I just had an idea for a stocking stuffer. I went down to a local store here ("Just Imagine") and purchased a few pieces of Pyrite. You should be able to find them at mineral shops, museums, educationally centered establishments, etc.
Pyrite is an iron sulfide that is the color of gold. It usually looks like small crystals all bunched together or like a fine lava stone.
Tomorrow I'll be going to our local dollar store to find some black play dough. I'm going to pack the play dough around the pyrite and allow it to harden (Might bake it to speed up the process) to give it the look of a lump of coal.
The "coal" can then be broken open to reveal the "gold" center.
If you're worried that the play dough might work itself into the crevasses in the pyrite you might try wrapping the pyrite with plastic wrap before packing the play dough around it. If you do it this way I'm not sure I would recommend baking it for fast drying.
-----------------------
Update: OK, so here's how they turned out. I ended up wrapping the pyrite in aluminum foil so that I could bake them once encased with play dough. I baked them which took several attempts at 450 degrees for half an hour at a time. It smelled REALLY bad too. However, I was using a dollar store knock off so that is probably the reason for the smell and for the difficulty in drying it. The stuff was also very difficult to work with and had a plastic, slimy feel to it.
Once dry it had a rough texture and some cracks in it which gave it the look of a lump of coal. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find black and I only had a black marker handy so it only ended up MOSTLY black. The kids still loved it and were thrilled to find "gold" in their coal.
So...tips for those interested in doing this? 1) Use name brand play dough or find a recipe for some online that you can make and dye yourself 2) Bake it until you're sure it's done all the way through as mine got a hard shell but was still soft on the inside the first couple of baking sessions. Longer baking time won't hurt anything and a little burning isn't an issue as it's supposed to be black anyway 3) Wrap your "gold" with aluminum foil 4) Use colored dough instead of painting or coloring it after baking as it gets on your hands when breaking it open.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Our rapidly accelerating universe
So there are these super smart guys sitting around looking at data collected by telescopes and getting paid good money for it. These smart guys have noticed that it looks like the galaxies that are furthest from the center of the universe are accelerating. This is contrary to what SHOULD be happening. Because these galaxies have lots of matter behind them (relatively) and there is no apparent pulling force in front of them they should be slowing down.
Now these super smart guys are often incapable of uttering the three words "I don't know" and so they immediately started brainstorming to figure out why this would be happening. They have, to my knowledge, come up with four theories. 1) Our galaxy is in it's own "time bubble" (and yes they used that term.) 2) There is "dark matter" that is causing the acceleration (dark matter being this invisible thing that they THINK they can detect with their telescopes.) 3) A strange alteration of space/time when energy levels become extreme (which is strange because I was just sitting here thinking of writing this exact blog entry when I came across this web site ) and 4) Giant space faeries with giant space brooms sweeping the path clean in front of the galaxies (OK I made that last part up.)
I have a more simple explanation. I think they look like they're speeding up because they're actually slowing down. I LOVE it when my brain comes up with these things. But here's the thing. We have to dive into the shallow kiddie pool end of Einstein's relativity theory (so don't be scared.)
First off, everything in the universe is moving. Nothing is actually still. We are on earth which is spinning and orbiting the sun which is orbiting the center of our galaxy which is hurtling through space. You get the idea.
Now, Einstein says that as we approach the speed of light time is altered. For simplicity we'll say that someone orbiting the earth VERY quickly might experience 1 day while everyone on earth might experience 10 years in that time.
This idea goes both ways. The astronaut would look down and see a year pass on earth in only 2.4 hours his time. At the same time, if someone on earth could see the astronaut's watch with a super powerful telescope they would see that it takes a whole year for his watch to advance 2 hours and 24 minutes.
So here is where I get my light bulb moment. This time relativity thing shows that something moving more quickly than you appears to YOU to be progressing more slowly through time. It also shows that something moving more slowly than YOU appears to be progressing more quickly through time.
So let's look at the most simple answer here. These very distant galaxies have been spinning through space for a very long time. They have the drag of gravity behind them. They are SLOWING DOWN but since everything flew out of the big bang at the same speed(don't take me for an evolutionist because of that term. It would take another whole blog post for me to explain how the big bang is not contrary to divine creation)our galaxy has not encountered as much friction or gravitational drag as these distant ones have and is, therefore, traveling more closely to its original speed at time of creation.
So we are moving more quickly than these galaxies which means that to OUR perspective they APPEAR to be progressing through time more quickly than us. Since speed is equal to distance/time and time is being perceived incorrectly by us they appear to be traveling more quickly than they are. And since they're slowing down more rapidly than we are that time difference is becoming more pronounced and therefore makes them appear to be speeding up.
Weird isn't it?
Next problem...if they're slowing down more rapidly than we are that means we're going to run into them eventually...I wonder what the braking distance is for a galaxy our size.
