Baby!)

Seems kind of silly to think that one would go from a resounding "OUCH!" to an impassioned "Yeah Baby!"

Well, I mentioned to a co worker today that I had gone a while without any caffeine lately. He suggested that I have some coffee when we get back to the office. I informed him that I found coffee to be vile. To this he replied "It's an acquired taste."

I find this idea to the the epitome of human stupidity. I told him I could not fathom the thought process that leads people to "acquire" a taste for something. It seems to me that if you ingest something and it tastes bad to you that you should stop consuming it. He tried a number of approaches to prove me wrong such as "What about beer?" To which I responded that I don't drink and beer tastes bad anyway so I wouldn't drink it in any case. He asked about spicy foods and I told him the most I use is a dash of Tobasco on my omelet and a slice of pepper jack cheese on my sandwiches. Then he tried lemons which backfired because, though I do eat lemons, I have never in my life found them revolting. I've always enjoyed their taste.

It just boggles my mind that someone can consume something and find that it tastes gross and then make the conscious decision to try more of it and then more and then even more until the mind gives up on trying to repel you from the substance and convinces itself that the stuff tastes good.

Don't think me too closed minded though. If I try something and I don't like it then I'm prone to try it again a year or two later as I am aware that our tastes change naturally over time. I don't assume that because something is unpalatable to me once that it will forever be. I just don't see the logic in forcing yourself to keep consuming something vile in an attempt to "acquire" a liking for it's taste.

This is the kind of stuff I think of while I'm at work

My next bit of randomness centers on the lies our parents tell us. Now we've all heard the lies about going blind (from sitting too close to the TV), growing hair on our palms (from sitting too close to the microwave), and others of course. But the one I am going to focus on is about throwing rocks into things (canyons, mines, ponds, rivers, etc.)

When I was about 10 years old I visited the Grand Canyon with my parents. I did what all kids want to do. I picked up a rock and threw it into the canyon. I was instantly assaulted with the obligatory "If everyone who came here did that then the canyon would be filled with rocks." I'm going to look at this from the standpoint of everyone ON EARTH throwing a rock into the canyon.

The rock I threw wasn't very large but let's pretend it was the equivalent size of a 3" cube. (About as big as a Rubik's cube.) Here are the numbers we're working with.

The Grand Canyon

Length = 227 "river miles"
Average width is 10 miles "rim to rim"
average depth is 1 mile

So what's that in cubic miles?

227 * 10 * 1 But we'll even say the average width is 8 miles since it's bound to be more narrow at the base than at the rim.

227 * 8 * 1 = 1,816 cubic miles

"Everyone" on earth

Population in 1985 was about 4.8 billion

A three inch by three inch by three inch rock = 27 cubic inches

Now since we're dealing with a 27 cubic inch rock we need to know how many cubic inches are in the Grand Canyon (Warning for the numerically challenged...the number is absolutely massive)

There are 12 inches in a foot. There are 5280 feet in a mile. So there are 63,360 inches in a mile. If we're going to make those cubic inches in a cubic mile we have to cube them. That is to say 63,360 * 63,360 * 63,360 which equals...ready for the first big number?

254,358,061,056,000 cubic inches in a cubic mile.

But that Grand Canyon of ours is 1,816 cubic miles so we multiply that big number by 1,816 and we get:

416,914,238,877,696,000 (416 Quadrillion, 914 Trillion, 238 Billion, 877 Million, 696 Thousand)

Wow, that's a lot of inches...

We'll divide that by the size of the rock I threw (27 cubic inches) and we'll get:

17,107,934,773,248,000 rocks it would take to fill the grand canyon

Now divide that by the 4.8 billion people on earth at the time of my parents proclamation and you get:

3,564,153.07776 (basically 3 Million, 564 Thousand, 153)

So Every single person on earth would have to throw over 3.5 million rocks into the Grand Canyon before it could possibly fill up.

There are, of course, the logical amongst you who would say that the rocks are coming from near the canyon so the ground around the canyon is getting deeper as the canyon gets more shallow. In which case there would still be a CANYON. Or at least a big valley.

-------------------------

Incidentally, if 4.8 billion people each threw 1 rock that was 27 cubic inches then that would be 129,600,000,000 cubic inches or 75,000,000 cubic feet or .0005095 cubic miles

75,000,000 cubic feet is equal to 2.69025 feet deep spread over 1 square mile. The Grand Canyon's floor is 2,270 square miles so that would be equivalent to .001185 feet deep spread over the whole floor. That's .0142 inches which is only a hair's breadth over 1/3 of a millimeter. That is, of course, assuming that the rocks shattered to gravel / dust on impacting the canyon floor a mile below.

