Help! I'm thinking!

Whoever decided

2010-08-24T19:30:00.000-06:00

that faux ragtops on luxury cars looked good was totally wrong. They don't.

ooo, deep

2010-08-23T17:56:00.000-06:00

A question mark turns into an exclamation point when viewed from the right angle.

Continuously variable camshaft

2010-08-19T13:44:00.001-06:00

There are now a number of technologies currently available which vary camshaft performance, including the most famous, Honda's VTEC. It seems as though the ultimate advancement of valvetrain technology would be non-cam driven, independently controlled, solenoid valves. But in the meantime, cams can still be improved upon.

One great technology that exists in Honda's i-VTEC is a sort of planetary gearset that advances and retards cam timing based on engine load and rpm. Cam timing can be advanced for power density and retarded for efficiency, or anywhere in between. Lift and duration, on the other hand, have only two distinct options, one for low rpm, and the other for high rpm. At low rpm, lift and duration are both small, for efficiency, while at high rpm, lift and duration are greater, for power. This is certainly an improvement over traditional cams with a single profile, but I think we can do better. Here's one idea, shown in a SOHC engine, as in a Honda:

How about a camshaft that slides lengthwise across the cylinder heads? You could theoretically set up each cam lobe such that it was continuously variable from efficient to powerful. So long as the tappet and cam are compatible in shape, for the purposes of even wear, I don't see a reason why this wouldn't work. Obviously it adds a bit more weight and complexity to the system, but likely no more than traditional variable valve technology.

Or, if that doesn't work, how about this?

Perhaps it would be possible to vary the shape of the rocker arm (electronically?) such that though the cam profile itself doesn't change, the valve performance does. With a larger tappet on the rocker arm, the valve would have greater lift and duration, which could theoretically be continuously variable. The only condition I see would be to ensure there was still sufficient clearance between the tappet and the backside of the cam, to prevent the valves from leaking.

Thoughts? Other ideas?

Biology and humans

2010-08-13T11:12:00.005-06:00

Biology is really a very complex field with incredibly varied sub-disciplines. Broadly speaking, biology can be divided into its fields based on the scale and the timeline of what it studies. Biology can study items that range from microscopic to global in size, as well as studying things that have happened in the past, things that are happening in the present, and things that might happen in the future. Here is a "map" of most of the major biological disciplines:

	Past	Present	Future
Biosphere	Paleoclimatology	Climatology	Cimate modeling
Ecosystem	Paleoecology	Ecology	Preservation
Species	Phylogenetics	Genetics	Conservation
Organism	Ontogeny	Anatomy	Aging and death
Tissue	Paleontology	Histology	Stem Cells
Cell	Origin of life/organelles	Cell Biology	Cell engineering
Molecule	Molecular systematics	Molecular Biology	Genetic engineering

However, most non-biologists seem to regard the field in a relatively anthropocentric fashion. To most people, biology probably looks something like this:

	Past	Present	Future
Biosphere	Dinosaurs	Climategate	Cap and Trade
Ecosystem	Hunting and fishing	Hunting and fishing	Hunting and fishing
Species	Anthropology	Human Health	Human Health
Organism	Obstetrics	Medicine	Geriatrics
Tissue	Dinosaurs	Cancer	Regeneration
Cell	AIDS	AIDS	AIDS
Molecule	Drugs	Drugs	Drugs

So the next time you read a biology-related article in a popular magazine or newspaper, just think about that. I think you will almost invariably find that the author uses the last paragraph or two to find a way to tie one of the above topics (which the researchers actually care about) to one of the below topics (which they could care less about). Not that its a bad thing to try and get your general readership interested in a relatively obscure biological discipline, but still.

judicial review

2010-08-13T09:53:00.001-06:00

I won't mention the name, but an important law was recently overturned in a federal district court. It was a state constitutional amendment that was originally instituted via popular vote. It was found to be in violation of the national constitution, but is currently under appeal.

It seems as though one of the major legal arguments put forth by supporters of the law is that "the law is the will of the people and should not be overruled." Unfortunately for the law's supporters, that argument has no direct relation to the content of the bill, but is rather an argument against judicial review of laws in general. Unfortunately for those same supporters, judicial review is a good thing, and is here's why. For one, it's established in the constitution as written by the founding fathers, which members of any ideology can agree grants it a lot of weight. Most importantly though, it protects the rights of the minorities from the whims of the majority.

Heres's how it works. Bills that are voted in, unless by an entirely unanimous vote (which never happens), aren't the will of the people, but simply the will of the majority. For a ridiculous example, the majority might agree that blond women aren't very smart, and so shouldn't be allowed to vote. Since most people aren't blond women, the bill could potentially pass. The law is obviously unfair, but unless you get the majority of people to change their minds, the law would stand forever without judicial review.

How about another example. Say the majority decides that since guns are dangerous, all gun owners should not be allowed to go to public parks or schools, ever. A gun owner found to be in violation will be fined 5000 dollars that will go to a fund for gunshot victims. This is also ridiculous and extreme, but is the sort of thing that could actually pass. It would be up to judicial review to determine that gun owners have the same rights as non gun owners and those rights cannot be infringed upon.

In fact, judicial review is one of the most central tenants to our democracy. The United States was established as a place for freedom and fair treatment under the law, where minorities could escape the oppression of the tyrannical majority. The separation of powers for a system of checks and balances is what makes our country great, just, and equitable. So, regardless of how you feel about any particular bill, you should support the process of judicial review.

poop is brown

2010-08-12T07:50:00.005-06:00

Probiotic yogurt

With "probiotic" becoming a buzzword in the health food lexicon, I think people are starting to understand and appreciate the importance of our symbiotic gut bacteria. Maintaining a healthy digestive system is key in preventing and alleviating a host of digestive problems. That being said, I still don't think most people grasp the sheer magnitude of our bacterial symbiosis. Let me give you an example.

Why is poop (mostly) brown? Some might think that perhaps since so much of what we eat is brown (potatoes, cooked meat, bread, wild rice, coffee, chocolate, etc) that it's no surprise that it stays brown coming out. After all, as we learned in kindergarten, no matter how many colors of paint we add to brown paint, it stays brown. Others might mention the fact that most biological compounds, including the pigments that give food color, are broken down in the digestive tract. One has only to look at old lettuce, a half eaten apple, or an over-ripe banana to know that most biological pigments eventually turn brown as they decompose.

Both of the above explanations are partially right, but that's not the whole story. For the average person, ~60% of dry fecal matter, by weight, is bacteria (which are brown or clear). Almost two thirds of your digestive waste isn't even digestive waste at all, but bacteria who have spent their whole lives in your gut. And yet, they are so numerous and so fecund (great word for the circumstances, eh?) that the high daily (more or less) attrition rate hardly matters. There are probably 10 times more bacterial cells in your gut than there are human cells in your whole body.

Now those of you with a head for symbiosis, conservation of matter, or even economics might start having suspicions. "If 60% coming out is bacteria, and far less than 60% going in is bacteria (we hope), that means they're eating almost 60% of our food! What do we get out of it?" Well, for one, most of what we eat isn't defecated, but rather excreted in our breath, sweat, or urine, so if you include all that, it's a lot less than 60%. Secondly, the things that they eat are mostly things that we can't digest. We ourselves are only capable of breaking down fairly simple sugars, fats, and proteins. We cannot, on the other hand, break down things like cellulose, lignin, starch, fiber, lactose, oligosaccharides, etc. The bacteria break them down into compounds that we can digest, extracting some energy in the process. Even though the bacteria skim a little off the top, we still end up ahead. In tests with lab rats, those rats who have had their gut bacteria killed off required 30% more calories to maintain the same weight as normal rats.

If you're saying to yourself now "I really wouldn't mind eating 30% more every day without gaining any weight," just think about the last time you had diarrhea and tell me you wouldn't mind paying that price.

The end of breed groups

2010-08-11T15:05:00.002-06:00

And that marks the end of my series on breed groups. I hope you enjoyed it. Now it's time to talk about some other things for awhile.

The Herding Group

2010-08-11T14:56:00.000-06:00

The purpose of the group

The herding group, as the name implies, contains dogs bred for herding livestock. They are informally (formally by the FCI) split into two categories, the sheepdogs and the cattle dogs. Though not necessarily very different in appearance, the two types have different "styles" of herding, which are particularly well adapted for their charges. Most herding dogs share a recent genetic heritage, but there are a couple, namely the German Shepherd and the Canaan Dog, which perform herding tasks, but aren't very closely related and aren't included in the FCI's herding group. The dogs in this group have an inborn ability to herd, regardless of training. However, in the hands of a capable trainer and handler, these dogs really shine, doing just about anything with livestock. A handler typically commands a herder as to where and when to move the animals, but it's up to the dog itself to figure out how.

General characteristics

Swedish Vallhund, a short-legged cattle dog

Most herding dogs are of smallish to medium size, with an athletic build. There are, however, several cattle dog breeds that have very short legs, making them look quite oddly proportioned. Do not mistake these dogs for toy dogs, however, as they are only short statured so as to let a cattle's vicious kicks fly harmlessly overhead. Herders typically have very high energy, intelligence, and trainability. Their working conditions involve independent problem solving as well as strict attention to commands, which makes them uniquely intelligent, as these two attributes which rarely go together in dogs. By one measure, 4 of the top 10 smartest (really most trainable) breeds are herding breeds, as is the number 1 breed, the Border Collie. Depending on herding "style" some herding dogs bark a lot, while others are near silent. They are typically fairly non-agressive, but not often very outgoing, despite being loyal and affectionate with their owners.

Exercising them

Most herding dogs have a LOT of energy, even more than most of the sporting dogs. Most of these dogs will need at least 2 hours of vigorous exercise per day, along with plenty of intellectual stimulation. Like the sporting dogs, there is almost no such thing as too much exercise for a herder. Fortunately, because they are fast, agile, and trainable, they excel at almost any dog sport, including fetch, frisbee, agility, obedience, flyball, schutzhund, skijoring, and more. They are typically very attached to their owners, so they are usually good off-leash for hiking, jogging, and biking. They are also the only dogs allowed to participate in AKC sponsored herding trials, in which the dogs have to maneuver sheep or ducks through an obstacle course of sorts. For those without access to livestock, there is an up-and-coming dog sport called treibball, in which dogs have to "herd" big rubber exercise balls into "pens" to get points.

As a family pet

Border Collie using intimidation to herd

Most herders are probably not the best choice for families. Their incredible energy and intelligence can be overwhelming for just about anyone. A dog that can open the refrigerator, remove the tupperware containing the leftover chicken, close the refrigerator, open the tupperware, eat the chicken, and then hide the tupperware under the bed, might make you wish you had gotten a dumber, lazier dog. Herders, if not intensively trained, can also pick up the habit of herding children and other pets, which is especially a concern for cattle dogs, as they herd by nipping at heels, rather than simple intimidation. Cattle dogs in particular can also be rather dog-agressive, sometimes accidentally biting humans that get in the way. However, a well-exercised and well-trained herding dog can be among the most rewarding of dogs to own.

My personal opinion
I like most herding dogs, but could probably never own one, except for one of the more show-oriented breeds, such as (rough or smooth) Collies or Shetland Sheepdogs. I can't provide the amount of exercise most herders need. I'm also fairly indifferent to the cattle dogs, due to their more forceful, potentially aggressive, natures. Unfortunately, most of the herding dogs i've seen are neurotic and overweight due to lack of exercise, which does nothing to increase my desire for one. I would think long and hard about getting the "Aussie/Border Collie mix" you've always wanted, lest you also get "a hole in the couch."

The Non-Sporting Group

2010-08-06T20:34:00.003-06:00

The purpose of the group

Poodle cut (looks like the 80s)

The non-sporting group is essentially a catchall group for dogs that don't really belong anywhere else. Some are companion dogs that are a bit too big and energetic to be considered toy dogs, while most of the rest are dogs that have "lost their jobs," so to speak. For example, the Dalmatian was a "coaching" dog, helping to guide the horses of a horse-drawn carriage. When horses were put out of work, so too was the Dalmatian. Similarly, Poodles were bred as retrievers, with their thick coat to intended keep them warm in cold waters. When it was discovered that the thick coat became waterlogged and caused the dogs to sink, the "Poodle Cut" was invented, followed by the eventual retirement of the poodle from retrieving duties when better suited dogs were found. The FCI does not recognize this group, but rather places the dogs in other groups based on genetic background.

General characteristics
Since this group contains the miscreants, outcasts, and unemployed members of the dog world, generalizations are hard to come by. They range in size and temperament from the small and docile Bichon Frisé to the wild and willful Chow Chow and Shar Pei.

Exercising them

Bichon Frisé

Exercise requirements for this group vary wildly. The Bichon needs little more exercise than the typical toy breed, while the Dalmatian and Standard Poodle can be as energetic as a typical sporting dog. Keep in mind that since most of these dogs are "jobless," it may be difficult finding ways of exercising a non-sporting dog which fulfill both physical and mental exercise needs. You will have to tailor your approach significantly, depending on what breed and individual you pick.

As a family pet
It depends. Poodles make for good family pets most of the time, though they need more exercise and bark a lot more than many people seem willing to admit. Chow Chows, on the other hand, are definitely not recommended for families with children or first time owners. This is one group where you will have to research each breed individually.

My personal opinion
Despite the variety of options in the non-sporting group, I'm still indifferent (at best) to almost all of them, the exception being the Shiba Inu. Even that breed wouldn't exactly be a first choice, due to its mischievous personality.

The Toy Group

2010-08-05T13:45:00.010-06:00

The purpose of the group

The ever-popular Chihuahua

Toy dogs are essentially exactly what they sound like. They are small dogs whose sole purpose is to serve as companions to humans. Most have been "bred down" from dogs belonging to other groups. There are miniaturized sporting, hound, working, terrier, and non-sporting breeds represented in the toy group. Not only are these dogs much smaller than their full-sized relatives, but their personalities and energy levels are also much more subdued, making them much calmer and gentler. The one exception to this, perhaps, is the toy terriers, who retain much of their terrier personality, which is perhaps why the FCI choses to place the toy terriers within the terrier group, rather than the toy group.

General characteristics

Toy dogs are very small, weighing from 3 to 20 pounds when not overweight. They are typically rather sedate, with low energy levels. However, much of their personality depends largely on the group from which they were bred down. For example, though a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and an Italian Greyhound are both toy dogs, the former has the personality of a sporting dog while the later has the personality of a sighthound (though both are relatively "watered down," so to speak). Similarly, grooming and medical requirements can be anywhere from virtually nonexistent to very intensive. Most toy dogs seem to be somewhat unintelligent, making them rather difficult to train.

Exercising them

Toy dogs require relatively little exercise, and due to their size, even a small apartment gives them ample room to run around. However, they should still be taken on daily short walks for social stimulation and bonding. Attempting to have these dogs participate in dogs sports is probably overkill, as are anything but short hikes and jogs.

As a family dog

The cuddly Pomeranian

Toy dogs make for excellent family pets; they were bred expressly for the purpose. However, care should be taken around small children, for these dogs are so small that a child could easily injure one, even accidentally. The difficulty of training toy dogs unfortunately often extends to housebreaking. Some owners essentially give up trying and continue using diapers or pee pads long into the dog's adulthood. Because toy dogs are so small, cute, and relatively difficult to train, owners often neglect do discipline them as they would a larger dog, essentially nurturing a suite of bad behaviors like jumping, barking, possessiveness, aggression, fearfulness, and neurosis. Therefore, care must be taken not to neglect training and discipline for these dogs if one wants a balanced, happy, predictable pet.

My personal opinion

Toy dogs, to me, are mostly rather bland. It certainly doesn't help that many of the ones i've seen have neurotic tendencies, but my biggest complaint is that they more or less "don't do anything." For some people, particularly the very busy and the elderly, a lapdog that doesn't do anything is the ideal companion. But they're too sedate for me, as an active, childless, young adult. However, in a number of decades, when I'm not physically capable of more strenuous exercise, there are definitely a few toy breeds that I would consider getting.

The Terrier Group

2010-08-05T11:23:00.005-06:00

The purpose of the group

If you were to ask dog enthusiasts to describe terriers in one word, almost all of them would probably say "feisty," which would make for a pretty boring Family Feud category. Though the terriers have 3 informal subtypes, they all have very similar personalities. The types are the short-legged terriers, the long legged terriers, and the bull-type terriers. The short and long legged terriers were bred to hunt vermin and other burrowing animals such as mice, rats, moles, foxes, badgers, and otters, mostly underground and independently of their owners. The bull-type terriers, on the other hand, were created by cross-breeding terriers with bulldogs to create the ultimate bull-baiting dog, with the strength of a working dog and the tenacity of a terrier.

General characteristics

The otter-hunting Airedale

Typically, terriers tend to be fairly small, due to the need to fit into underground tunnels. However, the largest terrier, the Airedale, can weigh up to 120 pounds in rare instances, though usually weighs in at no more than 70 pounds. The vigorous nature of their work means that terriers have a lot more energy than one might suspect from such relatively small dogs. Most have short coats or wire coats with a characteristic "beard and mustache," to help them navigate in dark, enclosed spaces. Due to the largely independent nature of their work, they are very intelligent, but can be quite difficult to train. They are known for being stubborn and headstrong, always testing their limits. Terriers also tend to bark frequently and have very strong prey drives, which were both bred intentionally. The bull type terriers aren't very different in personality than the rest of the terriers, with little evidence of their bulldog heritage other than their appearance and exception strength. They are in fact, pound for pound, the strongest of all dog types.

Exercising them
An earthdog maze
Since the advent of modern sanitation standards coupled with the environmental and animal rights movements, letting one's dog run free to kill small animals (not to mention bull-baiting) has gone from being fashionable to taboo or even illegal. Thus, it is very difficult to exercise a terrier with the activities for which it was bred. Due to their high energy, even very small terriers make for good jogging or hiking companions, though their independence and high prey drive makes walking off-leash virtually impossible for all but the most exceptionally well trained terriers. Though terriers aren't particularly good at traditional dog sports, they are eligible for (and excel at) Earthdog Trials. In these trials, the dog is placed in a darkened maze with caged rats at the end. The dog needs to find and attack the rats (though they're caged, and so don't get injured) in a certain amount of time to qualify for a title. Even if you don't have the time to participate in the sport professionally, terriers will still enjoy a maze made out of the storage boxes under the bed, with a treat at the end, for example. These kinds of games can provide physical and mental stimulation to a terrier.

As a family pet
Terriers are not recommended for first time dog owners. They are also not recommended for homes with small animals, due to their very high prey drives, as they can (and will) kill or injure other pets. They often do not even get along well with other dogs, especially in the case of intact males. They bark frequently, often for seemingly no reason, and their independence makes them prone to being "escape artists." Their high intelligence and resistance to training makes them prone to being "troublemakers," while their subterranean hunting drive means that they will probably dig much more than most dogs. On the flip side, for a patient and experienced owner, these dogs will certainly not be lacking in personality, and can be quite rewarding.

My personal opinion

Despite the fact that terriers, on first glance, seem like terrible dogs, there is something about their personalities that seems to draw people to them. Maybe its because they are some of the only small dogs that don't seem lazy and boring, or maybe people just cant resist the unspoken challenge to "just TRY and train me." Whatever it is, I'm not entirely immune to their charms. Nonetheless, I probably won't be getting one anytime soon; they're just way too much for me to handle at the moment.

The Working Group

2010-08-02T13:16:00.000-06:00

The purpose of the group

The working group is comprised of most of the biggest and strongest dogs that exist. Many of the earliest working dogs were originally bred for making war, but those still around today have long since been refocused to peacetime activities. The two main informal types within this group are the guarding types, bred to protect people, property, or livestock, and the draft types, bred to pull sled or carts, though some perform other tasks like mountain rescue or hauling in fishing nets. Despite their rather varied genetic histories, the FCI has attempted to keep most of them together by creating a group called "Pinscher and Schnauzer - Mollosoid Breeds - Swiss Mountain and Cattle Dogs" with the stragglers being picked up by the "Spitz and Primitive Types" group.

General characteristics

English Mastiff pulling 6000 pounds

Most of these dogs are big. And by big, I mean huge. Many regularly weigh upwards of 100 pounds, and some breeds, such as the Newfoundland, St. Bernard, and English Mastiff can weigh 250+ pounds. Not only are these dogs big, but they're also very strong. Due to this enormous size and strength, special attention was paid to breeding them to be docile, obedient, and eager to please. Though most aren't as smart as the stars of the sporting and herding groups, they are still among the easiest to train. Even the guardian dogs, which can often be reserved (at best) with strangers, are incredibly loyal and obedient with their owners and family. Unlike the drafting dogs, the guarding dogs have more of an aloof or even aggressive tendency, combined with a higher proclivity to bark. Because of their size, these dogs tend to have slower metabolisms and less endurance than most dogs, and unfortunately often live shorter lives.

Exercising them

Draft dog hauling firewood

Despite their strength, working dogs are relatively easy to exercise. Short, high intensity workouts are often enough to tire them out. Though some may not grasp the concept of fetch, there are a number of dog sports and activities that play directly to their strengths (so to speak). Mushing, skijoring, weight pulling and even just long walks with a weighted backpack will make a working dog very happy, while obedience, agility, tracking, and therapy work are certainly possibilities for a well-trained working dog. Some people have successfully harnessed their working dogs to Radio Flyer wagons or bicycle trailers to help pull the kids or the picnic cooler, a setup that makes everyone happy.

As a family pet

Contrary to what one might think, working dogs make for some of the best apartment or urban dogs, due to their relatively low exercise requirements. The limiting factor, of course, is space, as these dogs can be essentially a wandering loveseat. Working dogs are also great for families due to their loving and loyal natures. However, supervise these dogs around very small children who might accidentally get bumped or knocked over by a dog more than 10 times their size. Though they are usually easy to train, these are not dogs that can "get away with" not being trained, especially if don't like the idea of having your shoulders dislocated when going on walks. Size alone makes grooming, feeding, and picking up poop fairly monumental tasks, requiring a certain amount of dedication, while their mediocre health makes vet bills a potential burden. Though the guarding breeds are certainly a better choice if home protection is your top priority, they are somewhat more difficult to own, as they often struggle with barking and aggression issues.

My personal opinion

This is almost certainly my favorite group, especially if one discounts the guardian breeds. The combination of obedience, friendliness, low energy level, and ease of exercising makes them, in my opinion, fairly ideal dogs. The caveat is always their size. Currently, our apartment doesn't allow for dogs that weigh more than 75 pounds, which puts the majority of working dogs off-limits. However, if at some point in the future I own my own home and am looking for a second dog, I will probably consider working dogs first.

