Monday, 31 August 2009
Last night I had a very vivid dream: I saw a nest of hoot owls born in a barn. Shortly after the six owlets hatched, they all flew out of the barn to a nearby tree, where a second nest was waiting for them. One owlet was larger than the others. I stopped watching, then when I looked back, there were only two owlets in the tree, and the larger owlet was swalling his brothers and sisters whole. I watched the feet of the second to last owlet disappear down his throat. I tried to stop him from eating the last owlet but I could do nothing. With almost reckless abandon he swallowed the last of his siblings.Dream Interpreters: Go!
_
Saturday, 29 August 2009
What if, in some weird fluke, a baby were born that had a genetic mutation that allowed it to grow forever, and never die from its own size? What if the baby converted an unusually small amount of food into growth, so it required massive resources to keep the baby fed; it was continuously needing more and more calories to sustain itself, while all the time growing a little bigger!
At some point, the child would become critically large, and no longer be able to live in a home. Humanitarian groups would build a larger home for it, and scientists would discuss how to arrest the growth of this super-sized child. But because the condition was genetic, there was little that could be done. Plus, the amount of medication it would take to control the growth of a 25,000 lb. 3 year old is restrictively immense. Surgery to remove the pituitary gland or some other growth inhibition method does not work becuase this child's every cell was imbibed with the unstoppable growth.
Eventually, by about the child's 10th birthday, he fills a football field. He lumbers and sways as he plods about, and the thunderous shakes wreck nearby buildings that are poorly constructed. The child requires massive amounts of food each day, and huge financial resources are required to keep him alive. Many start to call upon the parents of the child to stop feeding him, or at least try to starve him back down to mere tennis court size, but the parents love their child; they cannot possibly starve it! Some call upon the government to intercede, but the laws here are clear: the government cannot just kill an innocent child because it is hungry. On the contrary, the liberal leadership of the country insists that we must devote every resource to feeding, clothing, and providing shelter for this poor afflicted child. Funds are specifically allocated to research the child's condition, but no cure is found.
By age 25, the child is now a young man the size of a city.
By age 40, it becomes clear that the Earth no longer has the resources to feed this person. But the man is the size of Rhode Island, he moves about like a colossus, grazing on huge stores of food like the planet is his candy store. And he continues to grow. The government implores him to cease his eating, for the sake of the rest of humanity, and for the continued survival of the Earth. The parents, now aged, look back with intense regret on the reckless eating machine they created and made thrive. The oxygen intake alone of this titanic being is a tangible drain on the earth. Daily he drinks entire reservoirs of freshwater. And the people of earth cannot stop him. His skin has become so thick that armed assaults do not hurt him. Food cannot be hidden from him, his city-sized nose can smell food from states away, and he can wade across oceans if he needs to escape military action against him. Massive, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are batted out of the way like inconsequential ladybugs. Much of the earth has become a seething cesspool of the huge man's feces and waste. Entire continents have become covered, literally, in his crap. Oceans run an unearthly green from the algae and other bacteria that grow and feed from the bizarre rivers of urine that poured into them.
Eventually, the Earth shutters, and then fails under the titanic weight of this mega-being. The ecosystem fails, and as the humans gasp and die in the tens of millions, they all wonder why they didn't stop this epic human 40 years earlier from ever getting so big. As the atmosphere dissipates around him, the huge man ponders: "when did things get so bad? I never thought I'd really use up all the resources of the planet!" Then, with a cough that blows the moon out of orbit, the gigantic man dies too.
Of course, the ever-growing baby I speak of is no single baby at all. He's the 6.7 billion of them currently leeching every ounce of life out of this planet as quickly as they can.
_
At some point, the child would become critically large, and no longer be able to live in a home. Humanitarian groups would build a larger home for it, and scientists would discuss how to arrest the growth of this super-sized child. But because the condition was genetic, there was little that could be done. Plus, the amount of medication it would take to control the growth of a 25,000 lb. 3 year old is restrictively immense. Surgery to remove the pituitary gland or some other growth inhibition method does not work becuase this child's every cell was imbibed with the unstoppable growth.
Eventually, by about the child's 10th birthday, he fills a football field. He lumbers and sways as he plods about, and the thunderous shakes wreck nearby buildings that are poorly constructed. The child requires massive amounts of food each day, and huge financial resources are required to keep him alive. Many start to call upon the parents of the child to stop feeding him, or at least try to starve him back down to mere tennis court size, but the parents love their child; they cannot possibly starve it! Some call upon the government to intercede, but the laws here are clear: the government cannot just kill an innocent child because it is hungry. On the contrary, the liberal leadership of the country insists that we must devote every resource to feeding, clothing, and providing shelter for this poor afflicted child. Funds are specifically allocated to research the child's condition, but no cure is found.