Now these super smart guys are often incapable of uttering the three words "I don't know" and so they immediately started brainstorming to figure out why this would be happening. They have, to my knowledge, come up with four theories. 1) Our galaxy is in it's own "time bubble" (and yes they used that term.) 2) There is "dark matter" that is causing the acceleration (dark matter being this invisible thing that they THINK they can detect with their telescopes.) 3) A strange alteration of space/time when energy levels become extreme (which is strange because I was just sitting here thinking of writing this exact blog entry when I came across this web site ) and 4) Giant space faeries with giant space brooms sweeping the path clean in front of the galaxies (OK I made that last part up.)
I have a more simple explanation. I think they look like they're speeding up because they're actually slowing down. I LOVE it when my brain comes up with these things. But here's the thing. We have to dive into the shallow kiddie pool end of Einstein's relativity theory (so don't be scared.)
First off, everything in the universe is moving. Nothing is actually still. We are on earth which is spinning and orbiting the sun which is orbiting the center of our galaxy which is hurtling through space. You get the idea.
Now, Einstein says that as we approach the speed of light time is altered. For simplicity we'll say that someone orbiting the earth VERY quickly might experience 1 day while everyone on earth might experience 10 years in that time.
This idea goes both ways. The astronaut would look down and see a year pass on earth in only 2.4 hours his time. At the same time, if someone on earth could see the astronaut's watch with a super powerful telescope they would see that it takes a whole year for his watch to advance 2 hours and 24 minutes.
So here is where I get my light bulb moment. This time relativity thing shows that something moving more quickly than you appears to YOU to be progressing more slowly through time. It also shows that something moving more slowly than YOU appears to be progressing more quickly through time.
So let's look at the most simple answer here. These very distant galaxies have been spinning through space for a very long time. They have the drag of gravity behind them. They are SLOWING DOWN but since everything flew out of the big bang at the same speed(don't take me for an evolutionist because of that term. It would take another whole blog post for me to explain how the big bang is not contrary to divine creation)our galaxy has not encountered as much friction or gravitational drag as these distant ones have and is, therefore, traveling more closely to its original speed at time of creation.
So we are moving more quickly than these galaxies which means that to OUR perspective they APPEAR to be progressing through time more quickly than us. Since speed is equal to distance/time and time is being perceived incorrectly by us they appear to be traveling more quickly than they are. And since they're slowing down more rapidly than we are that time difference is becoming more pronounced and therefore makes them appear to be speeding up.
Weird isn't it?
Next problem...if they're slowing down more rapidly than we are that means we're going to run into them eventually...I wonder what the braking distance is for a galaxy our size.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The "pad"
There is a nifty new device out there on the market that will charge your cell phone or other electronic device just by placing it on a pad (no plugs required.) That's pretty cool. It uses an ambient electrical field to charge them. The thing is that the type of field it uses exists all around us all the time. It's nowhere close to as powerful as this pad is but it's there. In fact, whilst this pad may be able to charge your battery in a few hours (I haven't checked the specs on it) there was talk over a year ago about a technology that could do the same thing with your cell phone or other gadget while it rested in your pocket. This technology would take a little longer to charge but it worked all the time so it didn't have to do the job in 3 hours. It did the job constantly.
Herein lies the reason that we will probably never see the earlier technology and will be stuck with the pad (which still tethers you to a wall socket even if it works in a really cool way and you don't have to mess with multiple plugs)
In 2007 a study showed that there were about 203 million cell phones in use in the United States alone (2 billion world wide.)
My home has three phones in use. One by me (I talk very little), one by my wife (who talks a bit more) and one by our teenager (who texts a LOT). I figure we're a fairly rounded and average dynamic of users. My wife has to charge her phone daily, my son every day and a half or so and I charge every few days. Charging takes about 3 hours for each of our phones.
My chargers are all very close in their energy consumption. One uses 22 watts and two of them use 33 watts each.
So here comes the math (this happens a lot with me)
I charge every 3 days
kid charges every 1.5 days
wife charges every 1 day
Average 1.8 days between charging (I'll go low ball here and call it once every 2 days)
Average power consumption = (33+33+22)/3 = 29.3 watts (I'll round up to 30 and make up for that low ball)
Charging time for each phone = 3 hours
3 hours @ 30 watts = 90 watt hours (every 2 days) = 45 watt hours per day
Any of you who pay the electric bill know that you are charged by the kilowatt hour and not the watt hour. So here is where our number gets small because we divide it by 1000.
My household uses .045 kilowatt hours per day to charge our phones.
We pay 13 cents per kilowatt hour for our energy (SCE {Southern California Edison} are highway robbers) so we pay .00585 dollars per day to charge our three phones (about half a cent for those paying attention.)
That isn't much at all even less when you divide it by 3 (to get the amount each phone costs). Even at 365 days a year that's only 71 cents a year we spend charging one phone. But remember that first little statistic? There were, in 2007, 203 million cell phones in use in the United States. So let's multiply that 17 cents by 203 million so we end up with $144,485,250
So in 2007 the U.S. power suppliers were making just over 144 million dollars a year just by consumers charging their phones. How much of that money do you think they had to throw at the team who was developing a way to charge cell phones for FREE before they handed over the rights to their research? I would probably give up on John Q. Public for a measly 100 million or so myself.