The Hound Group

2010-07-29T11:44:00.003-06:00

The purpose of the group

Greyhound, a sighthound

The hound group, similar to the sporting group, is composed of dogs bred to assist a hunter. Rather than hunting birds, however, the hounds hunt animals as small as rabbits and as large as moose and lions. The AKC and KC group the hounds all together, while the FCI splits the hounds into their two major (and genetically distinct) groupings, the "Sighthounds" and the "Scenthounds and Related Breeds." Other than being genetically distinct, the sighthounds and scenthounds have very different appearances and working styles. As the names imply, sighthounds hunt by keeping game within view and running it down with their incredible speed. Scenthounds, on the other hand, find game with their sensitive noses, following scent trails as much as several days old, even through running water. Because of the FCI's propensity to group based on ancestry rather than job description, there are two breeds that the AKC considers hounds which the FCI does not, namely the Dachshund and the Norwegian Elkhound, which are placed with the "Dachshunds" and the "Spitz and Primitive Types," respectively.

General characteristics

Bloodhound, a scenthound

Hounds can range in size from the enormous Irish Wolfhound to the diminutive Miniature Dachshund. Due to the significant differences in their working styles, sighthounds and scenthounds are near polar opposites in many ways. The sighthounds, though typically very long-legged, are quite lithe, while the scenthounds are often short legged and of a stocky build. The sighthounds are the fastest of dog breeds, but have little endurance, but the scenthounds are rather slow, with considerable endurance. While sighthounds have acute vision but a mediocre nose and scenthounds have mediocre vision and an excellent nose, neither has especially keen hearing. The sighthounds are nearly silent, as barking is a waste of breath while running, yet many scenthounds produce a uniquely obnoxious "baying" noise to let their human handlers find them when they're onto a scent. Since both types work semi-independently of their handlers, primarily following their senses, neither is exceptionally intelligent, trainable, or outgoing.

Exercising them

Though not quite as energetic as most sporting dogs, hounds are still hunters and need plenty of exercise. Sighthounds, though they tire relatively quickly, need plenty of space to run at sprint pace. A typical back yard is barely enough room to warm up for a dog that can sprint at over 40mph. Scenthounds don't need nearly enough room, and in fact, are probably better with an enclosed space, as they have a tendency to wander off after their nose. They do, however, need to spend a lot more time exercising to tire out. Unfortunately, hounds are often not particularly good at more traditional dog sports like fetch, frisbee, obedience, and agility. However, there are competitions that are tailored to the strengths of hounds, such as flyball, lure coursing, and tracking, but they require a degree of commitment to find and actively pursue, as they can be difficult to do in a back yard setting.

As a family pet

Hounds are not necessarily the best family pets you have small animals or small children. Though sighthounds can be couch potatoes when properly exercised, their strong prey drive makes them liable to chase just about anything that moves. Scenthounds can make for decent guard dogs due to their bark, but they are just as likely to bark for no reason more compelling than an interesting smell. This can be a cause for sleepless nights and angry neighbors. Though many have minimal grooming requirements, they require a lot of time and effort to train and exercise, so they usually aren't "easy" dogs.

My personal opinion

Though I might consider one of the smaller sighthounds, like the Whippet, I would have strong reservations about most other hounds. I don't like the combination of energetic, difficult to exercise, reserved, and difficult to train. I believe their willfuness is probably part of the reason bomb sniffing dogs are not often scenthounds, despite their unbeatable noses. Unless I decide to take up hunting, I think I'll pass.

The Sporting Group

2010-07-28T12:04:00.007-06:00

The purpose of the group

A classic "pointing" stance

The Sporting group, also known as the Gundog group (KC), is a group of highly athletic dogs bred to find, point to, flush, or retrieve birds for a hunter. The AKC and KC informally break the group down into pointers, setters, spaniels, and retrievers, while the FCI goes so far as to have two separate groups, the Pointing dogs and the Retrievers - Flushing dogs - Water dogs. Generally speaking, the pointers and setters find and point to game, the pointer using a distinctive "pointing" stance and the setter using a crouching "setting" stance; the spaniels "flush" game out of dense underbrush, giving the hunter a chance to shoot; and the retrievers gently bring back birds that have already been shot, especially in difficult terrain or water. Some breeds are intended to perform all of these tasks, but inevitably sacrifice quality at any one task for versatility.

General characteristics
The sporting dogs are generally of middling size, from 35-75lbs, with the exception being some of the smaller spaniel breeds. Many have shorter, water repellant coats which they keep the dog warm in cold water. These dogs are incredibly energetic, possessing phenomenal stamina, but are neither exceptionally fast nor strong. Since many were intended to sneak up on birds, they do not bark overmuch. In order to perform their tasks well, these dogs were bred to be particularly intelligent and trainable, as well as friendly and gentle with humans and dead birds alike.

A gundog carrying "birds"

Exercising them
Since most of these dogs have strong working drives and a lot of energy, it can be a challenge to keep them occupied and exercised. Fortunately, because of their breeding, they typically excel at fetch and dog sports and make great running, hiking, and biking companions. That being said, unless you are training for an Iron Man, a gundog has far more endurance than you do, and won't be tired after your run. There is almost no such thing as too much exercise for most of the sporting dogs, so long as they remain cool and have access to fresh water. Many people underestimate the exercise requirements of a gundog and end up having much of their house destroyed as a consequence.

As a family pet
Sporting dogs are by far the most popular family dogs, largely due to their friendly, non-agressive personalities, their trainability, and their eagerness to please. They are excellent with children and usually fine with small animals (though they may "point" the cat). They make incredibly poor guard dogs though, and are more likely to help carry out the TV than protect the house. This gregariousness, however, may be overwhelming to small children and dogs, who could be intimidated by such a large animal heading straight for them. These dogs also typically shed much more than one would expect, which is something to consider if you aren't fond of dog hair in your home.

My personal opinion
I would think long and hard about getting a purebred sporting dog. I'd guess that 95% of people do not have the time and energy to properly exercise one, which is why many exhibit neurotic and destructive behaviors at home. There are plenty of other dogs that are higher up on my list.

Breed Groups

2010-07-27T13:57:00.002-06:00

Beauceron

I've decided to write a series of posts about different dog breed groups. With literally hundreds of different dog breeds out there, knowing something about all of them can be pretty overwhelming. Knowing a bit about breed groups, however, helps you get a feel for what a specific dog might be like, even if you don't know that much about the breed itself. For example, if someone asked me to talk about the difference between a Beauceron and a Brittany, I probably wouldn't have much to say. However, if I knew that the Beauceron was a herding dog and the Brittany was a sporting dog, that would tell me a lot about the personality, energy level, intelligence, aggression, friendliness, trainability, general size, barkyness, and athleticism of each dog, and how they might be similar and different. Though every breed and every individual is different, I think I could manage to be right more often than not.

Brittany

Unfortunately, different dog organizations classify dogs somewhat differently, depending largely on how many breeds they recognize and whether they tend to be "lumpers" or "splitters." For the sake of convenience, I'll talk about the American Kennel Club (AKC) groups, as those are the groups officially recognized in the United States, but I will also mention key differences with the groups recognized by The Kennel Club (KC) from the UK, and the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), composed of 84 member countries. In general, the AKC and KC tend to lump dogs together based on working purpose, while the FCI tends to split groups based on genetic origin, so both standards are informative in their own way.

What friends are for

2010-07-26T13:46:00.002-06:00

Most people seem to pick their friends based on how those people make us happy. If you were to list the traits that you were looking for in a new friend, I would guess you'd probably come up with a list that was something like this:
Nice
Has shared interests
Funny
Friendly
Outgoing
Loyal
Generous
Caring
etc.

While all of those things are certainly important, it recently occurred to me that that's not really what I look for in a friend. To me, what really weeds out the "casual acquaintances who seem nice enough" from the "friends," is their behavior when upset. Sure, anybody can be friendly and funny and caring when they're happy. It comes very naturally to us as humans. The hard part is finding somebody who is still all of those things when they are tired, hungry, having a bad day, or just got into an argument with you.

I've met plenty of people who are incredibly nice, outgoing, generous, etc, in normal everyday conversation, but who swing wildly into anger, sadness, and frustration, lashing out at everyone and everything around them when things don't go their way. Others simply stop making the effort to maintain a friendship when life becomes a little difficult. I'm not asking my friends to be stoics, or to put my needs above their own, but I do want my friends to be people who can endure both good times and bad with me. They say that shared hardship fosters strong bonds between people, but it can also rift them apart. In many situations, such as roommates or lovers, that seems to be the more likely outcome.

So I want my friends to be people who would have my back in a zombie apocalypse, who would be constructive if stranded with me on an island, who would pick me up from the airport, who would forgive me when I make mistakes, who wouldn't blame me for things that were out of my control, and most importantly, who considers friendship more important than being right. At the moment, I'm lucky enough to have a few friends and a girlfriend who are like that. I just hope that I can be as good a friend to them as they are to me, so that when the velociraptors break loose, we'll make it out alive. (Though granted, REAL velociraptors aren't very scary)

A full-sized, 33lb velociraptor

A new show!

2010-07-23T19:50:00.000-06:00

Well, technically, it's a miniseries on NatGeo. It's called "And Man Created Dog," and its about the domestication of wolves by primitive man. I believe that the first episode premiers on August 6th, so if you get NatGeo, be sure not to miss it.

Here's the website for the show.

Eee Gad

2010-07-22T21:24:00.000-06:00

I just need to write a post so that I'm not staring at a placenta every time I look at my blog. Working in OB/GYN, I see enough of them as it is.

How about something cute instead?

Kitties!

Ah... much better...

Yummy

2010-07-22T13:10:00.003-06:00

Traditional Chinese medicine calls for ingesting a lot of bizarre, rare, or disgusting things. Inevitably, modern science has found some of these medicines to be quite beneficial, and others to do little or nothing. The harvesting of some of these medicines is sometimes unsustainable, as the animals and plants they come from can be threatened or endangered.

One medicine that is certainly sustainable, but just as certainly bizarre, disgusting, and close to useless, is the human placenta. While it is true that the placenta contains many nutrients and some hormones (the reason many mammals eat the placenta), humans are well nourished enough that there is no medical reason to consume the placenta.

A Freshly Delivered Placenta

The placenta is also, like it or not, a human organ. It is an organ which is produced by the baby, from fetal cells and fetal DNA. When a mother consumes a placenta, she is not consuming her own flesh, but the flesh of her child. The consumption of humans and their organs is not only taboo, but illegal in most parts of the world. For whatever reason, the placenta often manages to circumvent these laws.

Even if it weren't illegal or taboo to consume human organs, the placenta is about the last organ I would want to eat. Think about it. Though one periodically sees such "delicacies" as lengua, pig's feet, chicken's feet, turkey neck, liver, paté, head cheese, sweetbreads, haggis, testicles, and more, when was the last time you saw cow placenta or pig placenta on the menu? Never. That's because nobody in their right mind would ever want to eat one.

The placenta is essentially an ever-branching series of blood vessels held together with connective tissue. By the time a baby is delivered, parts of the placenta have often already started to die off, leaving rock-hard calcifications. There is no meat and no fat in a placenta, only a spongy mass of blood, gristle, and calcified stones. Incidentally, the word "placenta" comes from the latin for "pancake" which is probably a fairly accurate description of eating one. It would be like eating one of those chalky, bland, hotel buffet pancakes that's been in the steam tray so long that the edges have dried up and hardened, but instead of syrup, it's doused in a warm blanket of slowly congealing blood. Oh yea, and did I mention it's covered with bacteria and fungi from the vaginal canal?

It's no wonder people choose to eat it in "pill form."

Rain in Denver

2010-07-21T18:45:00.001-06:00

Contrary to what one might think, the hardest part about riding a motorcycle in the rain is not traction, but visibility. Though helmet visors are curved, which helps shed water at higher speeds, it's often not nearly enough. Opening the visor is potentially a worse idea, as the fat raindrops that were once hitting your visor are now hitting your face and/or eyeballs at 50 miles per hour. It's really a lose-lose situation.

I've seen a couple windshield wipers specifically targeted for motorcyclists, but most of them seem to be intended for use on the faring of the bike, rather than the cyclist's helmet. This seems like a great solution if you have an uber-large touring motorcycle with a windscreen tall enough to cover your face, but that probably represents less than 10% of the motorcycles on the road. The rest of us, I suppose, are presumed to just not ride when it rains. In my case, thats pretty much the opposite of the truth. My winter mitts have a rubber snow-scraper on one hand, which is very handy, but I can only use it when that hand is not occupied. Obviously, taking one hand off away from the bars in the middle of a rain and/or snowstorm is less than ideal.

I think it would be great if somebody could develop an automatic windshield wiper for helmets. The extreme contour of the face shield would put some pretty extreme design constraints on the wiper, but I have a feeling something akin to a top-mounted public bus wiper would work. In that design, the wiper stays vertical, while moving side to side. Add an elliptical track and a pivot point to the top, and you're good. Anybody ready to do that for me?

A matter of taste

2010-07-21T13:08:00.011-06:00

My girlfriend works at a doggie daycare and boarding facility, and as such, she sees usually hundreds of dogs in a given week. Every dog is certainly an individual, but the longer she's worked there, the more she's come to notice some trends as to differences between breeds. So here are some of the breeds she's come to like and dislike, based on personality.

Shiba Inu

Like:
Shiba Inu
West Highland White Terrier
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Italian Greyhound
English Mastiff
Shetland Sheepdog
Great Pyrenees
Newfoundland
Dachshund (long-haired especially)
Labrador Retriever (English show stock)

Italian Greyhound

Dislike:
Labrador Retriever (all others)
Poodle (all sizes)
Vizsla
Wiemaraner
Australian Cattle Dog
Australian Shepherd
German Shepherd
"froofy" dogs (Bichon Frisé, Coton de Tulear, etc.)
Beagle

Newfoundland

Cairn Terrier
Bulldog
Boxer
Rottweiler
Chihuahua

Now she only sees these dogs in a very limited context, and these lists reflect that. Her choices are mainly reflections of how these dogs interact with other dogs and non-owner handlers. She has no way to take into account how these breeds are at home, with family (including owners, kids, cats, visitors, etc).

Because of that, just because a dog is on her "like" list doesn't mean she would want to own one. Vice versa, there may be a few particular individuals from breeds on the "dislike" list that she would consider owning. But, in general, if she were to look for a new dog, she would probably just stick to the "like" list.

Sled dogs

2010-07-19T15:47:00.003-06:00

I just saw an episode of "Dirty Jobs" in which Mike Rowe visits an Alaskan Husky breeder and musher in Alaska.

The Alaskan Husky, unlike the Siberian Husky, is not truly a pure breed. It might be best described as a landrace, essentially a group of individuals bred or evolved for a working purpose, with no regard whatsoever for appearance. Alaskan Huskies are mutts, bred for the single purpose of pulling sleds. Though most have a fairly strong Siberian Husky ancestry, many have been crossed with German Shorthaired Pointers (for endurance), Greyhounds (for speed) and a variety of other breeds, to impart other desirable characteristics.

Alaskan Huskies

When Mike Rowe asked about how long the dogs run before resting, the breeder replied that they run about 10 miles per hour for 60-70 miles (followed by a 6-7 hour break) each day of an endurance race. For a sprint race, the dogs are capable of running as much as 110 miles before resting. To put that in perspective, the world record pace for a marathon is slightly quicker than a 5-minute mile pace. These dogs run a 6 minute mile pace, for a total distance of 2-3 marathons worth, in snow, while pulling up to twice their body weight, every day.

How long can you keep up a 6-minute mile pace? For me, its about 1000 feet on dry pavement. In snow, I don't even think I can sprint that fast. That's not even to mention pulling a 250 pound sled behind me.

Now if you have a dog, it's probably not an Alaskan Husky, which is assuredly a good thing. On the other hand, Standard Poodles, Siberian Huskies, Foxhounds, German Shorthaired Pointers, Samoyeds, Malamutes and other purebred dogs have gone head to head against Alaskan Huskies in sled races. Those pure breeds may not have won, but they were at least able to hold their own. Other high energy breeds, like Labrador Retrievers, Border Collies, Australian Cattle Dogs etc, have not (as far as I know) been raced in any major sled races, but it's not likely for lack of endurance, but rather for reasons like being too slow (Labs), being too independent (Border Collies), or being too dog-aggressive (Heelers). However, many of these breeds have successfully competed in skijoring competitions, where a single skier is pulled by 1-3 dogs.

Siberian Husky Puppies

When you look at that adorable Lab, Husky, or Poodle puppy at the shelter, and you tell yourself "I go on a 5 mile hike every weekend" or "I jog for 20 minutes every morning," stop and think for a second. Will a dog that can run for 60 miles per day at a 6-minute mile pace get tired by 20 minutes of 9-minute mile jogging? Will it get tired by five miles of strenuous (for a person) hiking? Doubtful.

Stats

2010-07-15T17:17:00.002-06:00

I was frustrated with the lack of a comprehensive yet simple guide to which statistical test to use under which circumstances. So I made my own. At the moment, it looks something like this:

It's a work in progress, so try to keep the criticism to a dull roar. I'd think it would be most useful to biologists, like myself, as well as any other scientists or researchers in the business of trying to accurately summarize "real world" data. Otherwise, it might just generally be interesting to people who (for some bizarre reason) enjoy statistics.

Either way, I hope YOU are one of the people who finds it helpful.

Mathy Math - Answer

2010-07-14T11:54:00.001-06:00

For those who are curious about the answers to my questions about acceleration, here they are.

The easiest way to answer this question is by graphing the velocities of the cars. If you put time (in seconds) on the x axis and velocity (in f/s) on the y axis, the answer is pretty apparent. the graph for car A looks like a triangle with a block on the end, and the graph for car B looks like a triangle with one second of nothing at the beginning. The area under each graph is the distance that car has traveled, but rather than integrating, you can simply slide the graph for car B over until it matches with car A, and then all you have left is the rectangle at the end of the graph of car A. That rectangle is a height of 88 f/s (60mph) high and 1 sec wide, so you end up with an area of 88 feet. If you add the 3 feet that originally separated the cars, you get a total of 91 feet.

When you do it this way, it also is fairly apparent that so long as the two cars are accelerating at the same rate, it doesn't matter what that rate is. Whether they're going 0-60 in 3 seconds or 20 seconds is irrelevant. There will always be the same 91 feet separating the cars.

It is indeed possible for the rear car to "catch up" and have 3 feet between the cars at full speed, but in order to do so, it needs a 0-60 time that is exactly two seconds faster than the first car. This is where we run into mechanical limitations. A Prius, for example, has a 0-60 time of around 11 seconds, which is the 8 f/s/s of the original problem. If the second car is also a Prius, it will be mechanically impossible for that car to catch up, as it is incapable of going 0-60 in 9 seconds. If the second car is a Ferrari, on the other hand, it will have no problem keeping up. The geometry of these graphs is a little more complicated at this point, but still doesn't require calculus. See if you can figure out how it works if you haven't tried already.

Finally for my more philosophical question of maintaining a consistent distance between cars, I don't really know the answer. What I do know, however, is that trying to "keep up" is putting an unnecessary burden on your vehicle. The real problem, however, lies in the fact that the same thing happens in reverse. If you take mirror images of the graphs, they all of the sudden represent braking distance. What that means is that if two cars are braking from 60-0 at the same rate and the second car brakes 1 second after the first, the two cars will collide if there is less than 88 feet separating them. The problem is compounded if the first car has a quicker stopping time. If, for example, a Mini Cooper S (60-0 in 112 ft) is being followed by a Ford Excursion (60-0 in 152 ft) there needs to be a whopping 128 feet separating the cars to avoid a rear-end collision. If the second car is a Ford F-350 (60-0 in 170 ft), that number jumps to 146 feet, an ~60% in the space needed between the two cars.

This is why tailgating is not only annoying, but dangerous. How "good" a driver you are is irrelevant.

Bias

2010-07-14T10:22:00.001-06:00

As a young, liberal scientist whose religious views might best be described as philosophical Taoist, I am certainly anything but an unbiased blogger.

I was thinking, for example, about some of my posting tags. I have one, specifically, called "art and design." I have a number of artist friends who would probably shudder at that tag (were they to actually read my blog), as I have essentially condensed and trivialized a wide range of topics and occupations.

A real artist might have tags like plays, musicals, painting (perhaps broken down into subtypes, such as oil or watercolor), sketching, photography, film, sculpture (stone, clay, metal, found, etc.), dance (jazz, tap, ballet, modern, hip-hop, ballroom, etc.), mixed media, art supplies, art history, famous artists, and more. Design would probably have its own set of tags, many of which fall into "harder" disciplines like architecture, engineering, product development, marketing, lighting, sound, and much more. The one area of art where I do get a little more specific is music. I currently have tags for music, drums, and jazz.

An artist or designer, on the other hand, might condense most of my tags into something like "science and technology." I'm adding tags all the time, but the following would probably go into that category: animals, astronauts, awd, biology, birds, bison, boats, cars, cats, climate and meteorology, computers, David Attenborough, diesel, dinosaurs, dogs, ecology and environment, energy, engineering, engines, evolution, genetics, geography, geology, humans, invertebrates, math, microbes, motorcycles, mushrooms, nuts, off-roading, oil and gas, physics, planes, plants, purebreds, renewables, spaceships, Subaru, taxonomy, the tropics, trains, and trucks. That's already more than half of my tags.

I suppose my thoughts are nowhere near as eclectic as I like to pretend.

English is stupid

2010-07-09T11:14:00.002-06:00

Here are some examples of why.

The ship full of founders floundered, until it hit a rock and foundered, so to rest with the flounders, never to be found.

He was given his just deserts after deserting his unit in the desert and going to get some dessert.

She pored over the report, which contained little rapport, until a coconut rolled over and the milk poured out its pore onto her poor paper.

The newly effected bill, affected by few, affected the livelihood of many, with the effect of bringing a noticeably changed affect to the citizenry, despite their attempts to affect otherwise.

She flouted custom by flaunting her body, her hair flaunting in the breeze, ignoring nearby women who launched flouts at her while eating flautas.

While I'm waiting, I've been whiling away just thinking, while if you stay a while, I'll make it well worth your while.

It's the lesser of two evils, to say the least, to lessen the lease and teach them a lesson.

They amended their statement by emending a section. Amen.

Can you come up with any more?

Mathy Math

2010-07-09T08:41:00.000-06:00

Two cars pull up to a metered onramp, one waiting 3 feet behind the other. When the light turns green, both cars are allowed to go through. The first car accelerates away at a somewhat leisurely 8 feet/second/second. One second later, the second car starts accelerating at the same speed. When each car reaches 60 mph, it stops accelerating and stays at that constant speed. By the time both cars have stopped accelerating, how much distance separates them?

What if both cars accelerate twice as quickly?

How fast would the rear car have to accelerate to keep exactly 3 feet between the cars when they have reached full speed? Is it even possible without the rear car having to decelerate?

Why do people feel the need to maintain the same distance between cars, regardless of speed?

Shout out

2010-07-08T14:38:00.005-06:00

Time for a shout out to an incredibly commercially useful plant family. See if you can guess what it is. The plants in this family are partially or wholly responsibly for billions of dollars annually in financial transactions. They are cultivated for use in food, drink, fibers, and as burning material. They have been used for erosion control, as well as cultivated for aesthetic purposes. They contain a variety of phytochemicals with antibacterial and analgesic properties, and have been used medicinally and religiously for millennia.