By age 25, the child is now a young man the size of a city.
By age 40, it becomes clear that the Earth no longer has the resources to feed this person. But the man is the size of Rhode Island, he moves about like a colossus, grazing on huge stores of food like the planet is his candy store. And he continues to grow. The government implores him to cease his eating, for the sake of the rest of humanity, and for the continued survival of the Earth. The parents, now aged, look back with intense regret on the reckless eating machine they created and made thrive. The oxygen intake alone of this titanic being is a tangible drain on the earth. Daily he drinks entire reservoirs of freshwater. And the people of earth cannot stop him. His skin has become so thick that armed assaults do not hurt him. Food cannot be hidden from him, his city-sized nose can smell food from states away, and he can wade across oceans if he needs to escape military action against him. Massive, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are batted out of the way like inconsequential ladybugs. Much of the earth has become a seething cesspool of the huge man's feces and waste. Entire continents have become covered, literally, in his crap. Oceans run an unearthly green from the algae and other bacteria that grow and feed from the bizarre rivers of urine that poured into them.
Eventually, the Earth shutters, and then fails under the titanic weight of this mega-being. The ecosystem fails, and as the humans gasp and die in the tens of millions, they all wonder why they didn't stop this epic human 40 years earlier from ever getting so big. As the atmosphere dissipates around him, the huge man ponders: "when did things get so bad? I never thought I'd really use up all the resources of the planet!" Then, with a cough that blows the moon out of orbit, the gigantic man dies too.
Of course, the ever-growing baby I speak of is no single baby at all. He's the 6.7 billion of them currently leeching every ounce of life out of this planet as quickly as they can.
_
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Students at the Imperial College in London (insert Star Wars Empire joke) have revealed their design ideas for a space hotel that could attach and detach from the International Space Station. The design includes nothing but the best amenities, including a custom made shower, clothes that "breathe" better, and of course, a new exercise facility to keep hotel patrons fit. Don't miss the glowing algae nightlight, either. Very swank.
Of course I don't need to mention the epic eye roll I had when I read this article. We can't even get tourists to space yet (not orbital space), and already we're trying to design posh hotels? Haven't science fiction authors covered this ground already? How are these students possibly using their time wisely? Oh well. At least they did design a new toilet, something NASA obviously needs.
_
Of course I don't need to mention the epic eye roll I had when I read this article. We can't even get tourists to space yet (not orbital space), and already we're trying to design posh hotels? Haven't science fiction authors covered this ground already? How are these students possibly using their time wisely? Oh well. At least they did design a new toilet, something NASA obviously needs.
_
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Now we apparently can make ethanol from leftover watermelons! No word yet on how much gasoline would be used to ship all those rotting watermelons to an ethanol plant...
Nor is there mention of the inescapable fact: ETHANOL IS WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN GASOLINE.
Here's an idea: if we grew switchgrass in 20% of the fields where watermelon was being grown, and stopped being prissies and only buying watermelons that look perfect, we could get 20 times as much ethanol per acre than we'd possibly get from watermelons.
Here's a better idea: electric cars.
_
Nor is there mention of the inescapable fact: ETHANOL IS WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN GASOLINE.
Here's an idea: if we grew switchgrass in 20% of the fields where watermelon was being grown, and stopped being prissies and only buying watermelons that look perfect, we could get 20 times as much ethanol per acre than we'd possibly get from watermelons.
Here's a better idea: electric cars.
_
Are we not allowed to not like him, just because he has passed away? I truly feel for him, cancer is an awful thing, but his death, I think, does not require me to find him laudable.
After getting expelled from Harvard (for having someone else take his spanish exam for him), Kennedy did a short stent in the Army, but his father's connections made sure he didn't actually fight in the ongoing Korean War.
Then he returned to Harvard, where his most notable achievement was being offered a possible spot on the Green Bay Packers roster, thanks to his football prowess.
Did I mention that he got expelled from Harvard for cheating, or that he bought his way out of the Korean War? I feel like I should repeat those things.
Now, Ted Kennedy did some noble things, like getting minimum wage increased to $7.25 (higher wages mean higher tax revenue, certainly a noble ideal!), and sleeping with women outside his marriage (a Kennedy trait to the end!), and of course we can't forget when he drove his car off a bridge and killed his passenger.
But what Ted really did that bothered me was his constant anti-gun hypocrisy:
-Voted "no" on limiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-Voted "no" on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence suits.
-Voted "yes" on background checks at gun shows.
-Voted "no" on loosening license and background checks at gun shows.
-Voted "no" on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
-Voted "no" to the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited confiscating legally owned firearms.