So we are left with just a taste of what that technology could have meant for us. We have the pad and will soon have household surfaces (couch arms, coffee tables, computer desks, etc.) that will charge our phone just by laying it on top of them just as long as they stay plugged in so good ol' Uncle Power-Company gets 144 million a year (and that's just for the cell phones. Don't forget about the media players, PDA's, GPS units, etc.)
Herein lies the reason that we will probably never see the earlier technology and will be stuck with the pad (which still tethers you to a wall socket even if it works in a really cool way and you don't have to mess with multiple plugs)
In 2007 a study showed that there were about 203 million cell phones in use in the United States alone (2 billion world wide.)
My home has three phones in use. One by me (I talk very little), one by my wife (who talks a bit more) and one by our teenager (who texts a LOT). I figure we're a fairly rounded and average dynamic of users. My wife has to charge her phone daily, my son every day and a half or so and I charge every few days. Charging takes about 3 hours for each of our phones.
My chargers are all very close in their energy consumption. One uses 22 watts and two of them use 33 watts each.
So here comes the math (this happens a lot with me)
I charge every 3 days
kid charges every 1.5 days
wife charges every 1 day
Average 1.8 days between charging (I'll go low ball here and call it once every 2 days)
Average power consumption = (33+33+22)/3 = 29.3 watts (I'll round up to 30 and make up for that low ball)
Charging time for each phone = 3 hours
3 hours @ 30 watts = 90 watt hours (every 2 days) = 45 watt hours per day
Any of you who pay the electric bill know that you are charged by the kilowatt hour and not the watt hour. So here is where our number gets small because we divide it by 1000.
My household uses .045 kilowatt hours per day to charge our phones.
We pay 13 cents per kilowatt hour for our energy (SCE {Southern California Edison} are highway robbers) so we pay .00585 dollars per day to charge our three phones (about half a cent for those paying attention.)
That isn't much at all even less when you divide it by 3 (to get the amount each phone costs). Even at 365 days a year that's only 71 cents a year we spend charging one phone. But remember that first little statistic? There were, in 2007, 203 million cell phones in use in the United States. So let's multiply that 17 cents by 203 million so we end up with $144,485,250
So in 2007 the U.S. power suppliers were making just over 144 million dollars a year just by consumers charging their phones. How much of that money do you think they had to throw at the team who was developing a way to charge cell phones for FREE before they handed over the rights to their research? I would probably give up on John Q. Public for a measly 100 million or so myself.
So we are left with just a taste of what that technology could have meant for us. We have the pad and will soon have household surfaces (couch arms, coffee tables, computer desks, etc.) that will charge our phone just by laying it on top of them just as long as they stay plugged in so good ol' Uncle Power-Company gets 144 million a year (and that's just for the cell phones. Don't forget about the media players, PDA's, GPS units, etc.)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Could I be insane? Or maybe just really smart?
So I picked the kids up from school today and one of them said "Hi" so I responded "low." They were, for some reason, fascinated by this. So I explained the idea of being presented with random words or phrases and responding with the first thing that pops into your mind. I know this is an exercise used by psychologists, employers and others to gauge certain aspects of a person's psyche. The thing is...even I was kind of taken aback by some of my responses. Here are a few.
McDonalds : therapy
Skate : Day of the Rope
Basketball Hoop: Orangutan
Park : Hang glider
Quicksand : Frisbee
Marshmallow : Alien
Those are the few that remain fresh in my memory from the 10 minute long session we had in which we bounced words around as I drove. The thing is that I can explain all of them. It's just that I can't explain how I jumped from the impetus to my reactive word(s) without hitting upon the steps in between until I gave retrospective thought to it.
It seems to me that someone administering a test of this sort to me would find my answers to be rather insane. So I wonder if my having skipped several logical steps in the relational chain is a sign that my mind is still going strong and just thinks so quickly and so efficiently that it doesn't have to register all the steps in order to reach the conclusion or if it means that my mind has weakened to the point where it gets lost along it's way and instead of being able to relate the very first thought in the though chain it wanders along that chain momentarily before tripping on a link down the line and spewing forth apparently random nonsense.
McDonalds : therapy
Skate : Day of the Rope
Basketball Hoop: Orangutan
Park : Hang glider
Quicksand : Frisbee
Marshmallow : Alien
Those are the few that remain fresh in my memory from the 10 minute long session we had in which we bounced words around as I drove. The thing is that I can explain all of them. It's just that I can't explain how I jumped from the impetus to my reactive word(s) without hitting upon the steps in between until I gave retrospective thought to it.
It seems to me that someone administering a test of this sort to me would find my answers to be rather insane. So I wonder if my having skipped several logical steps in the relational chain is a sign that my mind is still going strong and just thinks so quickly and so efficiently that it doesn't have to register all the steps in order to reach the conclusion or if it means that my mind has weakened to the point where it gets lost along it's way and instead of being able to relate the very first thought in the though chain it wanders along that chain momentarily before tripping on a link down the line and spewing forth apparently random nonsense.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Sansa e200 playlist sync problem
I have been searching for three days to solve a problem with my SanDisc Sansa e270 MP3. When I first got it I loaded it up with all my music, videos and playlists with no problems whatsoever. After having installed some updates to my system and such I find I'm suddenly unable to use Windows Media Player 11 to synchronize playlists. It will copy all of the music to the player but not the playlist. This was quite frustrating as I use my player almost exclusively to listen to audio books.