Any ideas?

I'm talking, of course, about the Cannabacaeae. This family contains three main subgroups, which are the Cannabis group, the Hops group, and the Hackberry group. Cannabis, of course, has a long history of religious, medical, and recreational use, having been used as early as 2000 BC by Hindu Vedas. It has also been cultivated for its seeds, its fibers, and its oil. Hops, on the other hand, started being used for beer around 1000 AD as a bittering agent, to offset the sweetness of the malt. It later turned out to be an exceptional preservative, considering its antibacterial qualities. Hackberries have been used for bonsai cultivation and teas in Japan and China, but have little other current commercial use.

Cannabis

Hops

The Cannabis group and the Hops group are certainly the two stars of this family, though one has been vilified and the other glorified. Though the two are as close as cousins, one makes a drug that is criminalized, while the other makes a drug that is celebrated, at least in the United States. In some Middle Eastern and Indian traditions, however, the roles are reversed, such that the criminal is sanctioned and the celebrated is interdicted. Is one group right and the other wrong, or did history arbitrarily cast one cousin as hero and the other as villain?

All about perspective

2010-06-30T13:48:00.000-06:00

It'd odd how our perception of things can vary drastically with our perspective. While this is unquestionably true with heavy intellectual topics like religion, philosophy, politics, etc, I'm just referring to the totally literal (i.e. visual) sense.

When we revisit a childhood home, for example, we usually seem to think that it is a lot smaller than we remember. While this is probably partly because our memory isn't quite accurate, it's also because we are physically much larger and taller than we once were. Spaces that seemed cavernous to a 2-foot-tall child can seem downright claustrophobic to a 6-foot-tall adult.

I got to thinking about this when looking at pictures from snowboarding, particularly the perception of slope. Certainly experience plays into it, as a bunny slope could be viewed by a beginner as terrifyingly steep, while an expert would consider it mind-numbingly flat. But even the same person on the same day can regard the same slope very differently. From the bottom of the hill, or from the chairlift going up, a slope can look downright benign. And yet, when we reach the top and prepare to descend, it suddenly looks a lot steeper.

These photos were taken on different days, but of the same run, one from below, and one from above.

Vs.

Which would you rather ski?

Subaru's moving up?

2010-06-29T13:59:00.002-06:00

Usually when car commercials do comparisons, they will benchmark themselves against Toyota and Honda. "More ___ than Corolla and Civic," "Better ____ than Camry and Accord," and "Improved ___ over CR-V and RAV-4" are common catchphrases in car commercials, especially from the introductory makes of American manufacturers, like Ford and Chevy.

Yesterday, however, I saw a commercial for the 2011 Toyota Camry, hailing it as the "best midsized car" according to Motor Trend. I'm really not sure where this claim is coming from, as the 2011 Car of the Year awards have not been released yet (nor have many of the eligible 2011 models, I'm sure). I also can't seem to find any similar "shootout" type articles that have the Camry as a winner. Regardless, the commercial claims that the Camry beat out a number of other cars, including the Ford Fusion (2010 Car of the Year), the Honda Accord, and unnamed models from Nissan, Volkswagen, and Subaru.

I don't really know about Nissan or Volkswagen, but Subaru's competitor to the Camry, the Legacy, was new for 2010, and won't be eligible for a direct comparison against the Camry. It was, however, a finalist in 2010 (with the caveat that it may have won with a hybrid and/or diesel powertrain) while its sibling, the Outback, won the sport/utility category. The Legacy even had the highest observed mileage of any non-hybrid entry in the car category, despite being all-wheel-drive.

Unlike many other companies, Subaru's advertising never mentions competitive comparisons, and instead simply depicts people (or dogs) really loving their cars. It's apparently working, as Subaru seems to be on track to post its second year in a row of record breaking sales and growing market shares.

Maybe that's why Toyota, even though it hasn't recently gone head-to-head with a Subaru (except in the SUV category, where it lost, twice) felt it necessary to drop the Subaru name into its commercial for the new Camry. As far as I'm aware, it was the first time any other manufacturer has even mentioned the brand in advertising. Perhaps its a sign that Subaru is finally rising above the ranks of little-known manufactures like Suzuki or Smart to become a true contender for mainstream automobile buyers. In a way, by denigrating Subaru, Toyota is inadvertently validating the brand.

Then again, maybe its not so inadvertent. After all, Toyota does own more than 16% of Subaru's parent company...

Pants are pants, right?

2010-06-28T14:34:00.001-06:00

I recently bought a brand new pair of REI Slickrock 3/4-length pants, and I'm excited to try them out. I bought them expressly for rock climbing, as my old Target-brand cargo shorts just weren't cutting it.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that most of the athletic wear on the market is a negligible improvement over regular old cotton t-shirts and shorts. Sure it might be lighter, tighter-fitting, more wicking, etc., but I have always worn t-shirts, cargo shorts, and skate shoes for pick-up games and felt no crappier than anyone else (except in the shoe department). Whether it be in hockey, soccer, lacrosse, football, ultimate frisbee, bicycling, crew, or any of the other (club level) sports I have muddled my way through, my crappy street clothes have more or less gotten the job done. That is, until I took up rock climbing.

When you are dangling on high with a harness strapped around your legs, what's beneath that harness suddenly becomes a lot more important. A good set of climbing pants or shorts, like any well designed product, needs to find the perfect balance in utility, without sacrificing cost or aesthetics. Here were some of my criteria when shopping for a new pair.

Weight: Obviously, when climbing, the less weight you have to carry with you, the better. However, climbing pants still need to have enough thickness and durability to provide protection against sharp and abrasive surfaces.

Flexibility: Often, climbing requires amazing feats of contortion and flexibility, and your pants cannot be limiting your range of motion. Nonetheless, they need to have some degree of stiffness to avoid riding up, bunching, or getting pulled down.

Length: Pants should be long enough to cover the knee, even with the leg fully bent. This is to protect the knee from bumps and scrapes, particularly on very coarse-grained rocks, like granite. However, pants shouldn't be so long as to impede footwork. There is nothing worse than tripping over your own pants all day.

Fit: The pants should fit you comfortably without a belt, as you can't wear one under your harness. Tighter fitting pants may do a better job staying in place and resisting bunching, but keep in mind you will be viewed from behind and below, which is not the most flattering angle for men in tight pants. Looser fitting pants have the advantage of better thermal regulation and range of motion, though you may get mistaken for someone from the 90's if they're too loose.

Compatibility: Large buttons, belt loops, and cargo pockets can make it difficult for a harness to sit properly and comfortably over your pants. Bring your harness with you to try on pants so you can be sure it doesn't cause the button to poke you in the stomach or the cargo pocket to create a pressure point on your leg.

Comfort: You're going to be dangling around in these pants all day, so they might as well be comfortable. Waist belt padding, soft materials, UV protection, quick drying fabric, and temperature regulation features are all big bonuses, though they often add to the weight and/or cost of the pants.

Pockets: Pockets aren't necessary for climbing, as anything in them will either be weighing you down or falling out. However they are nice for carrying your car keys, wallet, cell phone, etc. to and from the climbing site without having to bring an extra bag (man-purse?). Make sure the pockets are compatible with your harness though.

Cost: Everything in rock climbing already costs a fortune, so try to find a pair of pants that doesn't cost more than your harness. Your harness actually keeps you alive, while your pants are just keeping you from being naked. That being said, you tend to get what you pay for.

Sustainability: If pants made at a child labor sweatshop out of coal fibers, whale baleen, or bald eagle feathers work the best, then so be it. However, if you can get a decent pair made by hippies out of recycled hemp, bamboo, cardboard, glass bottles, or soda cans, so much the better.

my mutt, and looking for yours

2010-06-23T10:33:00.008-06:00

When we were looking to adopt a dog, we had a long list of criteria in mind (as should anyone). First, we knew we wanted to adopt from a shelter or rescue, rather than purchasing from a breeder. So, we went on petfinder.com, which is an excellent resource for adopting a dog. However, I would recommend only going there once you already have a pretty strong idea of what you want, and using the "refine your results" feature, as there are over 160,000 dogs alone on the site, and nearly as many cats, most of which are probably not a good match for you.

We knew we wanted a dog which wasn't aggressive with kids, cats, and other dogs; wasn't special needs; was still fairly young; and wasn't too large or too small. All of those things are very easy to search for on the site, but the most important things are more or less impossible to filter, except by hand.

We wanted a dog that was not more than energy level 3.5, who was playful and friendly, had minimal guarding and territoriality instincts, was fairly quiet, was very intelligent and trainable, had breed-specific behaviors we could mold for exercise (like fetching or cart pulling), was medium to submissive, was loyal but not extremely attached, was somewhat food motivated, was healthy and long lived, was minimally shedding, and was good looking. We figured it was a long shot to even get 75% of those things just how we wanted them, but that was our idea of a "perfect" dog.

Unfortunately, those goals excluded a huge percentage of the dogs on petfinder, even those which met our "refined" search criteria. For example, of the 160,000 dogs currently on the site, some 32,000 are Labradors retrievers, 18,000 are Pitt Bulls, 16,000 are German Shepherds, 11,000 are Chihuahuas, 9,000 are unnamed "Terriers," 9,000 are Beagles, 7,000 are Boxers, 5,000 are Border Collies, 5,000 are Dachshunds, and 4,000 are Australian Cattle Dogs. This means that the 10 most popular breeds, all of which were on our "no" list, make up almost 75% of the dogs on the website. Some of the more obscure breeds, like the Caucasian Sheepdog, Irish Water Spaniel, and Pumi, have only one individual representative. So if you're looking for something specific, you will likely have to wait a long time and/or travel a long distance to find it. It's no surprise then that we had to go through pages and pages of listings to find even a couple dogs that we were even marginally interested in.

The search starts with dogs located closest to you and moves outwards from there, so we knew that we were in trouble when it started bringing up listings for dogs from Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. We had apparently exhausted all of the dogs in not only Denver, but all of Colorado (a state notorious for having lots of pets). We had about given up when a certain pair of sisters caught our eye. They were 6-month-old Shetland Sheepdog/Siberian Husky mixes, and they were gorgeous. One in particular was especially so, and we fell in love.

However, we "reserved" her, and then took 3 weeks to think about it, talking frequently with the shelter owner and asking as many questions as we could think of. Unfortunately, we didn't get to meet her until we picked her up (as the shelter was 350 miles away, in Nebraska), but we did our best to get to know her in the meantime. We had studied up on Huskies and Shelties in an effort to make an educated guess as to her personality and features, and it turns out we were mostly right. Heres how she turned out:

Husky - Sheltie - Ours

Active - Medium - Medium

Friendly - Reserved - Friendly

Playful - Reserved - Reserved

Non Guarding - Watchdog - Watchdog

Quiet - Barky - Fairly Quiet

Intelligent - Intelligent - Intelligent

Stubborn - Trainable - Trainable

Pulls - Herds & Fetches - Pulls & Fetches

Independent - Attached - Attached

Not Food Motivated - Not Food Motivated - Not Food Motivated

Healthy - Heathy - We Hope

Sheds Seasonally - Sheds Seasonally - Sheds Seasonally

Attractive - Attractive - Gorgeous

So fortunately, she got most of the best characteristics of both breeds, without many of the negative characteristics of either. She's not without her problems, as she's a bit too attached, she's practically anorexic, she's a bit too submissive (not a breed characteristic so much as an early imprinting characteristic), and she blows about 10 gallons of fur twice a year (though she doesn't shed otherwise). But all in all, she's nearly everything we wanted in a dog.

Husky

Sheltie

Holly

black, white, or grey?

2010-06-23T06:45:00.001-06:00

Disclaimer: Contains religious content.

I was just at a family reunion last weekend, and oddly enough, we had quite the mix of religions present. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism were all represented in one form or another.

These days, much of the media and popular sentiment seems aimed at distancing Christianity and Judaism from Islam, but in many ways, the religions are more alike than different. I'm not just referring to the fact that all worship the same god and recognize most of the same prophets, but to the way in which they view the world, which is in stark contrast to the way in which the so-called "eastern religions" do. I unfortunately know very little about the religions of the indian subcontinent, or the many thousands of less well-known religions, so I won't talk about them here.

The "western" religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all seem to view the world rather similarly in that they see a clear delineation of right and wrong. There are strict rules about what should always be done and what should never be done if one wishes to enter paradise. The disagreements among the three stem in large part from conflicting views on which actions are right and which are wrong. Nearly every aspect of life, from birth to death, is in one way or another given a value judgement by one of the above religions, such that following all the rules of one inevitably breaks some of the rules of the others. By doing something you feel is perfectly normal or even virtuous, you may be inadvertently offending a member of one of these religions, who regards your actions as "bad."

The "eastern" "religions," often regarded instead as "philosophies," include Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, and others. They view the world very differently than do the western religions, in that they don't really believe there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong." Instead, every object and every action has unique consequences, which might be best translated into english as "good" and "bad." However, the focus is not on pursuing one action and forsaking another, but on striking a balance between the two. Just as eating too much food can make one unhealthily fat, but eating too little food can make one unhealthily thin, everything we pursue in life needs balance. The "bad" things don't get to be too overwhelming, and neither do the "good."

That may be perhaps why (with a few exceptions) western religions have historically had a very difficult time of living sympatrically, while eastern ones have coexisted more or less peacefully in much of southeast Asia for at least the last 1500 years, where wars have been largely political. It's likely not that Islam or Christianity is inherently more aggressive or violent than Buddhism or Taoism, but rather that the former are more mutually exclusive to one another. This is certainly not to say that there are no ideological differences between and even within eastern religions, just that they are more easily overlooked.

Then again, I'm a biologist, so what do I know?

moooooove over, cows

2010-06-18T11:16:00.004-06:00

Bison are the future of sustainable red meat in the United States. Beef has long been a staple of the American diet, but in many ways, buffalo meat is superior. Many of the reasons stem from the fact that bison are native to the new world, while cows are native to the old world. Because bison evolved here, they are better equipped for this hemisphere's conditions than cows are.

1. Bison are able to eat a much higher proportion of the plants here, meaning you can feed more individuals on less land. That means more output per unit area and more land available for other uses. The land that is used for grazing ends up having more biodiversity too, as the bison graze less selectively, meaning more habitat for native plants and animals and fewer invasive species.

2. Bison are more massive than cows, which means more meat per animal.

3. Cows have been domesticated to the point where they have trouble grazing by themselves. They will graze one area until it's barren unless forced to move. Bison roam naturally, and leave an area before it has been heavily grazed. Thus, bison need fewer ranchers to take care of them, and the land they graze takes less time to recover.

4. Bison don't need to be corn fed. They can go straight to the slaughterhouse from the field. So, all of the land devoted to corn growing as cattle feed can be used for other things, the animals don't need to be inoculated with antibiotics, there is a significantly reduced risk of pathogens, and prion diseases like mad cow should be nonexistent.

5. For whatever reason, cattle cause more stream bank erosion than bison do. This means more downstream pollution, increased need for erosion control, more invasive species, etc.

6. Bison generally beats beef in taste tests and consumer preference surveys.

7. Despite tasting better, bison is lower in fat than beef. For our meat-centric "cuisine" here in the United States, that's definitely a good thing.

8. Bison are NOT endangered. Even if they were, the one of the best ways to save a species is to start farming it.

So next time you go to the grocery store, try out some bison. If they don't have it, request some.

to boldly go

2010-06-17T10:25:00.002-06:00

The problem of getting to another star is largely one of speed. Traveling at the speed of a commercial jet, it would take somewhere around half a million years to get to the nearest star. Clearly, this isn't exactly feasible for human beings. To get there in less than 50 years, you'd have to be moving at least 1/10 the speed of light, or around 67 million miles per hour. That's incredibly fast. That sort of speed makes the fastest supersonic jets look like toenails growing. Fortunately, space is essentially a vacuum, so friction is negligible. We only have to worry about getting up to a reasonable speed, at which point we can turn off the engine and coast the rest of the way. Unfortunately, space is essentially a vacuum, so friction is negligible. That means we have no traction, nothing to push against. Similar to pushing against a friend while standing on ice, conventional rocketry relies on pushing something in the opposite direction that the spaceship wants to go. After a few equal and opposite reactions, we're on our way.

The problem is that we have to carry all that "pushing" mass, or propellant, with us, and the more mass we have, the more powerful our rocket needs to be. The more powerful our rocket is, the faster it runs out of propellant, and the more propellant we need to bring in the first place. It turns out to be a pretty vicious cycle. Even the most advanced ion, fusion, and antimatter rockets run into this problem, because they simply push propellant out more forcefully and efficiently. They still need propellant, just less of it.

Light sails, on the other hand, use sunlight to push them away from a star. The big advantage is that they don't have to carry any propellant, or even use any power at all. Unfortunately, you have to be pretty close to a star (within the orbit of Jupiter) for sunlight to have much of an effect, so the ship has to be moving at its full speed long before it even leaves the solar system. Since sunlight isn't capable of pushing very hard, the craft has to be incredibly light to be effective, essentially ruling out any heavy freight or even human passengers.

Fortunately, I think I've come up with an idea that utilizes the best aspects of each method. At the moment, it seems incredibly simple and it could be built with current technology and established laws of physics (I think). If it works, it could revolutionize space travel. However, as I established in a post some time ago, most of my fantastic engineering ideas are either:
a. already thought of
b. highly impractical
c. physically impossible
But until I find out that its one of those things, I'm unfortunately going to have to consider it proprietary. Not getting credit for improving the efficiency of a car is one thing, but not getting credit for designing a ship that can take man to the stars is a whole different can of worms.

I've contacted some people who actually work on designing interstellar spacecraft, and their thoughts so far have been encouraging. However, it is incredibly likely that within the next couple weeks you will get another post from me detailing what my idea is and why it doesn't work. Stay posted!

energetic pets

2010-06-14T15:33:00.010-06:00

I know I've talked at least once before about the importance of choosing the right pet, but I want to talk about it again a little more specifically, because I think it sets the tone for your whole relationship with your animal.

I believe that the most important thing to do when considering a pet is to be honest with yourself about how much time and effort you are going to be capable of devoting to your pet, both now and for the rest of the pet's life. Every pet, be it fish or dog, takes at least some time and effort every day. Certain aspects of pet ownership, like feeding and cleaning up poop, are unavoidable. If you don't like cleaning up poop, maybe you should consider a plant. If you want a mammal, you're likely going to have to brush it and exercise it, and anything above fish will require periodic visits to the vet. If you're ok with those things, and decide that you still want a cat or dog, the biggest thing to consider will be the animal's energy level, because that will be far and away the biggest factor determining how much time you will be spending with your pet. Remember, a tired dog means a happy dog and a happier owner. In light of that, I'm going to try to break down the broad energy categories into which dogs and cats fall. The time values given are estimates of the minimum amount you should spend actively exercising or training your pet (letting them out in the yard does NOT count).

1. Very Mellow -- 15 minutes per day minimum
This category includes almost all cats and a few small dogs. These animals require only a couple short play sessions per day, plus several short potty walks or litterbox cleanings. Most of the rest of the time, they are content to nap, cuddle, stare out the window, or stroll around.
Examples: Most cats, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Shih Tzu, Maltese

2. Mellow -- 30 minutes per day minimum
This category includes a select few cats, most small dogs, and most giant dogs. These animals need somewhat more playtime per day, as well as slightly longer walks. Most of the giant dogs are content to lay around if they've already received their daily allotment of exercise, but many of the small dogs may remain somewhat active, choosing to leisurely explore the house, rather than rest.
Examples: Pomeranian, Yorkshire Terrier, Great Dane, English Mastiff

3. Medium -- 1 hour per day minimum
Most of these dogs are on the larger side of small or the smaller side of large. These dogs can handle a fairly strenuous hike or a long jog and are active enough for most fairly outdoorsy people. Many of these dogs were bred for running fast for short periods of time or hauling heavy loads over short distances, so while they do require vigorous exercise, they usually tire relatively quickly and are very mellow when they are done exercising.
Examples: Alaskan Malamute, Greyhound, Shetland Sheepdog, West Highland Terrier

4. Active -- 2 hours per day minimum
Most active dogs, unlike the fast or strong medium dogs, were bred for endurance. Since many are gun dogs, herding dogs, or vermin dogs, their stamina is key in allowing them to perform their job all day long. As such, they tend to be medium in size, neither too heavy nor too small, with one notable exception being the active Terriers. These dogs need plenty of long walks, as well as several more strenuous play sessions. Even with ample exercise, their stamina makes them prone to being restless and easily bored, so they should always have access to toys, lest they become destructive.
Examples: Golden Retriever, Standard Poodle, Siberian Husky, Jack Russel Terrier

5. Very Active -- 3+ hours per day minimum
These dogs are incredibly active. Unless you run, bike, or participate in dog sports at least semi-professionally, these dogs will likely far outpace you. Most were bred for reasons similar to the active dogs, but with an emphasis on strength or speed as well as unlimited stamina. They are capable of running or swimming at a near-sprint pace for what seems like hours and can maintain a brisk trot virtually indefinitely. Even when they do tire, they continue to want to work. They can literally run themselves to death and are little hampered by old age.
Examples: Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, Labrador Retriever, Australian Cattle Dog (Heeler)

Any dog can receive more or less exercise on a given day, but it should at least be given ample opportunity to void itself. If a dog doesn't average at least the minimum amount of exercise, it will certainly not die, at least not immediately, but it is far more likely to become hyper, destructive, neurotic, barky, disobedient, overweight, diabetic, etc. Many dog behavior experts believe that most behavioral issues stem largely from a lack of adequate exercise, which is usually enhanced by a lack of proper training.

Mental stimulation is nearly as important to animals as physical, so some portion of their exercise time can be obedience training, but physical exercise is very important and shouldn't be neglected. Ideally, exercise activities can involve a combination of physical and mental factors (as in most dog sports) which will tire the animal somewhat more quickly.

Bear in mind that every individual is different, but that most individuals stay fairly true to their breed heritage. Though some Labrador Retrievers will behave more like Active dogs than Very Active dogs, no Lab will ever be Very Mellow, and no cat will ever be Very Active. One can also expect that a puppy or kitten may be as much as a full level more active than they will be as an adult, and will become as much as a full level less active as a senior. Mixed-breed dogs, though somewhat less predictable, usually fall somewhere near the middle of the range of their parents, so adopters of mixed-breed shelter dogs should also be familiar with the energy levels of the breeds they are interested in.

Most people could save themselves a lot of grief by choosing a dog whose energy level is more suited to their lifestyle, rather than one whose personality they like. For example, Golden Retrievers and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are both exceptionally gregarious dogs, who want nothing more than human affection. However, one dog needs 2-3 hours of exercise a day, while the other needs 15-20 minutes. Choosing the right "soft, cuddly, and friendly" dog can mean the difference between an exceptional cuddle buddy and a re-homed dog.