I could go on, he was in office for...like...500 terms, and had plenty of time to write, sign, or vote on legislation. The bottom line is, Ted Kennedy was very against gun ownership, especially assault weapons. Which is all well and good, and his right. But apparently it's also his right to have his bodyguard carry assault weapons, as his own bodyguard was detained for carrying a "machine pistol." Essentially, what Ted Kennedy was saying, in fact what his whole life said, was this: "I want the fairest law for the American people, but, I just don't want the law to apply to me."
Now, before TPI, and other guns-a'blazing liberals (hilarious pun there) come after me, let me just say one final note: Ted Kennedy heroically served the American people for a paltry $168,000 a year, and only voted 100% of the time for his own raise when Senatorial raises were on the voting block. Ted Kennedy, a well-bred Irish Catholic, was of course pro-life...until Roe v. Wade, at which point he realized his liberal political career depended on being pro-choice. The Americans for Democratic Action rate Ted Kennedy as one of the all-time most left leaning voters. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Kennedy their highest rating. Planned Parenthood also gave him their highest rating. This man, who many a sentimental sap argue liked to cross party lines, only seemed to do so if a liberal Republican was on the other side waiting for him.
Bottom line is, I have a huge amount of respect for my grandparents generation, as I have elucidated here many times. But for womanizing, hypocritical elitists, I have none.
_
After getting expelled from Harvard (for having someone else take his spanish exam for him), Kennedy did a short stent in the Army, but his father's connections made sure he didn't actually fight in the ongoing Korean War.
Then he returned to Harvard, where his most notable achievement was being offered a possible spot on the Green Bay Packers roster, thanks to his football prowess.
Did I mention that he got expelled from Harvard for cheating, or that he bought his way out of the Korean War? I feel like I should repeat those things.
Now, Ted Kennedy did some noble things, like getting minimum wage increased to $7.25 (higher wages mean higher tax revenue, certainly a noble ideal!), and sleeping with women outside his marriage (a Kennedy trait to the end!), and of course we can't forget when he drove his car off a bridge and killed his passenger.
But what Ted really did that bothered me was his constant anti-gun hypocrisy:
-Voted "no" on limiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
-Voted "no" on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence suits.
-Voted "yes" on background checks at gun shows.
-Voted "no" on loosening license and background checks at gun shows.
-Voted "no" on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
-Voted "no" to the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited confiscating legally owned firearms.
I could go on, he was in office for...like...500 terms, and had plenty of time to write, sign, or vote on legislation. The bottom line is, Ted Kennedy was very against gun ownership, especially assault weapons. Which is all well and good, and his right. But apparently it's also his right to have his bodyguard carry assault weapons, as his own bodyguard was detained for carrying a "machine pistol." Essentially, what Ted Kennedy was saying, in fact what his whole life said, was this: "I want the fairest law for the American people, but, I just don't want the law to apply to me."
Now, before TPI, and other guns-a'blazing liberals (hilarious pun there) come after me, let me just say one final note: Ted Kennedy heroically served the American people for a paltry $168,000 a year, and only voted 100% of the time for his own raise when Senatorial raises were on the voting block. Ted Kennedy, a well-bred Irish Catholic, was of course pro-life...until Roe v. Wade, at which point he realized his liberal political career depended on being pro-choice. The Americans for Democratic Action rate Ted Kennedy as one of the all-time most left leaning voters. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Kennedy their highest rating. Planned Parenthood also gave him their highest rating. This man, who many a sentimental sap argue liked to cross party lines, only seemed to do so if a liberal Republican was on the other side waiting for him.
Bottom line is, I have a huge amount of respect for my grandparents generation, as I have elucidated here many times. But for womanizing, hypocritical elitists, I have none.
_
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
I don't know about anyone else, but I've gotten a little tired of hearing about what infernally terrible drivers we all are while on our cell phones. Now, it may be that scientists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we become less attentive drivers while talking on cell phones. They may have also proven that hands-free talking is no less dangerous, and that texting is also a driving impairment.
But come on, lighten up. I drive home from work, and my commute is about 13 miles (each way) of medium to heavy traffic, and over half of the people on the road with me are on their cell phones. And yet, I have witnessed one accident (motorcyclist fell over) on my specific commute route in several months.
I humbly submit that the entities advocating cell phone bans in cars are oversimplifying the situation to a point where the math breaks down and their findings do not correlate with fundamentals of statistics. I spent ten seconds and created this chart to illustrate the view being portrayed about cell phones:
the second you start using your cell phone you become a dangerous driver.
But statistics tells us that almost every situation on earth does not follow simple step functions that are easy to plot. Most situations follow the legendary "bell curve." So I humbly submit my own theory of car safety:
Most drivers are safe. When they turn on their cell phones, a certain percentage become unsafe, but the majority remain safe.