So if everyone on earth in 1985 threw the equivalent of 27 square inches of something into the Grand Canyon the floor would rise about the width of this hyphen -

Just a little bit of randomness here. I was checking the weather today on weatherunderground (http://www.wunderground.com) and I noticed that they list the density of the cloud covering at different altitudes. That's pretty useful and all. Then I noticed what was printed below the cloud cover information. The words "Above ground level" note that it's not above sea level. They're informing us that the clouds are above the ground. As opposed to below it I suppose. I know we call clouds that are AT ground level "fog" but what do you call clouds that are below the ground?

I am my own worst enemy

You know, it figures. I don't recall having heard any of my children tell me that they've had dreams of being underwater or living in a pineapple. My wife doesn't remember any of her dreams so I have no way of knowing whether her television affects her sleep. In fact, despite my worries to the contrary I've never seen any real indication that the Television affects the kids sleep at all.

Of course, having written a commentary on the possible effects of these shows on the subconscious of my families minds, I managed to affect a detriment to my own sleep. I spent nearly the entire night having my typical dreams (we won't delve into them for fear that I may be committed.) The difference being that last night there was an incessant narrative voice running over the top of my dreams. This voice insisted on analyzing the imagery, speculating as to why I chose each aspect to dream about and wondering as to what external stimuli were causing unintentional alterations to my dream scape. *sigh* I suppose I should just grin and nod and accept that ignorance is bliss so that I can, perhaps, "dream easy" tonight.

Do Children Dream Electric Spongebobs?

It's simply mind boggling to me. I am sitting here at some late hour (deciding whether it's time for bed or not) and I'm listening to the world around me. It's something that most people don't really take the time to do often enough. I hear a light splashing sound that is the cat drinking from the dogs watter dish, the sound of the dogs getting comfortable in their crate, the sound of the oscillating fan running (because nobody believes me that the fan actually RAISES the ambient temperature of a room and does no good unless it's moving air that's actually touching you), dogs baring from a block away and then there are the other sounds.

You see, my family insists on having the Television on in order to go to bed. We've given them night lights and radios but they must have the TV running. My wife has this habit as well. We have a three bedroom house and we have four television sets. The children have the televisions running almost 24 hours a day on the weekends and all of their "home" hours during the week. The television in the room of our youngest is actually wearing out due to constant use and when we provided them with a DVD player it was dead within two months from running almost constantly.

As I listen I can hear the Flintstones movie coming through from my bedroom where my Wife has fallen asleep to some other movie and has transitioned to the Flintstones. From the bedroom housing my 13 year old and 7 year old I can hear Spongebob blaring it's mundane, repetitive humor and from the six year old's room I hear something that might be The Emperor's New School though I can't make it out amidst the others.

I wonder what this is doing to their subconscious minds. It has been proven that during sleep is when we process information that has been taken in throughout the day. Those who are not allowed to sleep do not retain the level of knowledge as those who do. But how much of it's own agenda can their minds be attending to in the din of all these sounds? I know that if I'm hearing them all blended together from this end of the house that those in the bedrooms must be able to hear them all as well. What are their minds making of all these stimuli?

I also fear, sometimes, for their safety. They have become so conditioned by the constant influx of sound that often the only thing that can rouse them is silence. I wondered for a long time why our six year old would come into our bedroom at exactly the same time every night telling us she had "had a dream." I finally found the culprit. Our cable service feels it must update our program guide daily. Our converter boxes were set to do this at 3:00 in the morning. This update caused the program to shut off and the box to display a silent screen saver image until the "select" button was pressed. This was the exact time that our little one came in every morning. I set the update time to 6 AM and all was well from that point on.

On the other hand the children have slept through dogs barking, smoke alarms going off, alarm clocks and even the sound of the front door being opened and slammed shut (It must have been the wind as there was nobody near when I searched inside and out). They don't wake when the neighbor's Peacocks go into a frenzy, they don't wake when the phone rings, they don't wake when the dogs are whining to get outside for a bladder release. In the mornings calling their names doesn't even work. It requires physical contact to wake them because they have become so desensitized to sound.