Ecosystem planets

2010-06-09T11:18:00.001-06:00

I've loved star wars ever since I first saw it, as have many people, or so I gather. As we grow up and learn a lot more about how the world works, however, many of us find things in the films to complain about. English and theatre majors complain about the dialogue, physics majors complain about the fact that dogfights in space wouldn't work, and purists complain about the apparently drastic shifts in technology.

I, as an ecologist, of course found fault in the ecosystems. Looking at the world around us, we have forests, deserts, mountains, oceans, plains, volcanos, glaciers, and more. But when you examine the worlds of Star Wars, an oddly high number of them seem to be entirely composed of one ecosystem. There is Tatooine, a desert planet; Yavin IV, a forest moon; Endor (or Endor II?), another forest moon, Coruscant, a city planet; Mustafar, a lava planet; Degobah, a swamp planet; Kamino, an ocean planet; Hoth, an ice planet; Bespin, a gas planet, etc. In fact, Naboo seems to be one of the only planets that has more than one type of ecosystem.

Looking at planets like Mars and Jupiter in our own solar system, it's fairly easy to imagine a planet that's a giant desert or a giant ball of gas, but many of the rest of the planets seem a bit far fetched. What's the likelihood of a planet thats one giant swamp? For those familiar with the drake equation and who like to play games with infinity, you might say the probability is close to one. But assuming a finite universe, it seems highly unlikely that the galaxy in which Star Wars is set contains far more habitable single-ecosystem planets than planets which resemble our Earth. Or at least, it seemed that way until I learned more about Earth's history.

Very early on in the history of our solar system, during an era called the Hadean, when Earth was newly formed, it was very highly volcanic and almost constantly bombarded with meteors. It was essentially a lava planet for nearly a billion years. After that, in the Proterozoic era, photosynthesis had evolved and was starting to churn out oxygen, which sent the planet into a series of global glaciations, in which all of the water on the planet, including the oceans, would have frozen into a giant ice planet. These so-called "snowball Earths" happened on and off for almost 2 billion years.

Hoth

If we skip over a few million years, we end up at the Devonian period, known as the age of fishes. During this period, sea levels were very high and most of the planet was covered in water. Though there was still some land, the Earth was by and large an ocean planet for near 70 million years. Immediately following the Devonian came the Carboniferous period with its vast coal swamps. Most of the coal beds we're mining today come from this period, as the vast swamps allowed fallen trees to be buried underwater and eventually mineralized, rather than broken down and digested. There were certainly oceans during this period, but if you were to call the Earth anything, it would be a swamp planet.

Degobah

During the Mesozoic era, from ~250 to 65 million years ago, which encompasses the famous Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods, large chunks of time were incredibly warm. Most of the land was covered in lush forests, which extended far into the arctic circle. It was, if anything, a jungle planet. And though our planet has a diverse range of ecosystems now, if we continue at the current rate, I see no reason why our planet couldn't eventually become a city planet.

So really, even if we only look at Earth and a couple nearby planets, we see evidence of all of the planetary types seen in Star Wars. In fact, a far larger portion of Earth's history was taken up by volcanism or ice than the diverse range of ecosystems we see today. If you were to pick a random time in Earth's history, you'd be far more likely to find an ice planet than one like the present. But I guess we'll have to wait until we develop interstellar travel to see if George Lucas was really right.

Space, Inc.

2010-06-08T11:41:00.000-06:00

So maybe the ideas of interplanetary mining I expressed in a recent post are a little far fetched, but that's certainly not to say that commercial rocket companies won't have other things to do in the meantime. Aside from NASA, which will likely be relying on such companies to ferry astronauts to space, a company called Bigelow Aerospace is on track towards installing the first commercial space station by 2014. As it has decided to spend the bulk of its funding designing and building the modules for such a station, it will be paying commercial rocket companies companies, possibly including SpaceX, to carry its payloads and customers into space. The intention is to rent the "space" to nations that cannot afford their own space program or to private individuals, though at 25 million for a month's visit, their customer base will be somewhat limited.

Unlike many such aerospace start-ups, they already have several full-scale mockups built, with 2 additional ones already in space (with the help of former Russian-operated former ICBMs). The only major hitch would be the ability of other private companies, such as SpaceX, to come up with a viable means of transporting humans to the station by the time Bigelow is ready to deploy. Considering SpaceX's recently successful test flight, this may not be much of an issue, and they can always use the Russian Soyuz craft if commercial options fall through.

Though there is no mention of mining, Bigelow also has aspirations of setting up a permanent station on the moon, using essentially the same components as the space station, just on the ground instead of in space. Though this is probably quite a bit further down the line, they have already started planning this phase, and will likely start implementing their plans if the space station is successful. Perhaps in the absence of a nationalized lunar program, companies such as Bigelow will take up the challenge.

Innie or Outie?

2010-06-07T13:51:00.002-06:00

What if the internal combustion engine had never been invented?

That's the general premise behind the sci-fi sub-genre known as steampunk. Most such works seem to feature trains, boats, and airships as the primary means of transportation, with a preponderance of copper tubing, alchemy, monocles, animatrons, revolvers, and all that good stuff. Oddly enough, it has become somewhat of a countercultural phenomenon, especially among the more video game and sci-fi oriented youth, and is as much of a modern fashion statement as an alternate-history genre.

But would the world really have ended up that way? After all, while it seems feasible to assume that one specific technology might not have been invented, it seems less likely that all scientific and technological progress would have stopped sometime before the Otto cycle. After all, electrical technology and propulsion was developed quite independently of the ICE. Many things which are often absent from steampunk fiction (computers, golf carts, cordless drills, wind farms, coal plants, nuclear submarines, light rail) in no way involve the use of ICEs, and so could function identically to how they do now. Similarly, there are some items, (lawn mowers, leaf blowers, etc) which function equally well as electrics as they do as ICEs, and would certainly still be possible. Even the strongest icon of the ICE, the automobile, is possible on electric power only, though its development would have been radically different.

On the other hand, some of the things regarded as steampunk, such as dirigibles and rockets, actually make fairly extensive use of the internal combustion engine. With the exception of a very few pedal, electric, and steam-powered airships, the vast majority were powered by gasoline engines. The roar of propellers as the zeppelins passed by was largely attributable to the high-displacement Maybach v-16 engines with which they were equipped. These engines were highly sophisticated for the time, and far more efficient than the steam engines of the day. Rockets are also technically internal combustion engines. Though some may want to dismiss this as a technicality, since rockets have no reciprocating pistons, there are enough ICEs without reciprocation and ECEs with reciprocation to make this a moot point. All that matters is that in rockets, the force of the exhaust expansion is used to create work, as opposed to heating a transfer fluid, like in an ECE.

Oddly enough, though the ICE is regarded as the pinnacle of modern engine technology, it is an idea that is perhaps even older than the ECE. Though rocket-type ICEs and ECEs have been around since the ancient greeks and chinese, the first reciprocating ICE was invented in 1206, some 300 years before the first reciprocating ECE. It's also interesting to me that the most recent upgrade in engine technology, nuclear propulsion, is actually external combustion. Yes, modern nuclear aircraft carriers are running on steam power, though its a far cry from the copper gauges, valves, and tubing it is fantasized to be.

The final frontier!

2010-06-05T21:47:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to SpaceX on its first successful test flight of its Falcon 9 rocket. Considering the fairly atrocious track record of new rockets, private or public, it is certainly quite an accomplishment. The company has a long way to go before any sort of regularly scheduled and/or mission-oriented flights will occur, but the success may serve to bolster support for the idea of privatized space flight.

It makes me wonder if the days of space travel for scientific research (and cold war supremacy) are finally giving way to the days of space travel for commercial purposes. Interplanetary mining for rare earth elements could perhaps circumvent (at least in some ways) the problems arising from the fact that these elements are needed for many renewable energy and high efficiency technologies. We could continue to preserve the more pristine parts of the planet, while still being able to engage in the most rapacious of mining practices, with no regard to environmental degradation or human health. Plus, shipping down the gravity well to earth, especially if cargoes could be dropped at or near their eventual destinations, might even be cheaper than shipping on-planet. It's a win-win-win.

Fish are friends

2010-06-05T21:13:00.000-06:00

If you're into photography and/or scuba diving, you should check out this site, at which you can sign up for trips to the tropical oceans of the Americas to take photos, specifically of dolphins and sharks. A friend of mine has worked with the expedition leader and highly recommends the trip. At $1995 to $3600, its not exactly cheap, but I'm sure it's well worth it, especially if you want to improve your underwater photography skills.

Just watch out for oil.

If I were a rich man...

2010-06-03T15:14:00.001-06:00

Imagine, if you will, that you just won a raffle and you're getting some money as a prize. However, there are two stipulations. First, you must decide what percentage of the money you will use for which things (spending, paying down debt, investing, setting aside for retirement or college, donating to charity, etc) before they will give you the money. Second, you don't know how much money you get until it gets deposited in your account, other than that its somewhere between 100 and 100,000,000 dollars.

Obviously the amount that you actually receive would affect what you would want to do with the money. Its a lot easier to give away half of the money to charity when you still have oodles of money left over. Contrariwise, though it would be fairly simple to spend 100 dollars, or even 100,000, I think I would rapidly run out of things to buy after about 1,000,000, short of a private island or something equally ridiculous.

How then would you decide? Certainly the "safest" bet would be to invest or set aside most of it to get the highest possible ROI, but if you invest too much, you might not realize any liquid benefit until you're too old to use it. So I would think you have to make some assumptions about how much money you're gonna get. Do you assume you will get the highest, the lowest, or somewhere in between? Do you find the "average" amount you could expect to get? Do you take an arithmetic mean, a harmonic mean, a geometric mean, a heronean mean, or none of the above?

What would you do?

To be or not to be

2010-05-31T20:22:00.000-06:00

I find it interesting that in english especially (since our grammatical rules and tenses are riddled with exceptions and nuance), very slight changes in word choice can convey rather different meanings. For example, I recently heard a song in which the lyrics state "afraid to be single," though I think he really meant to say "afraid of being single" (though he was perhaps constrained by phrasing).

While the difference between "afraid to [infinitive]" and "afraid of [gerund]" is subtle, I feel it is a very real difference. The first seems to imply some sort of conditional context, whereas the latter seems to be more of a general statement. For example, if a date said to you "I'm afraid to walk alone," you might respond "It's alright, I'll walk you home. Then maybe we could go up and have coffee or something?" On the other hand, if a date said "I'm afraid of walking alone," you might say "I know this great psychiatrist you should check out. I'll see you never." Similarly, if a scientist says "I'm afraid to be right," you might think he's talking about global warming, asteroid impacts, or something equally calamitous. If he says "I'm afraid of being right," you might think he's in the wrong profession.

So just remember, while "what you say" is important, "how you say it" can be equally so.

Business Ethics

2010-05-27T09:49:00.001-06:00

Note: This post does contain potentially polarizing topics, so please keep any comments you may have constructive. I want to start this post with the disclaimer that I have worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency, and as such, support government regulation of businesses. However, I don't hold this opinion simply because I'm blindly following the dogma of the agency. Few people seem to know this, but though the EPA is primarily a regulatory agency, it has a number of other tasks as well. It employs various trained scientists and provides grant funding to many others (like myself) to study the impacts of various pollutants on the environment and human heath. Using this real-world data (rather than arbitrary numbers) the agency then sets regulatory guidelines, creates public education and awareness campaigns, monitors the output of businesses, and alerts proper law enforcement in the case of non-compliance. But by far the largest portion of the EPA's budget goes to cleaning up messes that have already been made. The role of the Superfund program, and others, is to clean up toxic wastes that businesses have left behind in the absence of (or while flaunting) regulation. Some of these sites have caused not only environmental damage, but bloody noses, birth defects, cancer, and other serious medical issues to humans living nearby. It is in the face of such evidence that I cannot say with a clear conscience that I believe businesses will make ethical choices in the absence of regulation.

Much of the news these days seems to be focused on major businesses failing to do things right, whether it be BP/Transocean/Halliburton failing to prepare for an oil spill, Toyota failing to take timely action on a known safety issue, or even Fannie Mae failing to adhere to ethical loaning practices. We rightly blame the companies for their actions, but we also blame the government for failing to notice quickly enough, and failing to fix it fast enough. However, we should really be looking at preventative measures. How can we keep this from happening again? How can we make the future better than the present?

And yet, companies and tea party members are calling for less regulation instead of more. Energy and automotive industries continually claim that increased regulation will only serve to eliminate jobs and increase consumer cost. While this might be true to an extent, what is really at stake is the company's profit margin. Sure consumers are willing to pay an extra 1000 dollars for an automatic transmission, touchscreen navigation, or faux wood trim, but are they willing to pay that extra amount for a slightly better crash test score, or fewer emissions? If a company includes those features, it has to absorb their cost (to some extent) to stay competitive, reducing profit margins. But what happens if there is no regulation enforcing safety and pollution? What about the cost to the environment? What about the cost in human health and human lives? The cost doesn't disappear, it just becomes "somebody else's problem."If you don't believe me, go visit Latin America, India, or Asia to see the horrible infrastructure and consequent quality of life that has arisen with a lack of proper regulation.

Unfortunately it seems that these businesses don't have the patience to look beyond their bottom lines and become upstanding corporate citizens.

Now I'm not advocating communism or state-owned industry or anything of the sort. I simply believe that, just as citizens of a nation need to be subject to its laws to ensure liberty and justice, so too do businesses. The goal of a business should be to provide goods or services that positively contribute to society, not to selfishly extract a profit at the expense of the well being of others. I believe that regulation helps ensure that businesses are doing the "right" thing. And besides, if a business is already doing the "right" thing, the regulations shouldn't affect it at all. It's only the businesses that are doing something "wrong" that will need to change.

The grass is greener

2010-05-25T13:52:00.002-06:00

For some reason, affluent suburbs seem to have a particular fascination with grass. It's just a plant, like any other, and not a particularly useful one at that, as most of us don't have livestock grazing in our yards. It seems like we spend a whole lot of time, energy, water, and money cultivating this plant which isn't even "pretty" in the traditional sense. I'm sure if we stopped watering and mowing our lawns, we would do a lot to help with problems of global water shortage and pollution. We could even plant crops, vegetables, and herbs instead, helping to reduce our cost of living, to lower our dependence on non-local produce, and to curb world hunger.

And yet, we grow grass. Why? I think there is mainly one reason: grass is remarkably difficult to kill. You can underwater it, overwater it, chop it up, plant it in sun, plant it in shade, pee on it, trample it, douse it in herbicide, leave something on it for days, or carve out a divot, and it will still survive and grow back. And when you think about it, there are plenty of other plants that would be a lot nicer than grass, as grass is really not very soft (try laying down on your stomach in some grass and tell me you disagree) and tends to be rather allergenic. Moss, for example, would be infinitely better than grass, but it has an unfortunate habit of dying under less-than-ideal conditions. Grass, on the other hand, is so easy that even a man can keep it alive. And what makes a man happier than using a big dangerous machine to cut something into ribbons as a way of "helping" it grow?

I'm not a gamer, but....

2010-05-24T13:39:00.001-06:00

I do play a LOT of video games. Probably the biggest reason I never considered myself a gamer is that I never had quite enough time, money, or diligence to stay current on all the most recent releases.

For example, the "real" video game (i.e. not a free online flash game) I'm working on right now is "Wild Arms 2," a 1999 release for PS1. Its an rpg with a turn-based combat system, set in a sortof steampunk western fantasy world. Though I did pull it out after a bout of nostalgia (having never finished the game as a child), the PS1 is still the latest and greatest game console I own (excluding my computer).

Im way too lazy to look for it right now, but I believe there is an XKCD comic in which a stick figure is talking about how he buys all of his games second hand. He ends up going through the same technological progression as everyone else, just several years later, and for a fraction of the cost. I sortof feel like that guy, playing games years after they're released, and long after my friends have moved onto bigger, better, and newer.

I also feel as if my experience has been somewhat modeled by fate. By that, I mean to say that the people who bought games for me were not people who played games, at least in my earlier years. As such, I ended up with a sortof hodgepodge of games, some good and some not. I missed out on owning or extensively playing a variety of games that were considered highly influential and/or popular, including but not limited to every game in the mario, sonic, final fantasy, metroid, spyro, tekken, metal gear, civilization, sims, james bond, grand theft auto, half life, call of duty, halo, and god of war franchises.

I did manage to play a few debatably good games, including Zelda: Link's Awakening, Crash Bandicoot 1, Pokemon blue (which I just realized is a very cleverly disguised turn-based rpg), Age of Empires II, Gears of War 1 and 2 (thanks to a friend), many of the Red Alert titles, and just about everything ever made by Blizzard. (More than one title in the Warcraft franchise has been at least partially responsible for destroying romantic relationships I've had). But I didn't even end up playing many of those until years later. I didn't get around to playing Link's Awakening until at least 5 years after it released, when it was re-released in color, and I didn't play Diddy Kong Racing until it was ported to the DS a full 10 years after its original release.

Now don't get me wrong, I do play a veritable cornucopia of free online games, but most of them have names like "potty racers," "best hockey game," "geek girl escape," and "destroy all cars," and contain a quality of gameplay that is equally dull. Even the best games only contain enough content for just a few hours of gameplay, which is about as much time as it took me to get to the opening credits on the 11-year-old Wild Arms 2. To top it off, very few have any replayability value at all. But, like I said, I'm cheap so...

I may one day end up with a PS3, but by then, there's likely to be a PS4 or xbox1080 or nintendo hypercube. Only time will tell. In the meantime, I'll stick with Wild Arms 2 and Stunt Dirt Bike (UPDATE: I just beat this game, 23 minutes later) or whatever other crappy game I'm currently playing.

a bird's eye view

2010-05-21T14:38:00.004-06:00

If one were to ask a creationist for examples of "perfect" or "engineered" structures found in biology to support the watchmaker argument for "irreducible complexity," most would likely give the examples of the human eye and a bird's feather. Well, unfortunately for humans, feathers aren't the only advantage birds have over us. Not only can birds fly; but they can breathe much more efficiently, thanks to a flow-through lung with countercurrent exchange; they are dinosaurs, which is badass; and they can actually see a lot better than we can, so phooey. The human eye, though quite good, is far from perfect. This is evident to many of us every time we have to visit the optometrist and get a stronger prescription. However, there are other downsides to the human eye as well.

Take, for example, our color vision. We can only see red, green, and blue, and have to infer the presence of other colors based on that. This color vision was only very recently evolved, because most mammals only have 2 color receptors, one exception being primates. Dogs, cats, deer, mice, and elephants all essentially have red-green colorblindness, so to them, everything that is red or green looks vaguely yellow. (But apparently colorblind people are better at seeing people in camouflage. So much for your orange vest, mr. deer hunter.) Since our red and green receptors are relatively recently diverged, they are surprisingly close together on the color spectrum, which limits our color perception somewhat. Also, since they are both located on the X chromosome, all it takes is for one copy of either of those genes to be defective, and a male will be colorblind.

But at least we're better than other animals right? We are the pinnacle of creation, after all. Well, not really, actually. Though most mammals are colorblind (likely due to our nocturnal ancestors), fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, can all see four colors. (Btw, as this often seems to be a point of confusion, birds are NOT mammals.) Not only can they see red, green, and blue (in a much more well-spaced way) but they can also see ultraviolet, a portion of the spectrum we miss out on entirely.

Another downside of our eye is its architecture. Imagine you want to build a big flat array of solar panels, but rather than being out in the open, you're building it at the bottom of a swimming pool (don't ask me why). You obviously want to put as many solar panels in the pool as possible, but each solar panel has a normal electrical chord coming out of the top (light collecting) surface of the panel. But in order for them to be connected to the grid, they need to be plugged in to a giant surge protector at the bottom of the pool. In order to do this, you have to pull all those cords together in a bundle and have them pass through a hole, and where that hole is, you can't put a solar panel. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have the cords come out the bottom of the panels, so you wouldn't need a hole?

If you can take another leap of imagination, our eye is like that swimming pool, and the solar panels are like our photoreceptors. Human eyes do it the first way, which is why we have a blind spot. Our nerves come out the front side of our photoreceptors, meaning that in order to get to the brain, they have to get bundled and sent through a hole. Octopus eyes, on the other hand, do it the second way. Octopuses have no blind spots. In addition, the photoreceptors in octopus eyes are lined up in such a way that they can detect polarized light, a feat for which we need sunglasses or microscopes.

All in all, if I were to engineer a perfect being, I would probably pick a bird's eye or octopus' eye over a human's. For that matter, I would probably also choose a bird's lungs and wings as well. And maybe some tentacles for good measure. And the ability to regrow limbs.

Its probably a good thing I'm a biological researcher, rather than a biological engineer.

Quattron? More like Craptron.

2010-05-20T14:16:00.004-06:00

Sharp has recently introduced a new TV called the Aquos Quattron that utilizes their brand new quad pixel technology. As it stands, all conventional monitors and tvs use pixels of three colors, Red, Green, and Blue (you can tell if you get really really really close). By varying the intensity of each of these colors, we are able to create millions of other colors in the full spectrum of visible light. Sharp's technology is different in that it adds a fourth pixel color, Yellow.

As most of us know from grade school, you can make just about any color of finger paint by mixing red, blue, and yellow finger paint, including green. So it stands to reason that yellow should be a better choice than green to begin with, and certainly should enable you to make better colors. On a pure permutational basis, with each color ranging in value from 0 to 255, adding a fourth pixel (regardless of color) brings your total from 256^3 to 256^4, which is a lot more colors.

Now here's the problem that any theatre majors may already suspect. For whatever reason, when you mix light, you get results quite unlike when you mix paint. For example, when you mix red and green paint, you get a sort of poopy brown. However, when you mix red and green light, you get pure yellow. The true reason has to do with the physiology of the eye and the way your brain interprets information. When you mix paint, you're actually mixing bits of red things with bits of green things, which ends up with one big pile of poopy brown. However, when you mix light, instead of interpreting it as "red + green," your brain interprets it as "halfway between green and red," which, believe it or not, is yellow.

The reason we interpret it that way is that our eyes don't actually see yellow, nor do they see most colors, for that matter. The color-sensing cells in our eyes only detect 3 wavelengths, which are Red (564nm), Green (534nm) and, you guessed it, Blue (420nm). The color our brain interprets as being yellow is actually "equal parts green and red."

So basically, even though adding a fourth pixel mathematically enhances the number of colors that can be displayed on a TV, its physiologically useless, as we can't see the difference between "actually yellow" and "red + green." This is not to mention the fact that we could no longer graph colors in a 3-dimensional space, but would have to move to 4-dimensional, which is not only nigh-on-impossible to visualize, but just plain dumb. A much better way of enhancing image depth would be to move from 8-bit color to 16-bit color, which makes each color scalable from 0-65535, rather than 0-255.

Moral of the story, don't buy into Sharp's crappy ripoff tv idea. It's a waste of money and an insult to our intelligence.