Cell phone ban advocates will not tell you the total number of people on cell phones, instead they just tell you the number of accidents caused by people on cell phones. This is a misleading number. This is similar to the idea that tornadoes only strike trailer homes, and then pointing to the carnage at a trailer park after a tornado hits (while ignoring damage to nearby "built" homes). Nor do they suggest that there is a car accident every 3 seconds in this country that had nothing to do with cell phone use.
I am not trying to suggest that cell phones do not impair drivers. I am simply trying to suggest that although cell phones may lower driving ability, it is very possible, if not likely, that most drivers have enough driving skill that even at an impaired level, they are still safe on the road.
_
But come on, lighten up. I drive home from work, and my commute is about 13 miles (each way) of medium to heavy traffic, and over half of the people on the road with me are on their cell phones. And yet, I have witnessed one accident (motorcyclist fell over) on my specific commute route in several months.
I humbly submit that the entities advocating cell phone bans in cars are oversimplifying the situation to a point where the math breaks down and their findings do not correlate with fundamentals of statistics. I spent ten seconds and created this chart to illustrate the view being portrayed about cell phones:
the second you start using your cell phone you become a dangerous driver.But statistics tells us that almost every situation on earth does not follow simple step functions that are easy to plot. Most situations follow the legendary "bell curve." So I humbly submit my own theory of car safety:
Most drivers are safe. When they turn on their cell phones, a certain percentage become unsafe, but the majority remain safe.
Cell phone ban advocates will not tell you the total number of people on cell phones, instead they just tell you the number of accidents caused by people on cell phones. This is a misleading number. This is similar to the idea that tornadoes only strike trailer homes, and then pointing to the carnage at a trailer park after a tornado hits (while ignoring damage to nearby "built" homes). Nor do they suggest that there is a car accident every 3 seconds in this country that had nothing to do with cell phone use.
I am not trying to suggest that cell phones do not impair drivers. I am simply trying to suggest that although cell phones may lower driving ability, it is very possible, if not likely, that most drivers have enough driving skill that even at an impaired level, they are still safe on the road.
_
Saturday, 22 August 2009
With all due respect to some of my readers, who come here for science, it seems that there is an indirect proportionality to how much science I am doing at work and how much I want to write about it here. I am doing some crazy, crazy badass science at work lately and so blogging seems to be veering away, as my mind appears to prefer only a certain amount of it. I'll try to get 'er on course soon enough, but for now...
I never knew my maternal grandfather. I suppose that is a sad thing, because for all the stories I have heard of him I think I would have found him an excellent person. A man's man, if you will. My kind of man. The kind people are drawn to. The kind of guy I want to be.
Obviously he was amazing, because of the fantastic genetics he passed along to yours truly.
But what strikes me the most is that he died, suddenly, before I was born, and that highlights for me how odd and difficult to reconcile it is that human life is so utterly brief. Humans, as it were, live about as long or longer than any other creature on this planet, except tortoises and the occasional whale, and yet, our lives are almost pitiably short in relation to the larger picture. If I live to be 100 years of age (for the ease of math), I'll have only witnessed 0.0000002% of the history of the earth so far. I'll only have witnessed 0.000000008% of the history of the sun. Similarly, the amount of the Universe I have witnessed is absurdly small.
Why then, did God make us so minute, in relation to the rest of the universe? Why should we even bother to eke out a life, if that life is so massively inconsequential to the larger string of events in the world, the solar system, and the universe? Why did God make us...to be blips on the radar screen? If our purpose is in fact to worship God, then wouldn't God be better served with devotees that could spend longer doing it? Certainly if I had to choose the mayfly or the tortoise to worship me, I'd much prefer a lifetime of tortoise than 24 hours of mayfly.
_
I never knew my maternal grandfather. I suppose that is a sad thing, because for all the stories I have heard of him I think I would have found him an excellent person. A man's man, if you will. My kind of man. The kind people are drawn to. The kind of guy I want to be.
Obviously he was amazing, because of the fantastic genetics he passed along to yours truly.
But what strikes me the most is that he died, suddenly, before I was born, and that highlights for me how odd and difficult to reconcile it is that human life is so utterly brief. Humans, as it were, live about as long or longer than any other creature on this planet, except tortoises and the occasional whale, and yet, our lives are almost pitiably short in relation to the larger picture. If I live to be 100 years of age (for the ease of math), I'll have only witnessed 0.0000002% of the history of the earth so far. I'll only have witnessed 0.000000008% of the history of the sun. Similarly, the amount of the Universe I have witnessed is absurdly small.
Why then, did God make us so minute, in relation to the rest of the universe? Why should we even bother to eke out a life, if that life is so massively inconsequential to the larger string of events in the world, the solar system, and the universe? Why did God make us...to be blips on the radar screen? If our purpose is in fact to worship God, then wouldn't God be better served with devotees that could spend longer doing it? Certainly if I had to choose the mayfly or the tortoise to worship me, I'd much prefer a lifetime of tortoise than 24 hours of mayfly.