Well, three days later (which is almost unheard of for me as I am a VERY good internet researcher) I finally found a solution. It seems that this problem is common to ALL e200 series players that Sansa has created. NONE of them are working anymore (way to go Microsoft.) Turns out there is someone out there looking out for all of us Sansa users though. A company called "Hot Coffee Software has created a FREE Sansa Playlist creator and editor. It lets you use the player in MSC mode so you can drag and drop just like you would in Explorer. It lets you create, edit and merge playlists. You can make playlists from files on your computer or files that are already on your Sansa player. It is THE solution to the Sansa playlist problem.
You can find the file here http://hcware.110mb.com/sansa/ and I must give linkage to the place that led me to this find which is a forum at a place called "anything but ipod" (which, despite my love for Apple, is something dear to my heart as I hate ipods) You can find the link to the forum post here http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3827&highlight=playlists and I would imagine that a few other non ipod issues might be solved at this forum as well.
Well, three days later (which is almost unheard of for me as I am a VERY good internet researcher) I finally found a solution. It seems that this problem is common to ALL e200 series players that Sansa has created. NONE of them are working anymore (way to go Microsoft.) Turns out there is someone out there looking out for all of us Sansa users though. A company called "Hot Coffee Software has created a FREE Sansa Playlist creator and editor. It lets you use the player in MSC mode so you can drag and drop just like you would in Explorer. It lets you create, edit and merge playlists. You can make playlists from files on your computer or files that are already on your Sansa player. It is THE solution to the Sansa playlist problem.
You can find the file here http://hcware.110mb.com/sansa/ and I must give linkage to the place that led me to this find which is a forum at a place called "anything but ipod" (which, despite my love for Apple, is something dear to my heart as I hate ipods) You can find the link to the forum post here http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3827&highlight=playlists and I would imagine that a few other non ipod issues might be solved at this forum as well.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tired of the sock battle
I know this just MIGHT cause some of you to pass out so please take a seat (if, by some chance, you were standing at your computer or maybe using a public internet kiosk at a mall just to access my blog.) I'm actually going to write something of USE.
So here's the thing. I married into a family of 4. Three of those are children. Children apparently have some odd flaws. They are incapable of certain acts pertaining to footwear. They can't seem to sort socks, they can't seem to distinguish between their socks and those belonging to others and when they are GIVEN a PAIR of their OWN socks they can't seem to get them BOTH into the laundry basket for the same wash cycle.
All these things borne in mind and realizing that I really hate dealing with a huge basket of socks (ours has pretty much become a perpetual basket that stays in the kids room and they pull socks out as needed)I have come up with an idea.
Now this is not an entirely new idea. I've seen part of it employed before. The first part is easy. Use a laundry marker to put your child's initial on their socks. If it makes the kid feel better you can agree on a shape, smiley face, colored X or whatever. Now this helps to keep their own socks on their own feet. But it really doesn't help when it comes to them trying to find a pair that matches. So I have decided that when new socks are purchased not only will their initial go onto the sock but it will be followed by a number.
Zach will have two Z-1 socks and two Z-2 socks etc. This will solve a number of issues. Firstly, it will make sorting a breeze. You sort the letters and match the numbers and you're done. It also helps to eliminate orphan socks. When a sock becomes torn or stretched or blood stained you dispose of it and it's numeric pair. It can also be used as a pre wash incentive. You can line up the socks and tell at a glance which have a mate missing somewhere in the house and send your children on a search for just the missing ones.
So that's my future plan in a nut shell. I figure that I won't have to go much higher than a 24 on the numbering. That's a few packs of socks and by the time you've had to purchase a third or fourth pack of socks for your kid they had better have a good reason for needing them (meaning that the lower numbers will have been thrown out and can then be reused.)
So here's the thing. I married into a family of 4. Three of those are children. Children apparently have some odd flaws. They are incapable of certain acts pertaining to footwear. They can't seem to sort socks, they can't seem to distinguish between their socks and those belonging to others and when they are GIVEN a PAIR of their OWN socks they can't seem to get them BOTH into the laundry basket for the same wash cycle.
All these things borne in mind and realizing that I really hate dealing with a huge basket of socks (ours has pretty much become a perpetual basket that stays in the kids room and they pull socks out as needed)I have come up with an idea.
Now this is not an entirely new idea. I've seen part of it employed before. The first part is easy. Use a laundry marker to put your child's initial on their socks. If it makes the kid feel better you can agree on a shape, smiley face, colored X or whatever. Now this helps to keep their own socks on their own feet. But it really doesn't help when it comes to them trying to find a pair that matches. So I have decided that when new socks are purchased not only will their initial go onto the sock but it will be followed by a number.