If Charles Darwin sprang from his grave,

2010-05-20T12:50:00.002-06:00

I would give him this fine book to bring him up to speed."
-Praise for Life Ascending

I'm currently reading a great book called Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane (actually Dr. Nick, if credentials matter). For those of you interested in evolution, whether you believe in it or not, I think this is a great read. Unfortunately for zombie Darwin and non-scientists alike, the book assumes at least a basic familiarity with cell and molecular biology, genetics, evolution, taxonomy, chemistry, and paleontology. However, it's still written in language that is fairly simple, yet eloquent and interesting. His brief conceptual descriptions should be enough for most people to get the gist, and if not, 5 minutes on wikipedia would go a long way.

Though the book isn't specifically targeted at creationists, most of his "inventions" (life itself, photosynthesis, sight, conciousness, etc.) are items often cited by creationists as being "irreducibly complex" and/or impossible sans a creator. Because of this, he tends to focus on how each trait could or might have evolved in a stepwise manner, with each step being chemically, energetically, genetically, and evolutionarily possible and favorable. He usually, after describing how it might have evolved, goes on to describe how it changed the world dramatically, paving the way for the changes to come. He almost makes it seem easy for evolution to have led from random organic molecules to microbes to the complex eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, and others) we know and love.

So, whether you're a trained scientist looking to brush up on recent research (up to 2009), someone with a casual interest in evolution, or even a creationist with an axe to grind, I would highly recommend it.

Complaceny and distraction

2010-05-18T14:14:00.002-06:00

I recently discussed how I think computerization of cars is a bad thing, for security reasons. As I mentioned then, I wanted to discuss the reliability issues associated with that automation, but I got sidetracked. Well today, just as I was about to talk about those reliability issues, I got sidetracked again. According to another recent article, the NTSB is investigating whether automation in commercial airplanes has been the cause of accidents or incidents, including a recent snafu where a Northwest airlines plane overshot its destination by more than 150 miles, before the pilots realized the mistake.

Apparently the level of automation is suspected of causing the pilots to become complacent or even confused. Though there is no doubt that some of this automation is helpful, and reduces errors in geometry and calculation that happened in the old days of navigation, it is also perhaps too much. When a pilot doesn't have to be manually flying an aircraft, what's to stop him from browsing on his laptop (as in the recent Northwest incident)?

Aviation officials are sitting down to discuss how to best address this problem. How does one strike a balance between too much automation and too little?

I think the same question should be being asked at NHTSA. If highly paid, highly trained, experienced pilots are becoming complacent because of automated plane systems, how can you expect teenagers and old people to not be so in cars? It seems like with collision sensing cruise control, lane departure warnings, emergency brake assist, blind spot warnings, back-up cameras, stability control, traction control, and even automatic transmissions, there's hardly a need for a person behind the wheel. Its no small wonder then that people text, browse their ipods, eat salad, read the newspaper, do their makeup, play with their gps, and more while they're driving.

To top it off, in an effort to reduce the harm caused by these distractions, automakers seem to actually be encouraging them. Despite the fact that studies show that hands-free phones are no less distracting than hand-held ones, carmakers are integrating more bluetooth and smartphone interfaces than ever. In an effort to help you avoid the need to look at your phone to make a call, these automakers have inadvertently made it a heck of a lot easier to talk on your phone while driving.

While some degree of automation is nice, (electric start, automatic choke, power windows, power locks, power steering, abs, and more) there comes a point where too much is too much, especially when they are automating things that people shouldn't be doing in cars anyways (like talking on the phone). Until a day comes when all of the functions of a car are fully automated, and a driver is NEVER needed, these so-called convenience features are leading only to complacency and distraction, which makes the road a more dangerous place for everyone.

Bluegrass and trains

2010-05-17T09:54:00.000-06:00

I went to an All-Colorado bluegrass festival this weekend, which ended up being a lot of fun. I expected to hear a lot of songs about God, whiskey, heartbreak, and killing people (and indeed I did). What I didn't quite expect, however, was that a solid third of the songs involved trains in one way or another. To me, trains (especially good ol' steam trains) are about as western as horses and cowboys, but I don't normally think about cowboys as big bluegrass enthusiasts. I most often picture a cowboy lying back at a lonesome campfire, with a harmonica playing forlornly into the night. Bluegrass, on the other hand, conjures up images of a rambunctious group of people sitting on a porch, surrounded by the greenery of the Smokey Mountains, drinking whiskey and relaxing after a long day in the coal mines or on the farms.

To me, bluegrass speaks of a history of Scotch-Irish immigrants with their fiddles and folk tunes meeting up with African Americans and their gospel, jazz, and blues, and creating a new synthesis of music in the heart of Appalachia. It was the music of hillbillies, not cowboys. But just maybe, as one of the songs put it, "There's something about Colorado" that manages to infuse a western vibe into more traditional bluegrass, and happened to create the "Higher Lonesome" form of bluegrass unique to this great state.

post #69

2010-05-15T08:49:00.002-06:00

oh yea

Car Networks

2010-05-14T12:50:00.001-06:00

Today, I had the intention of writing about how I think that increasingly computerized and automatized functions in cars is a bad thing, for reliability and longevity reasons. That post will have to wait, however, as I just read an article about how researchers were able to wirelessly hack into the computerized systems in at least one late-model vehicle. Once they did so, they had more or less full control over the vehicle, from relatively mundane functions such as radio and A/C, to much more life-threatening equipment such as engine and brakes.

Now they didn't specify the particular make or model, but I have a feeling it may have been either Ford or GM, as both use very integrated software. Ford seems the most likely target, as its Sync "Powered by Microsoft" system allows the driver (and thus a hacker) to have voice command control of much of the vehicle. GM's OnStar network also seems like a good candidate, though a hacker might not be able to exert as much control with that system, as it's designed more to observe than to manipulate.

I believe that most other car manufacturers have done the right thing, namely to isolate essential vehicle functions on a separate network that is only accessible by a hard line. So, while this layout doesn't let you start the engine by saying "start engine" or pushing a button on your navigation computer, it does prevent a hacker from taking complete control of your vehicle... seems like a decent trade off to me.

I'm reminded of a lesson learned the hard way in the recent TV series, Battlestar Galactica. An old, soon-to-be-retired battleship manages to survive an attack by cyborgs because, unlike all of the newer ships, it doesn't have a wireless network and isn't susceptible to a computer virus which paralyzes the rest of the fleet. Not that Ford or GM are going to be sending their cars into battle anytime soon, but I think you get the point.

Man with a Plan

2010-05-14T09:57:00.002-06:00

For some reason, most motorcyclists also seem to be some degree of grease monkey. Whether they stick to a few small modifications here and there, or decide to build a bike from the ground up, most tend to consider their bikes "works in progress." There seems to be something very satisfying about finding some old pile of rust at a garage sale and turning it into something that's not only rideable, but looks the way you want it to.

So I've decided on a project for myself. It's not something which is going to be finished (or even started) anytime soon, as I have neither the time, the resources, nor the space, to complete such a project. But at least I have a goal in mind, so when I find that scrap heap, I'll know what to do with it.

Basically, what I want to do is create a gas-electric motorcycle, similar in operation to a diesel-electric locomotive. I'd first find a bike (or combination of bikes) with a solid frame and fixable engine. I'd want a reliable, efficient engine, preferably of Japanese make, between 250 and 450cc. Here's where it gets fun. I'd tune the engine for optimal efficiency at a constant rpm (atkinson cycle conversion?), and I would rip out the transmission and final drive, and replace it with a generator and a battery and/or ultracapacitor. I would find a sufficiently powerful electric motor, and hook it up to the ultracapacitor. Now here's where it gets really fun. I wouldn't be super concerned with fantastic handling, so I'd have the ability to hub-mount the motor(s). The real advantage of that setup is that I'd have the ability to create a FWD (or AWD) motorcycle which doesn't look absolutely ridiculous.

I'd hopefully be able to create a bike with the stability of AWD, screaming acceleration, and scooter-like fuel consumption. The only strange part about it would be that the exhaust note would never change. It would be a dull hum whether I'm sitting at a red or roaring away from a green.

Come from space

2010-05-13T13:06:00.000-06:00

To teach you of the Pleiades.
-Red Hot Chili Peppers

The pleiades is a pretty sweet constellation, known in English as "the seven sisters" and in Japanese as "Subaru." Consequently I have a bit of a soft spot for it. Heres a neat picture I found of it while browsing NASA's astronomy picture of the day archive.

High Volt-age

2010-05-13T11:03:00.002-06:00

A lot of people, with good reason, are very excited about the new Chevy Volt, set to launch in November. It represents a big step forward for car technology, and presents a better bridge between gasoline and electric technology. For those who don't know how it works and how it's different from any other hybrid or plug in hybrid, I'll explain briefly, using a converted Prius plug-in as an example.

In a plug-in Prius, the gasoline engine is still the main thing that moves the car. Granted, there is an electric motor tied to the transmission, which is capable of moving the car by itself (unlike some hybrids). However, it can only get the car to ~53 mph, and takes a glacial 30 seconds to accelerate to that speed. The electric motor really only augments the gasoline motor, taking over at slow speeds and helping boost acceleration. Without the gasoline engine, the Prius would be a pretty sad car.

In the Chevy Volt, however, all of the power to the wheels comes from the electric motor. This motor puts out 160 hp, which is enough to propel the car from 0-60 in a respectable 9 seconds and give it a top speed you'd get pulled over for. As Chevy says, "Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity," so the 1 litre engine is really just a battery in disguise. There is no mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels; its only function is that of a backup generator. In fact, you could rip out the engine and replace it with a diesel engine, a solar panel, a hydrogen fuel cell, a wind turbine, more batteries, a nuclear reactor, a cold fusion reactor, a bioreactor, or even a hamster wheel (I'm not even kidding, this would work), and the car would run in much the same way.

The design of the Chevy Volt holds some particular advantages over the plug-in Prius. The most important advantage is the aforementioned flexibility. As powerplant or battery technology changes, the drivetrain of the car can remain virtually untouched, saving a lot of R&D money. The motor also totally eliminates the need for a transmission, which improves efficiency and reduces weight and complexity. There's no gear shifting at all in this car, because unlike gasoline engines, which only work well at a very narrow range of speeds, electric motors work equally well at all speeds (sorry gearheads).

However, I have some nagging reservations, and one huge complaint (which has nothing to do with the Volt itself). My reservations deal mainly with how the gas engine will deal with not being run for potentially months at a time, with stale gasoline sitting in the fuel lines and tank. Anyone has tried to start a car thats been sitting in the driveway for a couple months knows that it's not easy. Modern fuel injection technology will likely help mitigate this problem, but I have a feeling that Chevy will end up recommending that owners deplete the fuel tank periodically.

I also wonder how the odometer will end up working. For this car, saying that it has 30,000 miles is more or less meaningless, as those miles could be all battery, all engine, or some mix of the two. To me, it makes sense for there to be two odometers, one for miles and one for "hours" the engine has run (theoretically at a constant RPM). Things like brakes, tires, differentials, suspension, etc, should be serviced on a mileage basis, while things like belts, hoses, oil, filters, gaskets, etc, should be serviced on an hours basis. Servicing based on hours isn't a new idea, as many recreational vehicles like ATVs and boats use that system.

My one big complaint is this:
In the early days of internal combustion engines, when diesel was just beginning to be tested as an alternative to steam in locomotives, engineers (the kind that designed the trains, not the kind that drove them) started running into some issues. Diesel engines had one very large disadvantage as compared to steam engines, being that they have an even narrower useful power band than gasoline engines (~600 - 1800 rpm). Steam engines on the other hand, like electric motors, have 100% torque available throughout their entire powerband. Engineers discovered that in order to be useful for accelerating hundreds of tons of freight up to high speeds, diesel engines would have had to be coupled to ridiculous transmissions, with perhaps even hundreds of gears, incredible material strength, and differentials capable of powering more than 4 axles. The construction and use of such transmissions bordered on impossible, so the widespread implementation of the diesel train seemed doomed to failure until the invention of the diesel-electric locomotive.

The idea behind the diesel-electric locomotive is the same as behind the Volt, namely, a diesel engine turns a generator, which provides electricity to power electric motors which turn the wheels. In one fell swoop, engineers managed to eliminate the need for a transmission and allow the diesel engine to run at its most efficient speed at all times (~740 rpm).

Now the reason I complain is that this technology had become almost universal by the 1930s. Aside from gradual improvements in diesel engines, electric motors, and control systems, the system has remained essentially unchanged for the last 80 years. The idea behind the Chevy Volt isn't "new" or "breakthrough" at all, its simply a very old technology that's finally getting adapted to a new purpose. I wonder, since this system has been proven to be reliable, efficient, and incredibly powerful, for 80+ years, why it hasn't been tried in a car until now.

They say genius is simply figuring out the obvious before anyone else, but to me, the magnitude of the obviousness of this approach makes it hard to credit Chevy with "genius."

Concert Venues

2010-05-12T13:43:00.000-06:00

So I was just at a concert last night, which ended up being pretty fantastic. However, I was reminded of a couple things that concert venues could do to make a better concert-going experience for everyone.

First off, give out free ear plugs. When tickets cost $10 at the absolute minimum, the least they could do is pass out 10 cent ear plugs to those who want them. They'd not only be helping to avoid legal liability, but also helping people to avoid permanent hearing loss, tinnitus, or even the temporary ringing and deafness that lasts several hours after a loud concert.

Second, enforce a drink limit. It doesn't have to be a particularly low limit, maybe somewhere in the range of 4 drinks, but nobody likes "that guy" who shoves his way around, reeking of beer, being obnoxious, and feeling people up. They could enforce it with punch holes on wristbands, sharpie marks on hands, fairground-style tickets, or a number of other ways. Though no method could be immune to cheating in one way or another, if the policy even halves the number of belligerent drunks in the crowd, everybody is going to have a better time.

Third, institute a policy to allow people to sort themselves by height. People already tend to sort themselves by how interested they are in the band, with the most interested up at the front, and the least interested in back, but some sort of integration of a height policy would be nice. The particular venue that I went to has a very nice system of terracing that makes for decent views throughout the whole theatre, despite a relatively low stage. Nonetheless, it seemed as though the tallest people were standing at the front of each terrace, more or less defeating the purpose. If the venue would have allowed tall and short people to stand on any terrace (to sort by interest), but gave permission for shorter people to move forward on the terrace if they could not see, I would estimate that 80% of the concertgoers would have had a better view. Even people of middling to tallish heights wouldn't have to worry about being stuck behind that 6'6" guy.

Though the venue would undoubtedly lose some profits with the first two changes, and perhaps anger some ridiculously tall patrons, I think the improved quality of the concert-going experience would encourage more people to attend concerts more often, and help to set the venue apart from its competition.

patience vs apathy

2010-05-11T13:54:00.004-06:00

It may seem to some that advocating for infinite patience is unwise, escapist, and/or procrastinatory, as it appears to be the same as advocating for inaction. I think this is far from the truth. As I mentioned, without patience, there is no diligence. It is only without patience and diligence that we become escapist or procrastinatory.

There is a huge difference between patiently tolerating an ill and being apathetic about it. Patience, unlike apathy, isn't a force for conserativism, stagnation, and maintaining the status quo, but rather one for long term positive gain, even (or especially) at the expense of short term goals. It is when we give up on our patience that we give in to apathy; we start believing that things can't be done feasibly and shouldn't be attempted.

Time is a very powerful force, and patience gives us the ability to utilize time to our advantage. Without it, we sacrifice our long term goals in the name of short-term gain, which devalues our efforts and our integrity. Time and again we see examples of a lack of patience and diligence in our modern, industrial, capitalist society. We are all guilty of it in one way or another, but we often don't stop to think about its costs. Shoddy products are brought to market before they're ready, quick and dirty energy sources are used instead of more sustainable options, sweeping reforms are dismissed as being too ambitious, and bar-goers drive home before they're sober. The costs we incur for these shortcuts range from a wasted dollar on a broken knick-knack to an enormous loss of life. Unfortunately, these costs are rarely picked up by the ones who lost patience and cut corners, but by the rest of us, who must patiently deal with the consequences.

So if you see things in the world that need change, don't get fed up and angry, and don't be hasty or impetuous. What you should do is diligently strive for improvement, while patiently awaiting the brighter future you intend on creating.

hold your horses!

2010-05-10T11:20:00.003-06:00

Some say that patience is a virtue. I might be inclined to say its THE virtue. While it doesn't find itself on the list of 4 cardinal virtues, it is included as one of the seven heavenly or holy virtues, which are corollary and contrary to the seven deadly sins. Though it is included, I would dare say that its importance is highly under appreciated.

Just so we're all on the same page, the word "patient," from Merriam-Webster, can mean the following:
1 : bearing pains or trials calmly or without complaint
2 : manifesting forbearance under provocation or strain
3 : not hasty or impetuous
4 : steadfast despite opposition, difficulty, or adversity

When living in close quarters with others, especially those who have a particularly different world view than yourself, like college roommates or puppies, the value of patience (hopefully) becomes quite clear. It teaches moderation and tolerance, compromise and kindness. I think that with unlimited patience, one could live a completely happy and virtuous life ad infinitum.

Looking at the list of deadly sins - Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride - I see a lack of patience in some form or another in every one. The direct counterpart to patience, Wrath, is obviously related, as wrath comes from a lack of patience for just about any pain, whether physical or otherwise. But even still, if I look at the other 6 heavenly virtues - Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Kindness, and Humility - I still see patience, just for more subtle things. Chastity is having the patience to endure celibacy and resist sexual temptation. Temperance is having the patience to endure hunger and resist the temptation of excess. Charity is the patience to endure poverty and resist the temptation of wealth. Diligence is the patience to endure drudgery and resist the the temptation of laziness. Kindness is the patience to endure negativity and resist the temptation of objectification. Humility is the patience to endure dehumanization and resist the temptation of self-affirmation.

Now I'm not going to argue that celibacy, hunger, poverty, drudgery, pain, negativity, and dehumanization are fun or positive things. But, they are all things that we run into in our lives, to one degree or another. By giving into the "deadly sins," we are simply passing these adversities off to someone else, whether directly or indirectly. Patience gives us the ability to deal with these adversities in a way that breaks the cycle of doing harm to others. By patiently enduring, we can enrich the lives of everyone around us, including ourselves.

Is it weird...

2010-05-08T20:03:00.002-06:00

That sometimes I refresh my blog, halfway expecting a new post to show up?

Subaru's got work to do.

2010-05-06T08:58:00.002-06:00

Its fairly common knowledge that I'm a pretty ardent, verging on zealous, Subaru supporter. Despite being one of the smallest mainstream automobile manufacturers, they really have some good things going for them. For example:

All five vehicles in their lineup received 2009 IIHS top safety picks, more than any other manufacturer by both number and percentage.

They are the only manufacturer to have won the Motor Trend sport/utility of the year award two years in a row, for the Forester in 2009 and the Outback in 2010.

They have the best fuel economy average for AWD vehicles of any manufacturer.

They have the highest average residual value of any brand, according to ALG, and they won the compact utility vehicle and midsize utility vehicle categories with the Forester and Outback.

According to Consumer Reports, they are tied with Honda for most reliable manufacturer.

Their April 2010 sales were up 48.2% from April 2009, beating every other manufacturer, with the next best improving only 39%. They were one of the only manufacturers to increase sales during the economic downturn of 2009, and have even broken sales records 9 of the past 10 months.

In the last 2 years, their market share has grown from 1.9% to 2.4%, a more than 25% increase.

The Impreza is the best selling all-wheel-drive car in America, the Outback is a Kelly Blue Book top 10 family vehicle, the Forester has won Polk's owner loyalty award 7 of the past 10 years, and the Tribeca was called one of the 15 safest cars and one of the 15 SUVs worth buying by Forbes.

They are at or near the top of a variety of other surveys which measure quality, reliability, true cost, etc.

So why do I say they have work to do? Well, fuel economy. Very soon, fuel economy standards in the United States will tighten significantly. What is an automaker to do when their biggest brand draw (standard AWD), is their biggest hindrance in reaching those standards? Well, here are a list of possibilities they might consider:

1. Reintroduce a sub-compact.
The Justy (~40 mpg w/ awd) hasn't been sold in the US since 1994, though it has been sold abroad. Americans wouldn't by a kei car like the Stella and the Dex is ugly as all get out, but a reintroduced (and perhaps renamed) Justy seems like it would sell quite well. While modern safety features and emissions technology would doubtless drag the fuel economy down somewhat, the Justy would likely still beat the requisite 35 mpg.

2. Bring the turbo-diesel stateside.
Subaru has a 2L boxer diesel engine in Europe and Australia that gets pretty kickass mileage with some ridiculous torque to boot. So what if its only available with a manual? Enough people know how to drive stick that it would sell.

3. Put your hybrid drivetrain into production.
We know they have it. We've seen the concept car. They only (really) have 2 platforms and 3 engines (including the diesel), all with the same basic layout. They could put it into every single vehicle they manufacture in 1-2 model years. We have faith.

4. Implement a hybrid turbocharger.
If they were to replace their mechanical turbochargers with hybrid turbochargers, they could eliminate turbo-lag, boost performance, improve efficiency, and extend range, whether or not they implement the hybrid drivetrain.

5. Eliminate the non-CVT automatic.
The CVT gets better mileage than the geared automatic, plus it performs better and rides more smoothly. It's really a no-brainer.

6. Bring smaller engines back.
Subaru used to have 1.8, 2.0, and 2.2 litre engines available in the US. Now, a 2.5L engine is the smallest they offer in the states (though it has won several awards for best engine). If combined with more modern engine technology (variable valve timing, direct injection, etc), a smaller engine could provide ample performance with significantly improved mileage, especially in the Impreza models, which have the same engine and mileage as the much heftier Outback.

7. Retry engine shutoff at idle.
Subaru tried this technology a few decades ago and ultimately decided it didn't work as well as they would like, so they cancelled their R+D on it. However, technology has improved substantially in the last 30-40 years, especially when it comes to computer management systems that would regulate the shutoff. The system would be easier to integrate into a hybrid, but not impossible otherwise.

8. Keep working on the Stella Plug-in
I know its still in the pilot-testing stage, but keep up the good work. Again, nobody in the US would buy a kei car, but due to the swap-and-drop fungibility of your engineering, this technology could be implemented broadly once it's been perfected.

9. All of the above
No one of the above strategies will do the job on its own. Subaru is going to have to use a multi-faceted approach to reach the 35mpg target. I would love to get my hands on a plug-in hybrid-diesel Outback with a hybrid turbo and engine shutoff. I'm drooling already.

mmmm... tropical

2010-05-04T13:30:00.000-06:00

So in an effort to actually write about all of the things that are listed as my hobbies/interest on my About Me page, I'm sending you on over to the blog of a friend of mine. Since it's been a bit over two years now since I've been to the tropics, I figure I'm not particularly qualified to be talking very much about them. She, on the other hand, is currently there, and has lots of stuff to say about the flora, fauna, culture, and diseases.

So, again if you have some spare time, head on over to the very aptly named "Sabrina goes to the jungle."