_
Friday, 21 August 2009
Is there anything so wildly compelling as a glimpse into the tornadic complexity of a human mind? Sometimes I have a moment, or a blip of conversation with another person, and I am just...floored...by the labyrinthine windings of a brain that when viewed from a distance, appears identical to my own, but when the output of such a biological device is captured, it is absolutely unique in the universe.
_
_
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Our language is getting dumber by the day. When is the last time you heard someone say "egregious" or "misanthropic" in a sentence? It's not because these words have been replaced, but simply because we've reduced our language into simpler terms, usually by substituting a large, exactly correct word, with several less correct words. An oversimplified example:
"I misinterpreted him." vs. "I heard what he was saying but thought he meant something else."
This becomes an issue, to me, because I love our language and love inserting my own word of the day into my posts. But as words become more and more rare, the insertion of those words seems either awkward or worse; ostentatious (ostentatious was not my word of the day). I'm not trying to "talk purty" and wow and intimidate my readers with my sharp intellect. I just am aware that there "is a word for that" and I prefer to use that word and take the direct route rather than circle all the way around via a long and...well...elephantine sentence (elephantine was my word of the day).
To this end I humbly suggest that parents incentivize wordplay for their children:
"Mommy, this homework problem is making me lugubrious."*
"Nice word choice. Perhaps a later bedtime will lift your melancholy."
*Bonus if said with British accent.
_
"I misinterpreted him." vs. "I heard what he was saying but thought he meant something else."
This becomes an issue, to me, because I love our language and love inserting my own word of the day into my posts. But as words become more and more rare, the insertion of those words seems either awkward or worse; ostentatious (ostentatious was not my word of the day). I'm not trying to "talk purty" and wow and intimidate my readers with my sharp intellect. I just am aware that there "is a word for that" and I prefer to use that word and take the direct route rather than circle all the way around via a long and...well...elephantine sentence (elephantine was my word of the day).
To this end I humbly suggest that parents incentivize wordplay for their children:
"Mommy, this homework problem is making me lugubrious."*
"Nice word choice. Perhaps a later bedtime will lift your melancholy."
*Bonus if said with British accent.
_
Monthly health care bill = sum((daily calorie consumption total - 2000 - calories of exercise that day)/number of days in month) for all days that month.
In essence, people who don't exercise at all on a 2000 calorie diet get free health care. Eat more, pay more. Eat less some days to balance out heavy consumption days. Exercise some days to balance fatty days.
This system could only work in a nanny state, where government watches your every move and keeps tallies of your food and exercise habits...which is basically where we are headed.
_
In essence, people who don't exercise at all on a 2000 calorie diet get free health care. Eat more, pay more. Eat less some days to balance out heavy consumption days. Exercise some days to balance fatty days.
This system could only work in a nanny state, where government watches your every move and keeps tallies of your food and exercise habits...which is basically where we are headed.
_
What possible good will society gain if we send a 12-year-old to prison? His act was despicable, to be sure, and he deserves justice. However, he's not even old enough for junior high, he's made no contribution to society.
Sending him to prison for life simply means you've ended it. I see no difference, in this case between "life without parole" and "death penalty" because you are essentially ending his life, and handing it over to the state.
This isn't to say I am pro-death penalty. My stance on that is conflicted. What I am trying to get at is that our prison system is not an effective means of teaching Americans that what they did was wrong, and what the correct behaviors are. Which would be better, to send a little boy to prison forever until he dies, or to send him to a facility where he can learn, get an education, perform countless hours of community service, and pay a debt to society deemed equal to the life he took during the armed robbery?
Can all people be rehabilitated and become productive members of society after committing a crime? Probably not. But a 12-year-old?
_
Sending him to prison for life simply means you've ended it. I see no difference, in this case between "life without parole" and "death penalty" because you are essentially ending his life, and handing it over to the state.
This isn't to say I am pro-death penalty. My stance on that is conflicted. What I am trying to get at is that our prison system is not an effective means of teaching Americans that what they did was wrong, and what the correct behaviors are. Which would be better, to send a little boy to prison forever until he dies, or to send him to a facility where he can learn, get an education, perform countless hours of community service, and pay a debt to society deemed equal to the life he took during the armed robbery?
Can all people be rehabilitated and become productive members of society after committing a crime? Probably not. But a 12-year-old?
_
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
My father loves to hunt ducks. Every fall, he readies his truck, his duck-boat, his shotguns, his handloaded shells, his waders, his camo gear, and his bird dog and goes hunting. Now that he's retired, he hunts a bunch. He likes to joke that his dream job always would have been to host one of those duck hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel.