Zach will have two Z-1 socks and two Z-2 socks etc. This will solve a number of issues. Firstly, it will make sorting a breeze. You sort the letters and match the numbers and you're done. It also helps to eliminate orphan socks. When a sock becomes torn or stretched or blood stained you dispose of it and it's numeric pair. It can also be used as a pre wash incentive. You can line up the socks and tell at a glance which have a mate missing somewhere in the house and send your children on a search for just the missing ones.
So that's my future plan in a nut shell. I figure that I won't have to go much higher than a 24 on the numbering. That's a few packs of socks and by the time you've had to purchase a third or fourth pack of socks for your kid they had better have a good reason for needing them (meaning that the lower numbers will have been thrown out and can then be reused.)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Texting Addiction
So I got a wild hair and looked up texting addiction. This is because of viewing the usage history for my 14 year old since we allowed him to spend his allowance on unlimited texting. I found one article where the addicted person being interviewed said that they sometimes reached 5000 messages a month. Another article complained of a child running up a $600+ bill with texting (equaling over 12,000 messages).
Well here is a sad look into my child's life.
Between the 22nd of May and the 13th of June he has sent or received 14,066 text messages. That's in only 22 days. As I'm sure you're figuring out I'm obsessed with numbers. He's averaged 639 messages a day. I'll assume he sleeps 9 hours a night (I'm using yesterday as a gauge: he got up (started texting) at 9:10 and went to bed (stopped texting) at 11:48 so that is around 15 waking hour.) So 15 hours a day waking time for 22 days is 330 hours. That is 42.6 texts per waking hour.
Oh, and using yesterday as a guide I found that 47% of those are sent by him.
It is kind of scary to hear someone calling out that they are a texting addict with only 5000 texts per month (though I will admit they don't specify if that was total texts or only sent texts) when my child has SENT approximately 6,653 in only 22 days.
Now there is one ray of hope here. One tidbit that may indicate that he's not QUITE as addicted as he may seem. You see, many of his friends pay for their own cell plans and they have figured out that they can get an absolutely minimal minute plan with unlimited texting. That allows them to have conversations with multiple persons at one time and also allows them to converse in an unlimited fashion without using thousands of talking minutes and therefore having to pay massive amounts for a voice plan to cover those minutes.
Still, I think it's an addiction...but maybe that's just me.
UPDATE: As of the end of the billing cycle (5/22/09 to 6/22/09) he sent and received a total of 20953 text messages (677 per day average) Oh, and for any pot / kettle types out there...my total messaging for that month was 715 and my wife's was 235 and we both use instant messaging on our phones.
Well here is a sad look into my child's life.
Between the 22nd of May and the 13th of June he has sent or received 14,066 text messages. That's in only 22 days. As I'm sure you're figuring out I'm obsessed with numbers. He's averaged 639 messages a day. I'll assume he sleeps 9 hours a night (I'm using yesterday as a gauge: he got up (started texting) at 9:10 and went to bed (stopped texting) at 11:48 so that is around 15 waking hour.) So 15 hours a day waking time for 22 days is 330 hours. That is 42.6 texts per waking hour.
Oh, and using yesterday as a guide I found that 47% of those are sent by him.
It is kind of scary to hear someone calling out that they are a texting addict with only 5000 texts per month (though I will admit they don't specify if that was total texts or only sent texts) when my child has SENT approximately 6,653 in only 22 days.
Now there is one ray of hope here. One tidbit that may indicate that he's not QUITE as addicted as he may seem. You see, many of his friends pay for their own cell plans and they have figured out that they can get an absolutely minimal minute plan with unlimited texting. That allows them to have conversations with multiple persons at one time and also allows them to converse in an unlimited fashion without using thousands of talking minutes and therefore having to pay massive amounts for a voice plan to cover those minutes.
Still, I think it's an addiction...but maybe that's just me.
UPDATE: As of the end of the billing cycle (5/22/09 to 6/22/09) he sent and received a total of 20953 text messages (677 per day average) Oh, and for any pot / kettle types out there...my total messaging for that month was 715 and my wife's was 235 and we both use instant messaging on our phones.
Friday, June 5, 2009
2 days of my life
It seems that the people in my house are incapable of operating the spring loaded toilet paper roller. At least none of them seem to want to. I have realized that living in a house with five people we go through a roll of toilet paper a day. And I have noticed that I am the only one who puts it on the roller. I have also registered the fact that it takes me 6 to 10 seconds to complete this task.
So assuming that this task takes 10 seconds every time (sometimes I drop the toilet paper and sometimes I have to go into the hall for a new roll so a high estimate isn't uncalled for). Now let's assume I'll live to be 80 years old. Having started this routine of mine at about 30 years of age when I married into my family we'll say I'll do this for 50 years. Now I know that the kids will eventually move out (probably) but at that point we'll probably change over to a more comfortable if slightly more expensive toilet paper and will use the smaller rolls. We will also probably use the bathroom more often as we will be getting older. As such I'll assume that I will continue to change the roll once a day.