Ugh

2010-05-04T12:14:00.002-06:00

So I found a website that's pretty similar to my blog, except it's funnier, more concise, and illustrated to boot. Its called The Oatmeal and its somewhere in between a rant blog and an absurd comic, with some quizzes thrown in for good measure.

Seriously though, The Oatmeal is pretty sweet, but fortunately, I think I have some things going for me that it doesn't. For one, since it's illustrated and my blog isn't, I can churn out a far higher volume of material over a given period of time. Of course, we all know it's all about quantity over quality (at least when the goal is killing time). Second, though some of his comics are slightly informative, I'd like to think that most of what I post is slightly more than slightly informative. That means you might learn a bit more than how long you would survive chained to a bed with a velociraptor. For example, according to that quiz I would survive just over a minute, but real velociraptors were actually about the size and weight of my dog, meaning that I could totally pwn one and eat it for thanksgiving dinner (they had even feathers you could use for thanksgiving-related arts and crafts). Third, if you're reading this, you probably know me personally, and that's worth something, right? Fourth, if you think he's cool, then I must be sorta cool by association, because we both talk about grammar and usage, cats, bears, beer, computers, food, microbes, and dinosaurs; we make absurd lists; and we think pterodactyls and Nicola Tesla are totally sweet. Lastly, though I do complain about things periodically, I'd like to think I spend more time than he does talking about things that I like, love, or just think are pretty cool.

So if you have the time, spend about 4 hours reading the comics and taking the quizzes on his website, and then come back to me when you oh-so-quickly exhaust the available material. I'll be here waiting.

How's your air?

2010-05-03T13:16:00.002-06:00

Ah fresh air... But is it really as fresh as you think? If you live in Los Angeles, probably not.

According to an American Lung Association report based on 3 years of real data, 58% of Americans are periodically subjected to air considered "unsafe to breathe." People in the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside area as well as in the Bakersfield area seem to have it particularly bad. Both areas make the top 5 for "Most Polluted Cities" in all three categories included in the study. Angelinos have to suffer through an average of 238 days a year that are rated orange, red, or purple for ozone (which stand for unhealthy for sensitive people, unhealthy, and very unhealthy, respectively). When coupled with the second largest urban population in the United States, that puts nearly 10 million people at risk for respiratory-related illness in LA county alone. In fact, 8 of the 10 worst areas for ozone are in California (despite their noble efforts to the contrary), though most of the baddies on the particulate lists fall in the coal belt of the east coast.

If you, on the other hand, live in a smaller city on the great plains, you're probably all good. You might even be ok if you live in a smaller city in New England, the Southwest, the Southeast, Alaska, or Hawaii.

Curious to see how where you live stacks up? Visit this site and either click on your state for a list of counties or type in your zip code on the left. My county has an average of 16 orange ozone days and 2 orange particulate days per year. Is your county any better?

Oil!

2010-05-03T12:03:00.003-06:00

So unless you actively distance yourself from current events, you've probably heard about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which continues to flow at 210,000 gallons per day. From what I can tell, it seems like its going to be one of the biggest and most publicized man-made environmental disasters in US history, ranking up there with Exxon-Valdez and Love Canal. As such, it is probably going to have equally far reaching repercussions. Since I'm not a reporter, I'm just going to assume you're all current on whats happening, and if not, you can read about it here. Instead, I want to talk about some of the potential consequences of the disaster, both negative and positive.

Bad news first:
1. It could cost millions or billions of dollars in economic losses for residents and businesses along the gulf coast, from Louisiana to Florida.
2. It could disrupt fishing, shipping, and other drilling operations, causing further economic loss.
3. It could destroy fragile wetland ecosystems which are already suffering from a variety of other man-made problems. Other than the loss of animal and plant life, we would also lose the "ecosystem services" provided, including water filtration, storm buffering, and habitat for commercially harvested organisms.
4. It will kill fish, birds, plankton, otters, and a variety of other marine organisms, potentially even whales and dolphins.
5. The oil, as well as the some of the proposed cleanup methods, could have unforeseen consequences on deepwater ecology and human health.
6. In worst case scenarios, the Deepwater Horizon spill might release up to 4 Exxon-Valdezes worth of oil per week.

Possible good news:
1. Future offshore drilling has been temporarily postponed. Hopefully this will become permanent.
2. Proponents of offshore drilling, especially those in coastal states, may be swayed enough to create more bipartisanship against domestic drilling. I would hope that this would include Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who, in 2006, voted to end the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling.
3. Since dependence on foreign oil is frowned upon, a lack of domestic drilling options may prompt increased bipartisan support for renewable energy and alternative fuel. Unfortunately I don't believe any auto manufacturers or factories are located along the Gulf, so they might remain as reticent as always.
4. If oil and gas are phased out sooner rather than later, we may avoid the worst of the impending peak oil disaster.
5. Offshore drilling rigs, which experienced 39 fires or explosions in the Gulf of Mexico alone over a period of only 5 months, might be scrutinized and retrofitted with additional fail-safes, lessening the likelihood of a similar accident.
6. The fact that the Deepwater Horizon was originally built by Hyundai may sway automobile buyers away from Hyundai/Kia and towards domestic vehicles, stimulating the domestic economy and helping to replay stimulus funding. Hyundai/Kia (along with Subaru) were the only auto manufacturers to actually grow during the downturn in 2009, which assuredly lessened sales for domestic manufacturers at the time.

So, while there are certainly a lot of negative consequences of an oil spill of this magnitude, hopefully it will spur positive change to prevent anything of the sort from ever happening again. It may be the sort of push we need to keep moving down the road towards a cleaner, healthier planet.

Mashups

2010-04-30T07:43:00.003-06:00

I love a good mashup as much as anyone else. This song and this song are excellent examples of great mashups. In fact, I've found that just about everything by Immuzikation sounds great.

However, there are a lot of mashups that sound really bad. This one, for example. You'd look at that and think "I like Jason Mraz, Bobby McFerrin, and Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, so how could it be bad?" Well I like ice cream and tuna casserole but that doesn't mean I should put them in the same bowl, now does it?

It really must be that the people making these crappy mashups don't have much musical training, because they seem to feel that if you put the songs in the same key, you're all good. Now "don't worry, be happy" is in C, while "I'm yours" is in B. That's a simple enough transposition, so lets line up the chords and see how this song would sound (all in B):
I'm yours: B F# G#m E
Don't worry, be happy: B F# E/B B

The first two chords are the same, which ends up sounding really great. Even the G#m and the E/B don't sound TOO horrible together because they share B and G#, but the E/B has an E and the G#m has a D#. Ouch. Minor seconds are rarely a good idea.

Then the real trouble comes with the E and B. The only note they share is the B itself. E G# B D# F#. While playing a 1 chord and a 4 chord at the same time might seem like a good idea, trust me, its not. you're playing the 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the key simultaneously, which makes for a big flat blurgh of sound, with at least one minor second harmony (actually, only one, but still, two major seconds).

And after spending the the first couple minutes listening to that monstrosity masquerading as music, I could hardly bear to listen to him butcher Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's already fantastic ukulele mashup.

And you know, I'm not just being a stickler for the rules of contrapuntal harmony because I'm a purist or because I'm jealous or anything. I appreciate it when people understand the rules and then proceed to break them and pull it off. However, the rules are there for a reason, which is to help you make your music not sound like ass, so do us all a favor and follow them.

I'm not a Nazi

2010-04-29T08:54:00.007-06:00

Unlike Arizona, I don't ask people who look like they might be immigrants to show me their papers.

However, I'm still going to have to be very careful with this post, as I'm going to be treading very lightly between political correctness and evolutionary biology. Now some have argued that there is no genetic basis for race. At all. In a strictly intuitive sense, we know that this can't be true, as genes largely control our appearance, and appearance varies somewhat predictably between ethnicities. Let me take a step back.

The more closely related people (or any other organisms) are, the more genes they share. I have software in my possession that can tell if two individuals are siblings or cousins, based on their DNA. Paternity tests work fairly similarly. Researchers can even correctly identify a dog's breed by its genetics alone, even though some breeds have been around for fewer than 200 years (though granted, thats up to 100 generations). Now until the advent of widespread global trade and transportation (starting probably ~5000 BC) people pretty much stayed where they grew up. Even today, most people decide to stay within their state or country, and I've met at least one person who's never left the county.

Thus, though this probably doesn't apply to major cities, one can probably safely assume that the people in a small town are more closely related to each other than they are to the people in the next town over. People who are "from" a certain country are probably more closely related to others from that country, and people from the same continent are more closely related to each other than they are to people from other continents.

Now those who have argued that there is no genetic basis for race seem to base this claim on one or two studies that used mitochondrial DNA as their marker. They found that, on the basis of this mitochondrial DNA, they could not differentiate between people of different ethnic backgrounds. The major flaw with this argument is that mitochondrial DNA is a very low-resolution marker. It can be used to tell dogs from humans, but not humans from other humans or dogs from other dogs. It would be like trying to differentiate people on the basis of one singular trait, like fingernails. Humans have fingernails and dogs have claws, so they are clearly different, but all humans have fingernails, so there is no difference between them. This is obviously an overly simplistic view of the matter.

The reality of it is somewhat more nuanced, as it always seems to be in biology. It turns out that using more fine resolution markers, like SNPs or microsatellites, you can in fact tell a black person from a white person. However, you can also tell a black person from Nigeria from a black person from Ghana, the same as you can tell a white person from England from a white person from France. So for those who wish to be racist, there is definitely some truth to the genetic differences between ethnicities. However, to their disappointment, you can just as easily distinguish their white family members from their neighbor's white family members as you can from the members of a black family. So the question becomes where to draw the line. Geneticists have more or less established that there is no one place to do so. The lines between people of different races are no stronger or more well defined than those between people of different households, so while race may "exist," genetically speaking, it is meaningless and arbitrary, depending entirely on where one decides to draw the lines.

On a side note, even our strongest idea of race, skin color, is far more complex than we imagine. The "out of Africa" theory postulates that humanity started out dark skinned and then evolved to become more light skinned as it moved into more northerly climes. However, the light skin of "Asians" and the light skin of Europeans comes from two separate, independent mutations. Likewise, the dark skin of Samoans and aboriginal Australians is not a holdover from Africa, but rather a new mutation for dark skin, arising from lighter skinned Asians. The brown skin of Indians and of native Americans is also different, with one likely evolving from darker ancestors and the other from lighter ancestors, and the list goes on. So while some may see the progression of dark skin to light skin as evidence of a "ladder of progress," that is certainly far from the case, as evolution works in both directions. No one skin color or ethnic background is "superior" or "inferior," evolutionarily speaking.

I'm reminded of a scene from "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay," in which the pair run into a KKK rally. Though one is Korean and the other is Indian, when the two are discovered, the KKK members exclaim "Look! Mexicans!"

lane splitting

2010-04-28T13:53:00.005-06:00

Though motorcyclists complain about many things that cagers do, including talking on the phone, not checking their blind spot, texting, looking at their ipod, playing with their gps, gesticulating to their passengers, not looking before pulling into traffic, deliberately cutting people off, passing on the right, tailgating, and being 80 years old, there are relatively few similar complaints about motorcycles. However, when people do complain, its usually about weaving or lane splitting.

Weaving, I'll grant, is a totally dick move, as it involves rapidly changing lanes at a ridiculous speed in traffic that is already moving along at a reasonable rate. Though sometimes done by people on motorcycles, its just as often done by people in Ferraris, Porsches, tricked out Honda Civics, and Ford Exploders. This is less a hallmark of motorcyclists in general as it is of impatient daredevils (many of whom end up buying motorcycles, I'll admit.)

Lane splitting, on the other hand, involves riding down the white line that divides two lanes, in between two cars. It is only done at relatively low speeds in stop-and-go traffic, but it is usually done for an extended distance, rather than just to pass one set of cars. It enables the motorcyclist to continue moving in otherwise stopped traffic. It is illegal in some states, legal in others, and not addressed at all in still others. I feel that this is neither impatient nor dickish, and here are some reasons why.

1. It helps prevent overheating
While cars have been liquid cooled almost since their inception, many motorcycles, particularly cruiser or standard style bikes, are still air cooled. While this may limit the performance capabilities of a bike, it also lowers cost, weight, and complexity. However, this means that many motorcycles rely on a cool stream of fresh air to keep them from overheating. Lane splitting, even at low speeds, allows for this cooling, while sitting still does not.

2. It assists with balance
Like bicycles, motorcycles can be supremely graceful at high speeds, leaning more than 45° into a turn at maximum speed. However, also like bicycles, motorcycles are quite clumsy at lower speeds, particularly those that are designed to tackle the highway, like choppers and touring bikes. When stopped, a motorcyclist must rely on their strength and balance to keep their bike upright, which, though simple enough on a bicycle, becomes a chore, to say the least, when your bike weighs upwards of 1000 lbs. If you consider the fact that many motorcyclists have to stand on their tip-toes to reach the ground, a stiff breeze or an oil slick underfoot could spell disaster.

3. It enables better control
When a motorcyclist is moving too slowly, they have to put their feet down to keep balance. However, when they do that, they are sacrificing a lot of control. Less importantly, having some of your weight on the pegs actually lowers the center of gravity of the bike and enables better balance, which is why bmx riders or mountain bikers will stand up on the pedals when performing particularly difficult maneuvers. More importantly though, it takes away your ability to operate the controls. The left foot changes gears (all motorcycles are manual), while the right foot operates the rear brake. With one's feet on the ground, one can neither change gears nor apply the rear brake. This, as you might imagine, hampers one's ability to operate the vehicle.

4. It makes the motorcyclist responsible for their own safety
For all practical purposes, motorcyclists are invisible. Hypothetically, assume you're on a motorcycle, in the middle lane of a freeway, in front of a large SUV. A driver in the left lane, which is moving somewhat faster, is talking on his cell phone and realizes that he needs to exit the freeway very soon. He sees the SUV behind you, and the car in front of you, but not you, since you're hidden. What he sees instead is a gap into which he can merge. He impatiently speeds up to merge and before you know it, you have nowhere to go. When you are lane splitting, however, you are moving faster than the flow of traffic, so potential dangers will all come from in front, rather than from behind. The responsibility for the safety of the motorcyclist is now no longer in the hands of distracted drivers who may or may not see the motorcyclist, but rather in the hands of the motorcyclist themself, who is focused, supremely concerned for their own safety, highly maneuverable, and has an incredibly short stopping distance.

5. It keeps cagers alert for motorcycles
A common complaint I hear from cagers is "I'm always afraid I'll pull out and hit one." To me, this argument holds no water, because if you are fulfilling your responsibility as a driver to be safe and alert, you will not hit a lane splitting motorcyclist. When changing lanes, every driver is required by law and common courtesy to check their mirrors and their blind spot while indicating their intention with a turn signal. This should be more than adequate to either see a motorcyclist or, failing that, give them adequate warning to not attempt to pass you. If you are not changing lanes, but rather simply weaving within your lane, you are sleep deprived, intoxicated, or distracted and should not be driving. And you most certainly should not cross over a quadruple yellow line into a high occupancy lane, under any circumstance, regardless of the fact that motorcyclists often travel there.

6. Motorcycle cops do it in non-emergencies
Why can't I? If they feel it to be sufficiently safe and effective for their needs, I would tend to agree.

7. It improves overall traffic flow
Since it more efficiently uses the available space on a freeway, it raises overall throughput thereof. Each motorcyclist that switches from sitting in traffic to lane splitting slightly reduces the overall congestion of the freeway. This reduces the travel time for everyone, including you in your car.

8. It is faster
This is the least important factor of all. The fact that it can halve your travel time is certainly a bonus, but its a bit of a mixed blessing. Lane splitting is an incredibly stressful activity that takes a lot of coordination, alertness, and mental activity. Though it takes half as long to get to your destination, you feel as tired and drained as if it had taken twice as long. If feeling fresh and relaxed once you arrive is your goal, lane splitting is NOT your best option.

So I hope that even if I haven't convinced you that lane splitting is the clear choice for motorcyclists, your hatred for lane splitters has at least been reduced to a dull irritation tinged with jealousy.

Cagers...

2010-04-27T20:46:00.000-06:00

Many of you may not know it, but motorcyclists have a name for people who drive cars: cagers. Though the "cage" of a car is quite literal, and a rather effective safety feature, it's also fairly strongly figurative (and pejorative.) Motorcycles have always been a symbol of freedom, whether its the freedom from dictatorship of the former WW2 pilots, the freedom from the law of the 1%ers, the freedom from society of the Easy Rider duo, or just the freedom from high gas prices of the modern commuter. The cage is therefor the antithesis of what motorcycles stand for.

While the cage protects you from the outside world, it also isolates you from it. Its not until you ride a motorcycle that you realize how much you were missing in a car. You can see, smell, hear, and even feel everything around you in a way that is unimaginable for cagers, even those who pretend to throw off the mantle of a cage by buying a convertible. When I'm riding, I can see the ground beneath my feet, smell the pot smoke wafting from the car beside me, hear the soft purr of my engine, and feel the force of the wind on my chest.

Some, however, seem to revel in how cut off they are from the world. They pick their noses at stoplights and text while driving by the playground. There was even a car commercial recently which depicted a man locked in a car with a sleeping badger. A cannon was fired outside of the car and the badger didn't wake up. While this might seem like a good thing for those few times where you accidently get transported back to the Civil War and you don't want the kids to wake up, what if instead of a cannon, it's an ambulance barreling down a cross street or a semi truck with failed brakes honking to clear the way to the runaway ramp?

So how much freedom are you willing to trade for a feeling of safety?

stylish!

2010-04-26T18:33:00.001-06:00

So Mitsubishi recently debuted an electric version of their "i" kei car. When the non-electric version first came out, circa 2003, people were talking about its unique and cool styling. It looks like this:

Ooooh, ahhh. Very cool, though something about it seems familiar...

Oh yes! It looks just like a climbing shoe on wheels.

red light green light one light two light

2010-04-26T08:22:00.000-06:00

In Denver, there seem to be a fair number of so-called "emergency signals." These are traffic lights at the intersection of a major street and a minor street. The minor street would typically only get a stop sign, except that there just so happens to be a police or fire station on it. So instead, the major street gets a blinking yellow light and the minor street gets a blinking red light. Denverites know to interpret the blinking yellow light as "ignore this and keep going" and the blinking red as "pretend I'm a stop sign."

Now for some reason, stop lights seem to go out or get worked on relatively often here. When this happens at the intersection of a major street and a minor street (but one big enough to at least merit a light), the major street again gets the blinking yellow and the minor gets the blinking red. In theory, the people at the minor street are somewhat inconvenienced, as it makes it harder for them to pull out into traffic, but the flow along the major street is unimpeded. In practice however, people interpret the blinking yellow as "pretend I'm a stop sign," and the traffic on the major street backs up for more than a block, while a slow trickle of cars on the minor street gets to go as soon as they pull up to the light.

I'm really not sure how this confusion arises, as one blinking yellow light should mean the same as any other blinking yellow light, but apparently it does. So next time you see that blinking yellow, do us all a favor and blaze on through, leading the way for everyone else.

A miraculous discovery

2010-04-25T10:16:00.003-06:00

Ok, so miraculous might be a bit of an overstatement, but I discovered a fantastic book called "RUMO & His Miraculous Adventures" about a week or two ago. Normally whenever I go to the library, either A) pick out some non-fiction on dogs or cars or snowboarding or rock climbing or whatever, or B) browse the sci-fi/fantasy section for new installments in series or random books that look interesting. Most of the time, the random books that look interesting turn out not to be.

They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but I don't find that to be entirely true. Most of the time, I can tell that a cover featuring a wizard riding a dragon is a book I will throw down in disgust. When you combine that with the summary and/or reviews on the back cover and dust jacket, I can usually screen out the halfway-decent from the positively revolting, but even still, separating the fantastic from the decent is nigh on impossible without sitting down to read them.

Interestingly enough though, I can usually get a decent idea of how much I'll like the book, not by what the reviews say, but by who wrote them. If, for example, three of my favorite authors (say Robert Jordan, George RR Martin, and Terry Goodkind) wrote glowing reviews on a book, its pretty likely that I'll like it a lot. If the glowing reviews instead come from anonymous authors at the New York Times Book Review, the Detroit Free Press, and the Washington Post, I typically don't enjoy the book quite as much. And if the reviews come from authors I loathe, like Anne Mccaffrey and Terry Brooks, I'm pretty likely to give up halfway through the book (as I did for the books they themselves wrote).

So I was more than a little surprised to get totally sucked in by a book reviewed by the three aforementioned anonymous book reviews. The reviewers were obviously not big fantasy readers, as 2 of the 3 reviews compared the book to a cross between JK Rowling and Douglas Adams. Yes, it was fantasy and yes, it was a funny, but otherwise, I think they were pretty far off, as there was no wizardry of any sort and no spaceships. I'd liken it to somewhere between Terry Pratchett, JRR Tolkien, and Philip Pullman, with all of the best aspects of each.

Rumo is an enthralling adventure comedy with a splash of romance. Its a definite fantasy, with talking swords, dwarves, yetis and the like, but the dragons are actually dinosaurs and most of the creatures (wolpertings, vuplheads, hellings, icemagogs, vrahoks, nocturnomaths, sharkgrubs, demonacles, nurns, etc.) are unique to the world. Like Pullman's books, it takes an inventive and almost steampunkish approach to the world, with alchemical science being fairly dominant, but its humor is almost self deprecating, in the manner of Prachett. Like Tolkien's work, the book tells of a youngster going on to become a hero, and is full of side-stories, back-stories, and fortellings, but unlike Tolkien's, which become arduous and distracting, these are enthralling and all eventually become relevant to the plot somewhere down the line. Something about the pace and drama of the story is reminiscent of Pullman (not just the alchemical steampunk flair). Something about the dangers to and determination of the hero, or maybe even just the language, makes you want to just keep on reading until you finish. That being said, props to not only the author, Walter Moers, but also to the translator, John Brownjohn (ridiculous name btw), for preserving the integrity of the work in english, from its original german.

One other benefit that's not often seen in fantasy is that the book is adorned with occasional illustrations, and by the author no less. It gives you great insight into what he was envisioning, and helps to immerse you in the world.

So, if you have some time to devote to this book (it's a little hefty at 687 pages) I would definitely recommend it. Its certainly getting added to my list of top 10 fantasy worlds (and probably more towards the top). As for me, I'm going to go looking for other books the author has written. He's said to be one of the most famous german authors and comic illustrators, though relatively little of his work is available in english. There's apparently another "cult classic" book set in the same world called "The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear," and there appear to be several more which have been published since Rumo (in 2006). Though I can't yet vouch for Moers' other works, you could do a lot worse than reading Rumo in your spare time.

I like driving (and my car)

2010-04-23T08:54:00.001-06:00

Most of the time, driving sucks. Long road trips through Nebraska, stuck in traffic in LA... But sometimes, driving is really awesome. Its awesome pretty much anytime you're on a motorcycle, but there are even times when its fun in a car. Twisty mountain roads are the most often thought of example of fun driving, and they're consequently whats usually seen on sports car commercials. I've never really driven a pickup except in the city, but according to commercials, they must be fun to drop a ton of bricks into and then drive through some really deep, wet potholes while gouts of flame are shooting overhead. But most of the time, I'm not doing that stuff in real life.