My dad, for the record, is 56 years of age. If someone came to him today and said "hey, you like duck hunting, right? Well, we'll pay you several million dollars to hunt ducks for the next two hunting seasons," you better believe that my dad would agree.
There might be people who would argue "we want to see younger, better athletes hunting ducks, not some washed-up old man and his dog!" but the facts are clear: my dad has been and still is an incredibly deadly duck hunter, and I've always been impressed with his ability to shoot, despite his slowly degenerating eyesight.
No one can know what is going on in Brett Favre's mind, but since I was in junior high he's been an NFL quarterback, and has done nothing but talk about how much he loves playing football, and how much he loves the camaraderie found amongst his fellow players on the sideline. So mulling retirement, when Brad Childress offered him a no-astronomical-expectations, two year contract, I have to believe Brett hung up the phone, and said to his wife "honey, you mind if I go play ball with the boys for a couple more seasons" and she rolled her eyes and went back to her book.
Brett Favre may flip-flop, but so does any man, 39 years of age, trying to decide whether he is an old man or still a young one. Favre may cry during press conferences when he announces his retirement, and then come out of retirement months later, but so does any man who is giving up the one activity that he loves most of all, then realizes he doesn't have to give it up after all.
Brett Favre is a 39-year-old man, and he gets to do what he loves, every day. What is so bizarre about the mountain of people trashing his name right now is that many of them were the same people who praised a 38-year-old Texan who came out of retirement and went on to place third in the Tour de France. No one expected Lance to win, they just loved to see him doing what he does so well. Why is Brett Favre so different?
_
My dad, for the record, is 56 years of age. If someone came to him today and said "hey, you like duck hunting, right? Well, we'll pay you several million dollars to hunt ducks for the next two hunting seasons," you better believe that my dad would agree.
There might be people who would argue "we want to see younger, better athletes hunting ducks, not some washed-up old man and his dog!" but the facts are clear: my dad has been and still is an incredibly deadly duck hunter, and I've always been impressed with his ability to shoot, despite his slowly degenerating eyesight.
No one can know what is going on in Brett Favre's mind, but since I was in junior high he's been an NFL quarterback, and has done nothing but talk about how much he loves playing football, and how much he loves the camaraderie found amongst his fellow players on the sideline. So mulling retirement, when Brad Childress offered him a no-astronomical-expectations, two year contract, I have to believe Brett hung up the phone, and said to his wife "honey, you mind if I go play ball with the boys for a couple more seasons" and she rolled her eyes and went back to her book.
Brett Favre may flip-flop, but so does any man, 39 years of age, trying to decide whether he is an old man or still a young one. Favre may cry during press conferences when he announces his retirement, and then come out of retirement months later, but so does any man who is giving up the one activity that he loves most of all, then realizes he doesn't have to give it up after all.
Brett Favre is a 39-year-old man, and he gets to do what he loves, every day. What is so bizarre about the mountain of people trashing his name right now is that many of them were the same people who praised a 38-year-old Texan who came out of retirement and went on to place third in the Tour de France. No one expected Lance to win, they just loved to see him doing what he does so well. Why is Brett Favre so different?
_
Monday, 17 August 2009
As I learn more and more about the world, and about humanity's place in it, I become more and more convinced that none of us will realize we have irreparably destroyed the environment until it is too late.
Now before your eyes glaze over let me tell you what I mean: while we all plant a tree because John Denver told us to, and we recycle our aluminum because our schools told us to, and we stop driving gas guzzling cars because Al Gore told us to, and we clean up all of these acts, we will continue to pump millions of cubic yards of toxic waste into the oceans, meanwhile we happily, and without any regulation, are sucking fish and crustaceans out of the ocean at a rate that roughly follows the population of people with electricity on this planet. We bring asian carp into our rivers and lakes, and they take over. We bring zebra mussels into our reservoirs and streams, and they take over, the local environments are wiped out, completely. But we don't see it, because we live on land. We send massive trawlers into the ocean to suck as much lobster and crab and bluefin tuna and shark and whale and shrimp and swordfish as we can and then we plant a little coral reef and tell ourselves "we're doing great things for the oceans!"
But truly I tell you, 70% of this planet is covered in water, and 98% of our environmental protection methods are land or air-based.
When we destroy this planet, I mean really tip it over the edge, it'll be because we wrecked the oceans. Life started with water, and life will end with it.