In 50 years there will be 18,250 days. Ten seconds per day is 182,500 seconds spent changing toilet paper. That works out to 2 days 2 hours 41 minutes 40 seconds. So I'm going to spend over 2 full days of my life putting toilet paper on the roller.
Now if that's not a crappy deal I don't know what is. ;-)
So assuming that this task takes 10 seconds every time (sometimes I drop the toilet paper and sometimes I have to go into the hall for a new roll so a high estimate isn't uncalled for). Now let's assume I'll live to be 80 years old. Having started this routine of mine at about 30 years of age when I married into my family we'll say I'll do this for 50 years. Now I know that the kids will eventually move out (probably) but at that point we'll probably change over to a more comfortable if slightly more expensive toilet paper and will use the smaller rolls. We will also probably use the bathroom more often as we will be getting older. As such I'll assume that I will continue to change the roll once a day.
In 50 years there will be 18,250 days. Ten seconds per day is 182,500 seconds spent changing toilet paper. That works out to 2 days 2 hours 41 minutes 40 seconds. So I'm going to spend over 2 full days of my life putting toilet paper on the roller.
Now if that's not a crappy deal I don't know what is. ;-)
Monday, March 16, 2009
Cameras and I
Should not be allowed to spend too much time together without adult supervision. As proof see below.
In today's economy you have to add a little extra to get things to sell. This house comes with it's owner.
Not sure about you but when I ask a blind kid what they did at camp this summer the one thing I don't expect to hear is "I learned to fire projectile weapons"
I hope they didn't really mean it.
There appears to be a man in a coat beating his fist against a window in the background. Why? We may never know. (Update: One of the people in the picture tried to convince me this was the reflection of the camera person holding the camera up. Of course, that would have to be a VERY warped as it could not have reflected someone back to themselves if they were standing at that angle. Also, why would someone taking a picture be holding the camera off to the side of their head to do so? I think there is something going on here they don't want us to know about...)
Da da, da da, da da, da da, BatDog!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Great new improvements for your convenience.
Whenever someone tells me what a great thing they're doing for me I tend to look extra hard for the hook that's going to make me their dinner. I got an email from Coca Cola a while back telling me they had "Great news: we've made big improvements." They also announced that this great news was that there were no more daily code limits. That is to say that you can enter as many codes per day as you want. There used to be a 10 code per day limit. They then go on to tell me that there is now a 120 point per week limit instead.
Now I saw the lack of glitter in this immediately. I even wrote to Coke and told them off for insulting me and they wrote back with a point rundown that SOLIDIFIED how badly they're limiting their players. Let us look at just a few of the comparisons. All of the products are this way.
20 oz bottles (the closest we'll come to a "deal") are 3 points each.
Old system you could do 10 per day. That equals 30 points per day. Seven days in a week means you could do 210 points per week.
New system limits you to 120 points per week. That is 17 points per day. That comes out to 1.7 codes per day limit.
12 pack of cans = 10 points
Old system let you do 100 points a day for a total of 700 points per week.
New system is 120 points per week. That's 12 codes per week. About 1.7 codes per day
24 pack "fridge pack" = 20 points
Old system let you do 200 points per day for a total of 1400 per week
New system is 120 points per week. That's 6 codes per week. About 0.85 codes per day
But it's all ok because they told us it's "Great news" and a "big improvement." So that makes it better for us.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Beware what you wish for
I have a teenager who is constantly saying things like "you never pay attention to me" and there is the broader "you should pay more attention." There are other choice phrases that he uses but they all lean towards his assertion that we as his parents and, indeed, all adults need to pay more attention to the world around them.
It seems the way of things that teenagers feel that adults don't pay enough attention to anything and don't know what we're doing or talking about most of the time. They are constantly telling us to pay more attention, get our "facts" straight and stop jumping to conclusions.
Well, most of us uneducated and oblivious adults know of the old quote "Beware what you wish for." That is profound wisdom which we try to give freely to our children and which they never seem to take to heart. Case in point is something that happened just yesterday. My wife and I had to go on a 6 hour trip so we left our 14 year old home watching our 8 year old. We gave them chores to do, rules to follow and a cell phone to use as a life line to their Grandfather if need be.
One rule was "do not play on the mattresses." The mattresses being some old bedding that we let them play with and which allows them to fly through the air and crash down with impunity. This is, however, a privilege that we feel is best enjoyed with adults in the immediate vicinity just in case someone bounces or lands awkwardly. (Have you ever noticed how awkward the word awkward looks?)
So off we go on our trip and everything goes fairly well. When we return home, however, we begin to "pay attention" to things. The first thing I notice is that two of our AA batteries are missing from the baggy in the kitchen. The kids were asleep by this time so I was intending to ask them what they had used the batteries for when they woke. The reason for the inquiry is that the only thing they have that requires batteries (and doesn't have a fresh set in it) is the teenager's Airsoft gun (which was off limits until the next ice age.) Then I notice that my digital camera is sitting on the kitchen table instead of being next to the computer. No big deal there, they play with it sometimes. Next, however, I sit by my computer and find the rechargeable batteries for the camera are next to the computer which clues me in to where those AA batteries might have gone.