I do get to drive into the mountains relatively frequently, but certainly not every day. So the things that excite me are usually the little things. I like driving really fast through big puddles so that a huge spray of water goes flying up. I like pretending to fishtail (my Subaru doesn't really fishtail on its own) down rutted snowy roads. I like playing around in an empty parking lot with a fresh coat of snow. I get extremely prideful tackling weather conditions that make other cars flounder. I like packing a bunch of stuff into the back and feigning surprise at how well it all fits. I love parking my car in a parking lot where 7 out of the 15 cars there are also Subarus.

It probably sounds like I'm a little obsessed (mostly because I am), but I don't think its a bad thing to love the things you have, get genuine enjoyment out of using them, and appreciate all of their little details. I think I'm genuinely lucky to have a car that I love, rather than a car that I want to light on fire and push off a cliff. And I could say the same about my motorcycle, my drum set, my computer, my snowboard, my djembe, my climbing gear, my bicycle, and especially my dog, my cat, and my girlfriend. Not that I feel like my happiness is dependent on the stuff in my life, but I'm glad that the stuff I do have brings me joy and contentment, rather than frustration and greed. I hope you all feel the same way about the things in your life.

fries with that?

2010-04-22T18:29:00.001-06:00

So there was a tornado warning today, and I presume that tornadoes, like most meteorological phenomena, pose a particular risk to motorcyclists. The warning was shortly downgraded to a watch, so I wasn't particularly worried, but then something else struck me, so to speak. People in cars are more or less supposed to be safe in the event of a lightning strike, but does the same apply to a motorcyclist or even bicyclist? What about one whose feet are on the ground? Does rain matter?

A new shade of green

2010-04-20T12:03:00.001-06:00

I was reading a New York Times article by John Tierney, an unabashed climate skeptic, among other things. Though I typically don't agree with him, I mostly agreed with this article (likely because he was reiterating someone else). He described a new faction of environmentalism which combined green with blue (as in open-mindedness, i guess?) into turquoise. Though I think the term is pretty stupid, the idea makes sense. Though Tierney makes it seem as though his point is clearly the logical choice for anyone concerned with the environment, to any "real" environmentalists, most of his points seem, at best, like compromise. That being said, I agree with him that environmentalists cannot keep denying the reality of capitalism, overpopulation, and globalization, and have to make some hard choices if they want to make any positive steps. In the real world, environmental issues aren't always black and white, and usually are far more nuanced than they appear.

I agree with some of the things he said, such as the idea that genetically modified crops and nuclear energy have been overly stigmatized, and are probably improvements over the alternatives of pesticides and coal. I mostly agree that organic foods are way over hyped, and though they are no more tasty or nutritious than non-organics, their implementation contributes to land use problems and a global food shortage. I agree that climate has become much more important over the last few decades, but I don't feel that famine, disease, peak oil, pollution, war, and nuclear meltdown are any less important because of it. I totally disagree that renewable energy is overrated. Yes, it only makes up a small portion of our current energy generation and yes, it is still hard to be cost-competitive. However, if there's one thing that the capitalist machine does well, it's build things better-faster-cheaper, so I believe it's only a matter of time.

"We are gods and might as well get good at it."

Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy

2010-04-20T11:26:00.001-06:00

After talking about one of my favorite sci-fi authors, I remembered one of my pet peeves. I suppose that's a bit strong, as I don't exactly get "peeved" as much as "emotionally itchy." I usually don't scratch that itch, because I'd look pretty nerdy doing so, but with the relative anonymity of the internet as my shield, I will do so now.

Sci-fi and fantasy are not the same thing. Though libraries, bookstores, this website, and the general layperson usually clump the two together, they are rather different. Neither is really a "type" of story, the way that a mystery or romance is, but rather a setting for a story, like a western. You can have examples of both that, aside from setting, could be classified as romance, comedy, horror, adventure, tragedy, mystery, uplifting, or whatever. That being said, poorly written examples of each tend to be very predictable and wanting in originality, but the best examples of each can be incredibly unique pieces of literature. Quite a few novels use the setting as a tool to attempt to address particularly heavy philosophical topics including humanity, religion, reality, equality, social justice, morality, the afterlife, etc. But anyways, enough about how they're similar. How are they different?

Fantasy:
The most well known fantasy is the Lord of the Rings series. Though "fantasy" has been around forever, such as in the Odyssey, Gilgamesh, and Beowolf, the Tolkien series essentially created the modern idea of the genre, and most fantasies written since have pulled heavily from it. This is probably not a good thing, as those fantasy stories tend to be quite formulaic. They often recount the tale of some hero(es) on a fantastical journey from living in obscurity to saving the world. Most of them involve magic, no technology past dark-ages levels, and a host of mythical creatures, including but not limited to elves, dwarves, ogres, trolls, dragons, dire wolves, orcs, unicorns, pegasi, satyrs, and any other "head of one thing, body of another, maybe with wings" sort of creature. This is not to say that all fantasy is some sort of crappy Sword of Shanara-esque ripoff. But a lot of it is. So if you're interested in delving into the genre for the first time, do a little research before you pick up "Wizards of Dragon Rock" off the shelves. If you do, it will probably be your last foray into fantasy.

Sci-Fi:
Fortunately, unlike fantasy, sci-fi started with Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and then was brought to its golden age by 3 major authors, Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein, as well as countless other less famous authors. This helped to create a much more diverse range of plotlines and settings, such that there is much less predictability within the genre. Many stories do take on a sortof fantasy-ish "hero saves the world" type plot (Star Wars being a prime example), but many don't. In terms of its setting, sci-fi is more or less opposite of fantasy, in that there is typically no magic (unless granted by technology or some other psuedo-scientific explanation) and the technology is far beyond current levels. This can include interstellar travel, planetary colonies, biologically integrative weapons and computers, flying cars, immersive computing experiences, artificial gravity, new energy sources, etc. Alien life is sometimes present, and, though often vaguely humanoid, is typically arthropodian, reptilian, or molluscan rather than mammalian, avian, or other (except in low budget sci-fi tv-shows or movies).

Neither or both:
There are a couple of books, authors, and movies which straddle the lines between the two. I'm not talking about vampire books, which are essentially glorified romances. No there are some, like Avatar or The Golden Compass, which embrace aspects of both genres. Like avatar, they can essentially be a sci-fi that gets so immersed into an alien world (or a computer generated world) that it essentially becomes a fantasy. The Matrix is sortof another example of this. Otherwise, like The Golden Compass, a story can be a sortof alternate-reality or alternate-dimension sci-fi, sometimes based off of 18th and 19th century science and technology, a genre which has come to be known as steampunk. Though Jules Verne wasn't intending his novels to be interpreted as such, they now probably fall into this category. Also, dystopian novels like 1984 or Brave New World could be considered alternate reality science fiction, though neither would count as steampunk.

Anyways, I hope that clarified things a little, and if you're interested in reading something in one of the above genres, let me know, and I can give you some suggestions.

Carnivorans

2010-04-17T21:02:00.000-06:00

My last post got me thinking about carnivores (or carnivorans, to be exact). Carnivora is quite the cool order of mammals, as it has a number of really unique features. It is the 4th largest mammalian order, by number of species, behind rodents, bats, and shrews. It contains the largest size range of any mammalian order, from a 4-inch weasel to a 23-foot seal, as well as the species with the largest range of sizes (Canis lupus, wolves and domestic dogs). It also contains 3 of the 5 independently evolved groups of marine mammals, which are otters, polar bears, and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses), as well as the two most widely owned domesticated animal species.

The group is split into dog-like and cat-like forms, though some animals that appear to be dog-like, for example hyenas, fall into the cat-like group, while others that appear to be cat-like, such as ferrets and raccoons, are actually dog-like. Names can be deceiving too, as "sea lions" fall into the dog-like group and "aardwolves" are in the cat-like group. To top things off, some species that look superficially very similar, like civets and weasels, can be in in different groups. Generally speaking, the cat-like ones have retractable claws and are digitigrade (walking on their fingers and toes), while the dog-like ones have fixed claws and are plantigrade (walking on palms and soles). Unfortunately, this isn't a hard and fast rule, as the pinnipeds don't do much walking at all, and dogs themselves are a rather glaring exception to the plantigrade habit.

Though the name of the order means "meat eaters," most members are fairly omnivorous, with some members ranging from almost fully carnivorous (felids) to almost fully herbivorous (giant pandas). It is not even the only order of mammals to include terrestrial predators, as there are examples in both the primates and the marsupials, as well as the bats, if you include them. However, Carnivora contains all of the mammals which humans have truely feared, in their most primal instincts. When the human species was migrating from the forests to the plains, and then from the plains to the rest of the planet, it was only the carnivorans that gave us pause, gave us nightmares. Nonetheless, whoever said "hold your friends close and your enemies closer" was spot on; our two greatest enemies, the wolf and the wildcat, became our two greatest allies.

pour me some sugah

2010-04-16T18:28:00.002-06:00

If reincarnation exists, I don't think I would like to come back as a cat. Don't get me wrong, cats live pretty sweet lives. They lay around all day sleeping, licking themselves, and occasionally pouncing on things and eating them. It certainly beats coming back as a tapeworm or dung beetle.

That being said, cats are missing a pretty major thing that brings me joy nearly every day of my life. Cats do not have the ability to taste sweetness. Both wild and domestic felines have lost the ability to taste sugars, which is probably either the cause or result of their almost totally carnivorous lifestyle. Even other "true" carnivores in the order Carnivora (bears, dogs, seals, weasels, raccoons, pandas, etc.) usually eat a larger proportion of vegetable matter than cats. Most bears for example, with the exception of polar bears, actually eat mostly vegetable matter. But how tasty is an apple, some berries, or a mushroom, if you cant taste sweetness? Probably not very.

Did you know that chocolate is just as toxic to cats as it is to dogs? How come people never mention cats when they warn you about chocolate then? If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably because unsweetened chocolate tastes about as delicious as orange pith, so cats really aren't interested.

So, you can bring me back as a cute little otter, a sloth bear, or a raccoon dog, but not a cat thank you very much.

Wisconsin knows where it's at

2010-04-16T17:24:00.000-06:00

Apparently somebody in the Wisconsin state legislature was reading my post about microbes. Lactococcus lactis, the bacterium responsible for cheddar, Colby, and Monterey Jack, was just voted the "state microbe." Way to go Wisconsin. I'm glad to see you giving credit where credit is due.

Robert Heinlein

2010-04-15T07:29:00.001-06:00

Believe it or not, I'm not the only person in the world who's had good ideas. And like me, many of these people have had ideas that never really caught on for one reason or another. Take, for example, one of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein. He was a science fiction writer in the mid 20th century, and was counted along with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark as being one of the 3 great science fiction writers. Though his early work was strictly adventure oriented fiction, he became increasingly philosophical and political as his career progressed. He advanced ideas that were radically different on the political spectrum, ranging from government or military service as a requisite for citizenship, to the ideas in a book that was called "the unofficial bible of the hippie movement," to a book which called all governments, including republics, a threat to individual freedom. In his time, he was labeled a communist, a fascist, and everything in between.

Amidst all of this though, he had some startlingly brilliant technological ideas. Though some of his ideas were incredibly far-fetched (using psychic twins as an instantaneous interstellar communication method) most were highly practical and based in real physics (using gravity wells for slingshot propulsion). Some of his ideas have already been put to use, such as his personal spacewalk vehicles (NASA's MMU) while others would probably catch on quickly if they were developed (strike-anywhere cigarettes).

He addressed certain physical realities (which other authors ignored) and made them important plot points. For example, he never assumed faster-than-light travel or artificial gravity, so his interstellar transport involved colony ships that took multiple generations to reach a destination, corkscrewing all the while for centrifugal effect. In one story, so many generations pass that the occupants no longer know that they're on a ship, and a caste system has developed between people living in high gravity regions and low gravity regions. In another story, he uses the discrepancy between the gravities of the moon and earth as an economic factor, as it makes shipping goods from the moon back to earth a lot cheaper than vise versa, which is the cause of an eventual rebellion in the lunar colony.

One idea that has become more relevant recently with our quest for sustainability was his use of piezoelectrics. In at least one of his books, (forgive me, I don't remember which) he uses them extensively as an energy conservation method. Now for those of you who don't know, piezoelectric materials are ones that, when deformed or vibrated, give off an electric charge, and when a charge is applied to them, they deform or vibrate. The most common of these materials is quartz, and it's used in a wide range of technological applications, hence the terms "quartz radio" and "quartz watch." Anyways, certain of these materials (I believe) vibrate within the visible spectrum. He hypothesized that one could use these materials as artificial lighting in, say, an office building or spaceship. The advantage over current lighting options would be that you could put one set of radiative "lights" on the ceiling, and another set of regenerative panels on the floor. That way, a good chunk of the energy that was expended in lighting could be recovered as electricity. You could still provide just as much light as before, but any light that wasn't "used" could be "reused."

Now this obviously isn't the sort of technology that we have but aren't using, as even our current solar panel technology is fairly poor. But that being said, with a couple decades of intensive research, perhaps it could be done. I'm not going to pretend that I know even the first thing about materials science, but the logic behind it at least seems relatively sound. And if not piezoelectrics, maybe someday we could coat our floors with nanopolymer solar panels, and have them feast off our incandescent and fluorescent lights. Though certainly not cost effective at the moment, breakthroughs in solar technology might make this an eventual reality. In the places where we can't reduce, maybe we can reuse.

forgetting to remember to remember

2010-04-14T12:03:00.000-06:00

I'm an incredibly forgetful person. Like most people, I forget things like names, dates, numbers, Russian vocabulary, etc. Unfortunately, I also forget things like paying rent and bills, doing taxes, calling people back, doing chores, going to appointments, and most of the things that responsible adults have to do. Not only do I forget those relatively infrequent things, but I also forget things I do on a daily basis. Virtually every day I forget to move my phone from the coffee table to my bedside table until I'm already under the covers, and I've been known to forget to turn off the coffee maker or the heat before I leave for work. I even forget (with almost superhuman frequency) things as simple as the reason I got up, what I'm looking for in the fridge, what I'm supposed to be doing right now, and what I intended to say when I started speaking.

So that being said, I've amazed myself thus far that I've been able to remember all the things I've written about here. I try to help myself out by saving drafts of posts with just a few key words, so that I can flesh them out later when I have more time. Other times the thing I've been thinking about is so pervasive that it won't leave my head until I write it down, so that's pretty easy too. But there are plenty of other ideas I have, like when I'm riding my motorcycle home from work, or laying in bed falling asleep, that may well be great ideas (unlikely if I'm half asleep, but possible. I still hold that domesticating ants and using them as draft animals is great idea.) but I can't write them down or commit them to memory before I forget them. Thousands if not millions of life-changing ideas may be falling by the wayside. But alas, so it goes. I suppose if they're important enough, I'll remember them eventually.

Nonetheless, technology has helped me in the past (especially in the form of iCal, automated billing, and email reminders), so I'm going to try to start writing down ideas when I have them, such that I'll stand a better chance of remembering them by the time I sit down in front of the computer. We'll see how well this turns out.

on the way to stardom...

2010-04-13T21:21:00.000-06:00

I just finished the rough draft of my second song on my drummer/songwriter demo. It doesn't sound half bad, if I do say so myself. It still needs quite a bit of polishing before I'll let any of you hear it, but I think it sounds good enough that you may actually hear it eventually. It's a cover, so that made it pretty easy to rerecord, but the first song I recorded was an original, so you'll get to hear at least one of those too.

foot, where?

2010-04-12T21:05:00.004-06:00

So the other day, I went with my girlfriend to a nearby sports store to browse ski gear (which has been moved to some small platforms in the back corner for the summer) and there happened to be a rack of shoes for sale outside the front door. Looking them over, it soon became apparent that they were nearly all women's styles. "What a load of crocks," thought I. So I dunno 'boot you, but I'd rather not wear shoes if I don't have to. Still, I don't own any athletic shoes and these were fairly steeply marked down, so a small part of my sole was disappointed. If worst comes to worst, I suppose I can probably buy whole flats of shoes at Costco, but buying shoes without being able to try them on gives me paws.

Anyways, my girlfriend found a style that she really liked, and they came in two colors, so she flip-flopped for awhile between purple and pink. I had to admit I was a bit jealous; they were a super lightweight mesh with a drawstring synching system for laces, which I think is a really cool approach. "Ugg," I thought to myself, "if only I were a girl. Then I could wear purple shoes and even make up a new name that could really roll off the tongue." But I didn't venture too far down that train of thought, since thats a pretty slipper-y slope. "Anyways," I consoled myself in true sour grapes fashion, "you'd get sandal up in there if you ever went to the beach."

I guess for the time being I'll just have to get by with my 3 pairs of boots, one of which is now quite shod-y. I can't exactly sneaker 'round in them, but they keep me safe when I'm riding my motorcycle and working in the lab. And even if the dispensary on the way to work claims that "being high heels what ails ye," I'd still rather not get hurt in the first place.

Btw, all this talk of shoes reminded me, my dog is scared of bears, and even bear statues; so I betcha it has something to do with the big claws they have on those bear feet.

Anybody think they caught all the puns? I count 17 if you include the title.

A new favorite

2010-04-12T11:52:00.002-06:00

So, I've recently found a new game that can take its place among my top 10. I'm not yet sure which other favorite it will oust, but it is definitely in there. Its called Primary and it's a classic side scrolling type game. The basic plot is that the evil void is trying to steal all the color from the world, but fortunately, you have the ability to stop it. Harnessing the power of the three primary colors, blue, red, and yellow, which correspond to ice, fire, and... teleportation/invisibility, you make your way up a dark tower, taking the elevator up one floor at a time. Though there are enemies, they are very few and far between. Its much more of a "solve the puzzle and try not to fall to your death in the process" kind of game, rather than a "stomp on all the bad guys" type game. Overall, I like it a lot and it's a good way to kill a number of hours.

Pronouns aplenty

2010-04-11T17:08:00.002-06:00

Pronouns are an incredibly useful part of any language, but when not used properly, they can create as much confusion as they alleviate. Unfortunately, it seems as though most people do not use pronouns properly. Take, for example, the following:

"You ate more than her."

Most people would find nothing wrong with that. In fact I think most people would see that as being more correct than the actually correct usage below:

"You ate more than she."

For some reason, "she" seems stilted and awkward while "her" seems natural. Nonetheless, using "her" is still wrong. "Whatever, who cares what's 'actually' right?" you might say, "It doesn't really matter." But it would matter if you were being accused of cannibalism. The sentence "you ate more than her" actually states that "you ate her" and then you "ate more."

So, it's not, in fact, just a matter of preference. Its a matter of life and death. So what about some other examples? Do they carry such far reaching consequences?

How about:

"Your mom and I did some stuff around the house, but I did more than her."
"Your mom was tired; OH!"

"We invited him over for the game; he likes football even more than us."
"Screw you guys, I'm here for the game."

"He can throw the ball further than her."
"She's a lot heavier than this ball."

"We went to karaoke, and she sucked way more than him."
"What a ho."

Entire lives could be ruined! So watch yourself next time you want to just throw pronouns out there willy-nilly. Your future may hang in the balance.

What is EPIC?

2010-04-10T13:27:00.001-06:00

So I've been listening (repeatedly) to Florence + The Machine's "Cosmic Love," and its definitely being added to my (mental) list of totally epic songs. That puts it up next to the Star Wars theme and Coheed and Cambria's "Welcome Home," which you might recognize from the trailer to "9." It got me to thinking though, what makes a song epic? Its not some sortof prescribed layout, like a fugue or strathspey, nor is it necessarily a specific tonality or set of instruments, like death metal or country. Rather, it seems to be simply a sound that evokes some sort of emotional response from the listener. To me, that emotional response is embodied in the physical response of looking up, closing my eyes, putting on a facial expression somewhere between a smile and a grimace, and shaking my fist(s) along with the beat.

But just to make sure my emotional response is in line with the actual dictionary definition of an epic, here's what Miriam-Webster has to say: "a long narrative poem in elevated style recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero." Yea, that sounds about right. (fyi, every other definition uses "epic" as part of the definition, like "a work of art that resembles or suggests an epic," or, as an adjective, "of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic." These are the more applicable definitions to music, but they tell us nothing on their own.)

I'm sure there are people far more expertalistic in this subject matter than I, but I'm gonna try to look over some of these songs and see what they might have in common. What separates Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" from Journey's "When You Love a Woman?" What makes one song totally epic and the other totally cheesy? Lets try to find out, starting with the dictionary definition and working from there.

1. Length
In order to resemble a long poem, you sort of have to be a (relatively) long song. No two minute punk songs.

2. Style
Elevated. I suppose I would interpret that to mean tight, technical, and well-executed. No punk songs at all I guess, though post-punk, hardcore, and pop punk still stand a chance.

3. Plot
Narrative. Though some of the songs I feel to be epic don't have lyrics, they are structured in such a way as to create drama, tension, and resolution. Though instrumental music is maybe not narrative in the strictest sense, it's certainly suggesting narrative, and the more drama that's stuffed into the music, the more legendary, heroic, or historical it sounds.

And now to break away from the dictionary and see how these songs create drama and narrative...

4. Dynamics
One of the best ways to highlight drama in a song is with dynamic contrast. However, though once a common element in music, dynamic contrast was pretty much killed by the age of recorded music. Its a mixed blessing, as that contrast can really only be appreciated in very quiet locations like concert halls or Saturday afternoon living rooms, but its still a bit of a shame. There is only so much dynamic change that recordings are actually capable of using, lest you have to turn your volume up and down all the time to make out the quiet parts and not be deafened by the loud parts. Nonetheless, one thing I think epic-sounding songs do well is simulate dynamic contrast. Though they might have only slightly changed volume, they can give the illusion of having changed volumes greatly by "thickening" or "thinning" the sound. They can start with a couple melodic, high pitched, tonally pure instruments, like harps, flutes, clean guitars, or female voices, and then add depth by adding more rythmic, low pitched, tonally complex instruments like tympani, organs, distorted guitars and male voices.

5. Tempo
Like some other things in life, an ideally dramatic song will start slow, build in tempo over its duration, with perhaps a few slowdowns or twists in the plot, and end in a triumphantly fast-paced climax. However, For the purposes of modern recording, where artists usually play to a click track to facilitate easier editing, changing tempos frequently or gradually within songs becomes a significant challenge. If an artist, for example, plays an absolutely perfect version of their part for one chorus, but messes up the other two, an editor can just copy and paste the good one onto all three unless the tempo has changed, in which case it's a lot more difficult. Though most epic songs tend to be on the slower side of average, I think that they also do a good job integrating tempo change, either real or perceived. As with dynamics, songs can simulate changes in tempo by changing the "feel" of a song. They can half time, double time, or even just change the complexity of the percussion parts to make you feel like the song is moving faster or slower.