_
Now before your eyes glaze over let me tell you what I mean: while we all plant a tree because John Denver told us to, and we recycle our aluminum because our schools told us to, and we stop driving gas guzzling cars because Al Gore told us to, and we clean up all of these acts, we will continue to pump millions of cubic yards of toxic waste into the oceans, meanwhile we happily, and without any regulation, are sucking fish and crustaceans out of the ocean at a rate that roughly follows the population of people with electricity on this planet. We bring asian carp into our rivers and lakes, and they take over. We bring zebra mussels into our reservoirs and streams, and they take over, the local environments are wiped out, completely. But we don't see it, because we live on land. We send massive trawlers into the ocean to suck as much lobster and crab and bluefin tuna and shark and whale and shrimp and swordfish as we can and then we plant a little coral reef and tell ourselves "we're doing great things for the oceans!"
But truly I tell you, 70% of this planet is covered in water, and 98% of our environmental protection methods are land or air-based.
When we destroy this planet, I mean really tip it over the edge, it'll be because we wrecked the oceans. Life started with water, and life will end with it.
_
In case you didn't have a working television over the weekend, Jamaican Usain Bolt is once again the fastest human being on the planet. The second fastest human being is also Usain Bolt, as he topped the world record in the 100 meter dash that was previously held by...himself.
When world records like these are beaten, it makes me wonder what the human limits are. Will we one day see a human sprint at 125 mph and finish the dash in less than 2 seconds? It seems impossible, or at least very, very unlikely, but there were naysayers who claimed ten seconds would never be beaten (Bolt's time, of 9.58 seconds, is the fastest, but most Olympic sprinters clock under 10 seconds). There were people who told Roger Bannister in 1954 that a 4 minute mile was impossible, and yet he did it, and now sub-4-minute times are normal. Olympic athletes run 4 minute miles now and afterward hardly seem winded. The marathon record now stands around 2 hours 4 minutes, which when divided by 26 and 7/32 miles means Haile Gebrselassie, the current record holder, ran just over 4 minute miles...for over 2 hours.
I'm not treading new ground when I ask these questions. Is the question now "will 9 seconds ever be broken" in the 100 meter dash?
Empirically, probably not. If you look at swimming, you see that records are broken quite often, but only by hundredths of seconds. Typically, records are broken along a logarithmic curve, i.e. more and more time passes between significant record changes, or conversely, the more frequently records are broken, the less significant they are.
Further, there are limits to the human body, simply because of mechanics. Bolt's sprint happened at about 23 miles per hour. At around 30 miles per hour, the forces required to pump your legs are so great you will tear the muscle right off the bone. At 45 miles per hour, the gravitational change as each leg swings is enough to break your bones. At much over the speed Bolt is running, you either cannot obtain enough friction in your foot to hold to the ground or you wear spikes, and the shear force of the spikes will dislocate or fracture your ankle.
Which, I humbly submit, helps define to us what humans are: not sprinters. Cheetahs can carry a speed of 65 mph over distances longer (but not much longer) than 100 meters, sailfish can reach similar speeds in water, and peregrine falcons can reach ridiculous speeds in the air. However, humans are one of the only creatures in all of Earth's history capable of running 26 miles, much less in two hours. Simply stated: humans are meant to jog.
There is a lot of evidence for this in physiology and anatomy: We have thin skin, covered in sweat glands (sweat glands are bizarre and rare in the animal kingdom), we have long, lanky legs with flexing knees, as opposed to extending knees like those of a stork. We have high-mounted heads with a large tendon in the back. The tendon allows us to keep our head stable as we jog or run, and is unique to humans in the primate family. Other animals with the tendon: horses and dogs, known distance runners. And metabolically, we're unique in our ability to stay in aerobic respiration during anything faster than a walk. Our joints are physiologically designed to actually strengthen during jogging, while running pounds microfractures into our bones faster than they can heal, and walking for too long actually damages the menisci in our knees.
It has been recently suggested that early humans employed a clever hunting tactic when chasing prey species: they'd run them to death. It is believed that early humans would fan out somewhat wide, and trot after a deer, or a bison, or whatever. The prey animal would bolt, and then stop and wait to see if it was followed. Soon, the humans are spotted again, and it bolts again, and so on and each time it is building up a little more lactic acid in it's sprinter muscles. Eventually, after a while, the animal overheats, goes into toxic shock, and calmly stands there while the humans walk up and kill it. This method of hunting is actually a popular winter hunting method for wolves, who can jog over the snow, while their prey, the heavy moose, must break through the snow, and quickly tires and (even in winter) overheats.
So as much as Bolt's record breaking run was thrilling, I feel we're nearing the end of sprint records. Perhaps a hundredth will get shaved off here, or there, but I'm fairly confident that humans just can't go much faster. What we can do, and I find very interesting, is go farther. Ultramarathons, 50 or 100 mile mega races often through rough terrain, are what impress me more. To me, sprinting isn't what we were built to do, so I don't really find it all that remarkable. Jogging, forever, is what got us here, and so I find those good at it so much more impressive.