I fire up the camera and find four pictures on it with the kids playing around in the house. That's ok too but those rechargeable batteries are good for about 60 pictures and there are only four on the camera which had to have its batteries changed. So, being the oblivious and uneducated adult that I am, I swiftly load up my file recovery software and aim it at the SD card. Thereupon I find a half dozen recoverable pictures of the neighbor and our 8 year old leaping through the air onto the mattresses which had been labeled off limits. Due to the most excellent embedding of EXIF data into JPEG images they retained the time and date of the image capture. And what's most precious in my opinion is that whilst his head was probably reeling with "I thought we deleted those pictures" the teenager's response was "Oh, that was Zach. I told them not to do that." Which, of course was a difficult statement for him to defend when we brought up the picture that had both his brother and the neighbor in it and pointed out that there was only one other person present who could have taken the picture.
Maybe now he won't desire so greatly for us to "pay attention." And maybe, just maybe, he'll spend the next few days at least wondering how many other things he does that we do notice and just chose not to react to.
Friday, January 23, 2009
I uh have a uh problem with the uh President
I knew a speech teacher once who had a cardinal rule. He absolutely did NOT allow "pause words" as he called them. He detested the unintelligent vocalizations made by people who had forgotten or lost track of what they were going to say. He would, in fact, tally up the number of times you said "er," "um," "uh," or any other similar sound and would take that many points off of your score for your presentation. He felt that should you lose your place or the flow of your speech that silence was preferable to anything else.
I must say that I agree with him on this point. It is distracting to me when I hear someone say "uh" over and over in their speech. I find that it detracts from the message as I fixate on the faltering as much as the speech.
I watched a news clip of President Obama today. It showed him in a fairly informal meeting discussing his economic stimulus plan. The clip was 1 minute 43 seconds long. I wasn't 20 seconds into it when I lost the flow of what he was saying and started fixating on the number of times he said "uh." You see, he said "uh" no less than 20 times in a 103 second clip. There were a couple where "uh" followed or preceeded "a" so I didn't count those and I may have missed one or two that piggybacked on one another. In the end, however, my tally came to 20.
That meant he said "uh" an average of once every 5 seconds.
Keep that in mind though over the next few months and I'll bet you it reduces drastically. He'll have some PR speech expert use a shock collar if necessary to break him of the habit.
I must say that I agree with him on this point. It is distracting to me when I hear someone say "uh" over and over in their speech. I find that it detracts from the message as I fixate on the faltering as much as the speech.
I watched a news clip of President Obama today. It showed him in a fairly informal meeting discussing his economic stimulus plan. The clip was 1 minute 43 seconds long. I wasn't 20 seconds into it when I lost the flow of what he was saying and started fixating on the number of times he said "uh." You see, he said "uh" no less than 20 times in a 103 second clip. There were a couple where "uh" followed or preceeded "a" so I didn't count those and I may have missed one or two that piggybacked on one another. In the end, however, my tally came to 20.
That meant he said "uh" an average of once every 5 seconds.
Keep that in mind though over the next few months and I'll bet you it reduces drastically. He'll have some PR speech expert use a shock collar if necessary to break him of the habit.
See I told you (read previous post for explanation)
Now why do I say that, at 33 years of age, I'm still a strange child? Well I do tend to know a lot and, perhaps, even to think too much. I love the jingles that have been created for the "free credit report dot com" commercials (all except the last one.) I find them catchy (but not catchy enough to use their services ever again.)
The problem I have is with the commercial where he's "dressed up like a pirate in this restaurant." You see, in this jingle he says "Should have gone to freecreditreport.com, could have seen this coming at me like an atom bomb."
Well, I've expressed my issues with this to the people around me and they all roll their eyes and tell me I'm weird so now I'm posting it here to my blog instead since that's basically what I created the blog for in the first place.
My issue is that an Atom Bomb is built to be fast and difficult to detect. In fact, in "Remembering the Manhattan Project" By Cynthia C. Kelly it's stated that an ICBM can reach any target within 30 minutes. I'm pretty sure I would like to see credit problems coming at me in a more detectable way and with more than 30 minutes warning. How about the rest of you?
The problem I have is with the commercial where he's "dressed up like a pirate in this restaurant." You see, in this jingle he says "Should have gone to freecreditreport.com, could have seen this coming at me like an atom bomb."
Well, I've expressed my issues with this to the people around me and they all roll their eyes and tell me I'm weird so now I'm posting it here to my blog instead since that's basically what I created the blog for in the first place.
My issue is that an Atom Bomb is built to be fast and difficult to detect. In fact, in "Remembering the Manhattan Project" By Cynthia C. Kelly it's stated that an ICBM can reach any target within 30 minutes. I'm pretty sure I would like to see credit problems coming at me in a more detectable way and with more than 30 minutes warning. How about the rest of you?