6. Harmony
Whether instrumental or vocal, I think one aspect of drama in these songs is complex harmony. To achieve this, one typically needs a preponderance of instruments, so these songs usually feature choral and/or orchestral parts with some individuals like lead singers or first violins having 3 or more nearly identical parts layered on top of one another. The songs also often include more dischordant harmonies like diminished and augmented chords, fatter chords with 7ths, 9ths, and 11ths, and ambiguous emotionality, like missing 3rds. They will often make use of other subtle elements that create tension, like false cadences, or they can temporarily or permanently change key or modality, especially at particularly dramatic points or transitions between structural elements.

7. Rhythm and phrasing
Here's where it gets really cool (at least to me as a drummer). Though the lead melodies and their backup harmonies are usually rather brazen at highly dramatic parts, being belted in chest-voice or blared from trumpets, they are also typically quite legato. This serves as a strong contrast to the rhythm section, which, though playing with equal enthusiasm, tends to be very staccato. Though many parts build in complexity, the percussion typically does not. Oddly enough, simplicity is what seems to lend percussion its power. A jazz drummer, for example, can actually make a song feel more like it "swings" by leaving out most of the swung notes on the ride cymbal, playing just quarter notes rather than the iconic "ting ting-ta-ting" pattern. Though many of the percussion parts are far from "simple," in the sense that the producers will layer kick drums, taiko drums, timpani, orchestral bass drums, and more to get the right richness of tone, they rarely use any syncopation at all, sticking mostly to consistent on-beat hits. Instead, the syncopation usually comes in the melodic lines, which seems to make them all the more powerful and attention-grabbing.

8. Energy
This is something that you can't fake. It's just part of everybody involved pouring their hearts into the music. It, above else, gives epic-ness to a song.

drummer songwriter?

2010-04-09T19:08:00.004-06:00

So I know I mentioned that drummers can't be famous, but after I wrote that, I've decided to try (sortof). I'm gonna try to make up a demo with just a cappella vocals and drums, and see how good I can (or can't) make it sound. Updates as they come!

It's a bit nippley out eh?

2010-04-09T10:01:00.002-06:00

I mentioned earlier that I ride my motorcycle in just about any condition except snow, and surprisingly enough, I'm far from the only person in Denver who does it. There are people out on two wheels 365 days a year (the bicyclists and scooterers seem to be less afraid of snow). It makes me proud to live in a city where people stick to their eco-friendly commutes, even when it drops below 60 degrees and people in other cities *ahem* put their 2-wheelers away for the "winter."

That being said though, when it is much below 60 degrees, wind chill can become a very important factor very quickly. Most riders, myself included, end up looking like overweight Kyrgyzstani cosmonauts in an effort to stay warm.

This morning, however, on my way to work, I saw a dude riding his motorcycle in a t-shirt and jeans with no helmet. Now I'm opposed to riding motorcycles without at least a helmet and hopefully an armored jacket and even armored pants on grounds of safety, but if you disagree, its your skin, not mine. Anyway, it was about 60 degrees at the time, so it wasn't super cold, but it was certainly not warm. If my neck was a bit cold because I didn't zip up my wind breaker (on top of my insulated leather jacket) all the way, I have no idea how that guy is expecting to not end up with hypothermia. I guess that's one way to "look cool."

Malibu coconut rum

2010-04-09T08:09:00.000-06:00

Why did they name a Caribbean rum, which is made in Barbados, after a place in California?

Bedding down with breeders

2010-04-08T14:14:00.010-06:00

In my last post I talked about respecting Friskies' decision to support (albeit subtly) pet adoption, rather than purchasing. With millions of dogs and cats being euthanized every year in this country alone, I think it is very noble to adopt from a shelter or rescue, rather than going to a breeder. However, I would like to say that I fully support professional breeders and their efforts, and here's why.

Pets have to come from somewhere, and I don't mean "the pet store" or "the shelter," I mean they have to be born somewhere. This can happen at a breeder's, at a "backyard" breeder's, at a puppy mill, or accidentally at a home. I'll just describe a bit about each of these locations.

At home: two "intact" pets mate. The owner is usually unaware of the mating and does not realize it until the female is visibly pregnant. The male is often unknown. The newborns are typically well cared for but usually given away, either to a shelter, or to an un-researched acquaintance. Some of those acquaintances will invariably also give the young to shelters when their cuteness wears off.

At a backyard breeder: These "breeders" buy two intact individuals from a breed, usually at low cost from a shelter or previous owner and deliberately mate them. The pedigree of the individuals is not known, nor is it known if the individuals are actually purebred. The owners sell the resultant puppies for rather exorbitant "rehoming fees," usually on craigslist or other classifieds. Any unsold puppies are sent to shelters. The unsuspecting buyers believe they are adopting, and many eventually end up giving their animal to a shelter as well.

At a puppy or kitty mill: These are essentially high volume backyard breeders. Females are nearly always pregnant and living conditions are very poor. Most offspring end up either directly or indirectly at shelters.

At a breeder: When a breeder has enough interested and pre-screened buyers to justify a litter, he or she carefully selects two individuals of a breed. These individuals are usually champions in either conformation or working competition and have an extensively documented pedigree. As such they have been shown to have excellent appearance, temperament, and working characteristics. They have been tested for genetic defects, and the health problems of their ancestors are well known and accounted for. If a breeder does not have two suitable individuals of their own, they will acquire one on loan from another breeder. The two individuals are deliberately bred for one litter and interested buyers can spend as much time as they want, from ultrasounds onwards, interacting with the parents and puppies before they decide on one. Any offspring that show undesirable characteristics are not allowed to be bred in the future. Most breeders require that the purchased offspring are spayed or neutered unless you intend to breed or show your animal.

While some people may feel that "a dog is a dog is a dog," that is certainly not true. The differences between breeds can be enormous. Without breeders however, there wouldn't be breeds, and breed is one of the largest factors determining a dog's (or cat's) personality, and certainly its appearance. It is fairly simple, once you've laid out all of your requirements, expectations, and abilities for a pet, to choose an appropriate breed, and then an appropriate individual of that breed. If breeds did not exist, we would be lost in a sea of individuals, with no idea as to their personality until we brought them home. If that were the case, I am certain even more individuals would end up in shelters than do now.

Unfortunately, due to overbreeding at backyard breeders and puppy mills, there can be some pretty large differences between individuals of the same breed too. The difference between a well-bred english-stock labrador retriever and a poorly-bred puppy-mill lab could mean the difference between the best dog you've ever owned and the worst dog you've ever owned. Breeders do what they do, not because they're in it for the money, but because they love the breed and want to do everything possible to improve it. They are the ones striving to create the best dogs in the world, not creating the monsters that destroy everything of value in your home. Most will also be entirely willing to turn you away empty-handed if they do not feel that you would be an appropriate caretaker for one of their dogs.

When you pick up a dog or cat from a shelter, think about where that animal came from. Its most likely that it did not come from a breeder. All of the mutts clearly did not come from breeders, most of the so-called pure-breds look a little strange. Take a picture of a champion animal of that breed and compare it to the animals at the shelter, and you will likely see that the shelter dogs look fat, stumpy, red-eyed, slump shouldered, drooly, jowly, ratty, hyper, neurotic, aggressive, or timid in comparison. If you go ahead and bring that dog home, you will likely find that "rescuing" it from the shelter did little to improve its temperament or appearance. This dog will likely continue to give you problems until you return it to the shelter or it dies young from health complications.

So what can YOU do about it? First, spay and neuter your pets. That way you won't accidentally be sending a handful of young animals off to be euthanized. Second, avoid getting pets from classified ads. If you do, you are likely supporting backyard breeders or puppy mills. Third, do your research. Whether you adopt from a shelter or buy from a breeder, you will have this animal for 10-20 years. Thats longer than you will own your car, longer than your apartment lease, longer than you spend in college, and maybe even longer than your kids will live at home with you. It makes sense to spend at least as much time thinking about this decision as you would any of the rest of those things. Think about breed, gender, age, temperament, energy level, size, etc. instead of letting yourself fall in love with the first puppy or kitty you see. Last, commit to it. In a perfect world, everyone would buy pets from breeders, keep them until they died of old age, and then repeat. If everyone were to commit to keeping their pets for as long as they lived, shelters would not exist and no pets would ever be euthanized.

Note: I have never purchased an animal from a breeder. Both my cat and my dog were adopted from shelters, and I will likely continue to adopt for as long as I choose to have pets. But unfortunately there are hundreds of dogs and cats at shelters that I wouldn't ever want to own in a million years. I got lucky with my cat, but spent months researching my dog and drove over 12 hours to pick her up from a shelter in rural Nebraska, even though there are literally hundreds of dogs up for adoption in Denver. While I believe in rescuing pets, I believe even more strongly in finding the right pet in the first place, so it doesn't end up right back at the shelter. If finding the right pet for you means going to a breeder, then I wholeheartedly support that decision.

More on Adventureland

2010-04-08T09:20:00.004-06:00

After I posted that video yesterday, I ended up watching it a couple more times and noticed some things that I hadn't really noticed the first time.

First of all, the music is absolutely atrocious. Even for a jingle, which everyone knows is supposed to be silly and just a little annoying, it sucked. The melody was pretty much the least catchy tune I've ever heard and the lyric phrasing was even worse. I mean, the end of the first phrase is a drop of a major sixth down to the root. blech. You really couldn't have left it at 5, or even gone down to 4? What about "the discovery never seems to stop?" Do you think you could have done more than just alternated back and forth between 3 and 5? I'm not even gonna talk about the end of the song, other than to mention the fact that even the mixing was bad, as I can't make out half the words.

On a completely different note, I approve of their choice of cat. In the dog world, food commercials are dominated by yellow labrador retriever puppies, west highland terriers, and other exceptionally cute pure-bred dogs. Never would one expect to see a mutt, even an especially handsome one. That seems to not be the case with cats. Cat breeds do exist and are maintained just as aggressively as dog breeds, but for some reason the general public seems to be far more accepting of non-pedigreed cats. The cat in this commercial is a domestic shorthaired (read: mutt) which seems to be a very subtle way of encouraging adoption rather than buying from a breeder, which is a position I respect. Compare this to Fancy Feast, for example, which, while also owned by Purina, uses a purebred white Persian in their commercials. (Note: though the Fancy Feast cat is preportedly a Persian, I suspect they may actually use a Persian crossed with a longer faced cat, such that their spokescat looks somewhat less like it got hit in the face with a shovel. Not only is the snout more elongate, but the eyes are also much more almond shaped, rather than totally round, as in a true Persian. Also, the Persian breed standard only allows for blue or copper eyes with a white coat, while these eyes are clearly green.)

What's also interesting about the casting, other than the choice of a mixed breed cat, was the choice of a classic tabby coat pattern. Despite the name, a "classic" tabby pattern is quite a bit less common than a mackerel tabby pattern. Unlike the mackerel tabby, which has a series of vertical color stripes down the side of the cat, the classic has that trippy swirly bullseye pattern, which may have done deliberately to highlight the hallucinogenic nature of the commercial as a whole.

Discover Adventureland!

2010-04-07T12:18:00.002-06:00

Now I was watching TV the other day when I saw this commercial:

Apparently Friskies is the food you should feed your cat because it contains hallucinogenic mushrooms. What better way to show your cat you care?

The power of 1WD

2010-04-07T09:04:00.000-06:00

I think most people, if given the opportunity to buy a brand new vehicle that gets 60/70 city/hwy mpg, goes 0-60 in 7.72 seconds, costs less than $125 dollars annually to insure, and has an MSRP of less than $4000, would jump at the chance, until they realized they were about to buy a motorcycle.

While many would argue that AWD/4WD > 2WD > 1WD, there are many advantages to having fewer powered wheels. The advantages lie in fewer moving parts and less complexity, which in turn means more power, greater efficiency, less weight, lower cost, and (theoretically at least) more reliability. Now I do own a Subaru, and I don't mean to say that 1WD > AWD, just that it has its own unique advantages which are totally separate from any "fun factor."

I am an avid motorcyclist. Not just a weekend warrior, I ride my motorcycle 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, through rain, shine, heat, cold, and wind. The only thing I don't do is snow, and here's why:

Imagine it snowed 3 inches overnight and so you hop in your trusty snow-slaying awd Volvo, Audi, or Subaru to go to work. Its a walk in the park. It might as well be the 4th of July for all your car cares. Now imagine instead that you're driving something with just FWD. Maybe you spin your wheels a bit at stop signs and there's a bit of understeer around corners, but still no biggie. Now imagine you're in a RWD car. Things are starting to get dicey. Your car tends to move sideways rather than forwards when taking off from stoplights and oversteers pretty wickedly around corners, but at least you can still brake just as well. Now imagine you no longer have ABS and your wide, flat-bottomed tires have been replaced with skinny, round bottomed ones. There goes all your traction and with it, your ability to brake or turn without sliding. Now take away the tires on one side and move the others to the mid line of the car. You have even less traction, but now if your car slips, it can fall over on its side, crushing your doors and ruining your paint. Now finally, take away your seat belts, roof, crumple zones, air bags, alloy frame, and any other safety equipment you have, and you're riding a motorcycle in the snow.

So on days like today, when it snows 3 inches overnight, I take the bus to work. While 1WD may have its advantages, it also has some (rather glaring) disadvantages.

I've given up on Life,

2010-04-06T13:33:00.001-06:00

the BBC series.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Oprah in general, but I'm just going to have to boycott the series until I can get my hands on the version narrated by Sir David Attenborough. Now before you leap to conclusions and call me an elitist snob, there are some things you should know.

The original series was narrated by Sir David and was shown in Great Britain with that narration. When the series was to be brought to the United States, BBC and the Discovery channel decided to change the narrator to a US star, as it had done with Sigourney Weaver and Planet Earth. However, they also decided that they would edit the script to make it more understandable to US viewers. Not only did this make the script sound like a second grader had written it, but it was simplified to the point of being inaccurate. So if you never made it past elementary school and prefer to be told simple lies instead of complicated truth, maybe the Oprah version is for you.

On the other hand, maybe not. Here are some of the choice comments her version has received online:
"I changed the channel. How can ANYBODY think that oprah can narrate ANYTHING?"
"it was like I was having flashbacks to a 4th grade story time session. Should have turned it off and read the closed caption."
"OPRAH F—ING SUCKS AT NARRATING!"
"its writing I would have been embarrassed to turn in in junior high."
"I decided to do my taxes instead"
"I love Oprah but not for narrating… I miss Sigourney Weaver!!!"
"I won't lose any sleep if I miss any episodes."

Though some comments focus largely on writing quality, many seem to find the most fault in Oprah's vocal talents. Longing for Sigourney Weaver seemed to be a fairly common thread. Although Sigourney is just an actress while Sir David Attenborough is the most famous and accomplished documentarian to have ever lived, I do agree that she would have been a vast improvement over Oprah, even with the horrid script.

Long story short, Netflix better get crackin' on those dvds.

Aw Nuts.

2010-04-06T08:45:00.000-06:00

I was eating some pistachios last night and thinking about nuts. It turns out that relatively few of the things we think of as "nuts" are actually nuts, in the true botanical sense. Hazlenuts, hickories, chestnuts, and acorns are all "true" nuts, while pistachios, cashews, almonds, pecans, walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamias, peanuts, pine nuts, coconuts, grape nuts, and deez nuts are not. While a true nut is a specific combination of a hard fruit and its seed, most of the things we call "nuts" are either seeds or fruits, but not both.

Peanuts, for example, are actually beans. A peanut is more akin to a kidney bean or lima bean than it is to any other "nuts," true or not. Pistachios and cashews, on the other hand, belong to the Anacardiaceae family, which puts them right next to mangos and poison ivy on the tree of life.

Antidisestablismentarianisticexpialidocious

2010-04-05T09:45:00.003-06:00

I think there's a reason why most words are relatively short. Longer words are harder to read, harder to pronounce, and harder to comprehend by virtue of length alone. For some reason, the human brain seems to be wired in such a way as to be very good at understanding small and simple things, but not very good at understanding longer and more complex things. Thats not to say that the human brain can't understand complicated things, its just that it has to break them up into a series of less complicated things. Take, for example, counting.

How many asterisks are there? ****
Now how many? *******

Its been shown that most people are capable of knowing that the top is four without actually having to count. However, when it comes to the bottom line, people usually can't just look and know there are 7. They typically either have to break it up into smaller groups (three and four) or just plain count. It seems our ability to correctly estimate a number of items at a glance plummets rapidly after about 5.

When it comes to abstract concepts, the brain is even worse. Take chains of consciousnesses for example. Most people have little trouble interpreting a sentence like "She saw that he thought that I meant something else." However, when you add a fourth person to the chain, like "We knew that she said that he wanted them to consider hiring him" comprehension drops by 60%. Most people have to deconstruct the sentence by breaking it into simpler parts like "He wanted them to hire him." "She said that he wanted," etc.

Relationships can be even harder. For example, people might refer to someone as their "cousin" even though they are their aunt's husband's brother's child. After the amount of time it probably took you to reason through aunt's.... husband's... brother's... child, its no wonder people just say "cousin."

All in all, we get by. We work around our shortcomings by subdividing and simplifying, but when the prevailing view is that humans are the pinnacle of creation or evolution or whatever, its important to remember our shortcomings. We are neither all-powerful nor all-knowing.

Drummers can't be famous

2010-04-04T10:25:00.001-06:00

I am a drummer. I dabble in a number of other instruments, but drum set and djembe are my weapons of choice. Now last night, I was watching a documentary on Herbie Hancock. In this movie, he is putting together an album in which he spends each song collaborating with a different famous artist, sortof a la Carlos Santana. The idea was for each artist to bring their own unique sound and feel to the project.

Now he did a good job finding a fairly eclectic collection of collaborators, including Christina Aguilera, John Mayer, Damien Rice, and more, but one thing he didn't have (so far at least, I didn't finish the movie) was any drummers. That's not to say I blame him at all; its just curious to me.

I think the reason that he didn't pick any famous drummers is that there aren't really any famous drummers. Now those of you who are into music might say "what about Ringo Starr, John Bonham, Travis Barker, or Dave Grohl?" Well, true, but all of them became famous after their respective bands became famous. I think its incredibly hard for a drummer to be famous independently of a band. Look what happened to Ringo's solo projects if you doubt me. For that matter, fame of a drummer seems to be somewhat independent of technical proficiency, as Meg White and Ringo Starr are just as famous as John Bonham, while neither has anywhere close to John's technical chops.

Maybe it's because it's very difficult to develop a discernible style as a drummer. Even if Christina Aguilera and John Mayer sound very different, their drummers mostly sound the same. Even in some of the most highly technical genres of drumming like jazz or metal, its very difficult for the untrained ear to discern one drummer from the next. I know from experience that its not impossible to learn a particular drummer's style, as, for example, after one of my bands' performances a fan told me that despite not recognizing me due to a drastic hair cut, he still knew it was me because of my style. I hope it was a compliment.

Either way, the only drummers I know who were truly famous on their own were the great band leaders of the jazz era. They were not only drummers, but also managers, composers, and frontmen for their bands. They include Art Blakey, Max Roach, Gene Krupa, and Buddy Rich, and though I'm sure Herbie would have loved to have included one of these guys, they're all dead so...

Hype Machine

2010-04-03T11:58:00.001-06:00

For those of you who don't know what the Hype Machine is, it's a website which gathers together all the tracks from music blogs all over the internet. I don't really want to go the route of a music blog, posting all of the tracks that I like, but if you are interested in seeing the music I like and perhaps finding some really cool new stuff in the process, you can head on over to my favorites page. I currently have just shy of 600 hand-picked songs, most of which are quite excellent. Go ahead and hit "shuffle" and give it a listen!

Microbes galore

2010-04-02T20:14:00.007-06:00

There are bacteria everywhere. There are more bacteria on your skin than there are humans on the planet. There are bacteria in our bodies, at the bottom of the ocean, and miles up into the atmosphere. There are kafrickinjillions of them, and that's not even including all the other single-celled, non-bacterial organisms that we call "microbes."

Though life as we know it would certainly not exist without these microbes, there are a select few that perform some very important commercial services for us. So, I would just like to take the time to highlight some of the really important things that these "domesticated" microbes do for us. As we'll see, there's a reason it's called "culture."

Yeast is probably the most widely used domesticated microbe. It is not a bacteria, but rather a single-celled fungus. As unappetizing as a "fungus" may sound, we rely on it to give beer, wine, spirits, and liqueurs their alcohol content, which, clearly, is very important. It is so important that without yeast, Europe probably would not have survived the dark ages. Due to very poor sanitation, water was unsafe to drink, and only alcoholic beverages were sterile enough to keep people relatively healthy. This is probably a large part of the legacy of heavy alcohol consumption in Europe even today. Yeast is also largely responsible for breads. Without it, we would just be eating matza, or relying on chemical rising agents like baking soda. While soda breads are delicious and matza is just ok, neither is capable of the amazing range of baked goods granted us by yeast.

The other biggie is the group of bacteria largely responsible for our cultured dairy. Most of these fall within the Lactococci, Lactobacilli, and Streptococci families. Though the specific cocktail of bacteria depends on the type of cheese or yogurt you're interested in making, it is certain that we wouldn't have the amazing range of cultured dairy that we have without them. Middle aged women struggling with weight loss and irregularity may rejoice!

There are also a variety of cured foods including sausage, prosciutto, fish sauce, olives, pickles, sauerkraut, and kimchi which rely on bacteria for some stage of the preservation process. Can you guess where you can find the bacteria Lactobacillus kimchii?

However, the most important fermented food, by far, is chocolate. Thats right, if not fermented, chocolate is inedibly bitter and outright disgusting. Think about that the next time you have a candy bar.

This is of course not to mention all of the microbes that have recently been domesticated for biotechnology, bioremediation, and alternative energy purposes. Its my opinion that microbial science will be crucial for the medicine, agriculture, environmental protection, and sustainable energy of the future. But really, what could be more important than beer, bread, cheese, and chocolate?

Meg Ryan

2010-04-02T09:38:00.000-06:00

So I've never claimed to be big into pop culture or the whole celebrity tabloid scene, but I found out something last night that totally blew my mind. My girlfriend and I were watching "When Harry met Sally" and I was amazed by how different Meg Ryan looked. I knew it was on the older side, but she looked like a totally different person. After some exasperated confusion on my part, we looked up some imdb photos of Meg Ryan and found some things like this:

I was again amazed and confused, as I was virtually positive I had never seen that person before in my entire life. Well, it turns out that when I was visualizing Meg Ryan in my head, this is what I was seeing:

Now I know full well who Drew Barrymore is, and can name several movies that she's been in. I guess it just never occurred to me that I had two names assigned to the same face. And apparently since I had never ever seen a movie with Meg Ryan in it, this strange conflict never got brought to light. Until now.

Moral of the story is, I'm still amazed and confused, but now mainly by how I was able to live a lie for so long. Now that the whole fragile underpinnings of my reality have come crashing down, I'm going to have to spend a long time building them back up again.