I was a strange child (and I still am, just see the next post)
When I was a child I used to watch the cartoon "Captain Planet." I liked the whole 5 element idea as it appealed to my Native American background. There was, however, something that bothered me about the ol' Cap'n. I always wondered why he wanted to kill everyone on earth.
Now I'm sure you're wracking your brain trying to recall when he ever tried to destroy life on earth as he was the epitome of environmentalism in the late 80's (that's when I watched anyway.) It is, however, in his very theme song where you can find evidence to this.
You see his theme song states "Captain Planet he's our hero. Gonna take pollution down to zero."
Now I know I was a geeky child and probably knew "too much" if such a thing is possible. It's just that I was aware even then that moisture that is suspended in the clouds condenses around airborne particulates (pollutants) and that condensation is what forms rain drops. Without these particulates it doesn't rain. Without rain we all die.
So there you have it. Proof positive that Captain Planet wants us all dead.
Now I'm sure you're wracking your brain trying to recall when he ever tried to destroy life on earth as he was the epitome of environmentalism in the late 80's (that's when I watched anyway.) It is, however, in his very theme song where you can find evidence to this.
You see his theme song states "Captain Planet he's our hero. Gonna take pollution down to zero."
Now I know I was a geeky child and probably knew "too much" if such a thing is possible. It's just that I was aware even then that moisture that is suspended in the clouds condenses around airborne particulates (pollutants) and that condensation is what forms rain drops. Without these particulates it doesn't rain. Without rain we all die.
So there you have it. Proof positive that Captain Planet wants us all dead.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Blinking Light Phenomenon
I have always been fascinated by the ability of a blinking light to bring the most intellectual people to the verge of drooling. We see it all the time. The police use blinking lights to get our attention and make us dumb enough to confess to whatever it is they say we were doing to make them pull us over, stores use it to make us buy things we would laugh at someone else for purchasing, lighthouses use them to make us sail blindly into rocks and shallow reefs. It seems that any time we are faced with a blinking light that our brain takes a temporary vacation.
There is nowhere that I find this more annoying than at a broken traffic signal. Any time I see a blinking stop light I dread approaching the intersection. People will sit there for eons with this look upon their face that clearly indicates their feelings of betrayal that a light which has told them day in and day out just what they should do with their cars has now forsaken them.
Today I was pulling up to one such intersection and that familiar feeling set upon me. There was an SUV in the lane beside me and we reached the intersection together. As we came to a stop the “left hand turners” going the direction opposite us were just clearing the intersection leaving one vehicle sitting there waiting to go straight ahead. It was clearly his turn. Not only was he at the intersection before us but he was the only other car there and he was to our right hand side (I can see my driving instructor beaming with pride that I actually read my driver’s handbook.) The driver of the SUV and I were both sitting there staring down the other driver and waving him on. His response was to sit there and look back at us so I did the logical thing and after a good 10 or 15 seconds of just sitting there I took my foot off the brake and hit the gas. This, of course, was the opposing drivers cue to do the same. Thankfully his brain awoke from it’s blinking-red-light induced stupor and he stopped before our cars became one with each other.It’s the perfect time of the year to send cash, checks or money orders to the owner of this blog.
Sorry, my bad, go back about your business.
There is nowhere that I find this more annoying than at a broken traffic signal. Any time I see a blinking stop light I dread approaching the intersection. People will sit there for eons with this look upon their face that clearly indicates their feelings of betrayal that a light which has told them day in and day out just what they should do with their cars has now forsaken them.
Today I was pulling up to one such intersection and that familiar feeling set upon me. There was an SUV in the lane beside me and we reached the intersection together. As we came to a stop the “left hand turners” going the direction opposite us were just clearing the intersection leaving one vehicle sitting there waiting to go straight ahead. It was clearly his turn. Not only was he at the intersection before us but he was the only other car there and he was to our right hand side (I can see my driving instructor beaming with pride that I actually read my driver’s handbook.) The driver of the SUV and I were both sitting there staring down the other driver and waving him on. His response was to sit there and look back at us so I did the logical thing and after a good 10 or 15 seconds of just sitting there I took my foot off the brake and hit the gas. This, of course, was the opposing drivers cue to do the same. Thankfully his brain awoke from it’s blinking-red-light induced stupor and he stopped before our cars became one with each other.
Sorry, my bad, go back about your business.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Are SCE customers bad people?
Just a bit of observation here for the New Year. I've been inside most of the businesses in Ridgecrest in the years I've lived here. I've certainly been in every bank and government building and there is one thing I've never seen in any of them. There are no serious barriers between the service personnel and the public. Now DHS has Plexiglas windows and the new Desert Valleys bank has that glass window on the outside that is probably pretty stout.
I simply cannot fathom why it is, however, that SCE would need a solid plate of inch and a half bullet proof glass between them and their customers. As far back as I can remember that has been the SCE office. So seriously, are their rates so high that they have to fear a machine gun massacre from their clients?
I simply cannot fathom why it is, however, that SCE would need a solid plate of inch and a half bullet proof glass between them and their customers. As far back as I can remember that has been the SCE office. So seriously, are their rates so high that they have to fear a machine gun massacre from their clients?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