_
When world records like these are beaten, it makes me wonder what the human limits are. Will we one day see a human sprint at 125 mph and finish the dash in less than 2 seconds? It seems impossible, or at least very, very unlikely, but there were naysayers who claimed ten seconds would never be beaten (Bolt's time, of 9.58 seconds, is the fastest, but most Olympic sprinters clock under 10 seconds). There were people who told Roger Bannister in 1954 that a 4 minute mile was impossible, and yet he did it, and now sub-4-minute times are normal. Olympic athletes run 4 minute miles now and afterward hardly seem winded. The marathon record now stands around 2 hours 4 minutes, which when divided by 26 and 7/32 miles means Haile Gebrselassie, the current record holder, ran just over 4 minute miles...for over 2 hours.
I'm not treading new ground when I ask these questions. Is the question now "will 9 seconds ever be broken" in the 100 meter dash?
Empirically, probably not. If you look at swimming, you see that records are broken quite often, but only by hundredths of seconds. Typically, records are broken along a logarithmic curve, i.e. more and more time passes between significant record changes, or conversely, the more frequently records are broken, the less significant they are.
Further, there are limits to the human body, simply because of mechanics. Bolt's sprint happened at about 23 miles per hour. At around 30 miles per hour, the forces required to pump your legs are so great you will tear the muscle right off the bone. At 45 miles per hour, the gravitational change as each leg swings is enough to break your bones. At much over the speed Bolt is running, you either cannot obtain enough friction in your foot to hold to the ground or you wear spikes, and the shear force of the spikes will dislocate or fracture your ankle.
Which, I humbly submit, helps define to us what humans are: not sprinters. Cheetahs can carry a speed of 65 mph over distances longer (but not much longer) than 100 meters, sailfish can reach similar speeds in water, and peregrine falcons can reach ridiculous speeds in the air. However, humans are one of the only creatures in all of Earth's history capable of running 26 miles, much less in two hours. Simply stated: humans are meant to jog.
There is a lot of evidence for this in physiology and anatomy: We have thin skin, covered in sweat glands (sweat glands are bizarre and rare in the animal kingdom), we have long, lanky legs with flexing knees, as opposed to extending knees like those of a stork. We have high-mounted heads with a large tendon in the back. The tendon allows us to keep our head stable as we jog or run, and is unique to humans in the primate family. Other animals with the tendon: horses and dogs, known distance runners. And metabolically, we're unique in our ability to stay in aerobic respiration during anything faster than a walk. Our joints are physiologically designed to actually strengthen during jogging, while running pounds microfractures into our bones faster than they can heal, and walking for too long actually damages the menisci in our knees.
It has been recently suggested that early humans employed a clever hunting tactic when chasing prey species: they'd run them to death. It is believed that early humans would fan out somewhat wide, and trot after a deer, or a bison, or whatever. The prey animal would bolt, and then stop and wait to see if it was followed. Soon, the humans are spotted again, and it bolts again, and so on and each time it is building up a little more lactic acid in it's sprinter muscles. Eventually, after a while, the animal overheats, goes into toxic shock, and calmly stands there while the humans walk up and kill it. This method of hunting is actually a popular winter hunting method for wolves, who can jog over the snow, while their prey, the heavy moose, must break through the snow, and quickly tires and (even in winter) overheats.
So as much as Bolt's record breaking run was thrilling, I feel we're nearing the end of sprint records. Perhaps a hundredth will get shaved off here, or there, but I'm fairly confident that humans just can't go much faster. What we can do, and I find very interesting, is go farther. Ultramarathons, 50 or 100 mile mega races often through rough terrain, are what impress me more. To me, sprinting isn't what we were built to do, so I don't really find it all that remarkable. Jogging, forever, is what got us here, and so I find those good at it so much more impressive.
_
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Last night, I found myself lying in the back of my new pickup at 3 am, looking directly up at the stars. It just so happens that the last several days have been the Perseid meteor shower, and I was delighted to see a meteor streak over head about every minute or so. It was cool, there was a gentle breeze, the bed of my pickup was comfortable, and I was content.
Mrs. TAE is in Chicago, however, and I missed her terribly. Magical moments, like watching God's fireworks display from the bed of a pickup on a summer night, should be shared with the one you love.
I'll be glad when she gets home.
_
Mrs. TAE is in Chicago, however, and I missed her terribly. Magical moments, like watching God's fireworks display from the bed of a pickup on a summer night, should be shared with the one you love.
I'll be glad when she gets home.
_
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Which is more likely:
Theory 1. In all the known universe, planets orbit in the same direction as the stars they orbit are spinning. Except one, which is orbiting backwards. Scientists believe a near collision with another, larger planet caused a planetary "slingshot" that caused the reverse orbital path.
Theory 2. Death Star located.
_
Theory 1. In all the known universe, planets orbit in the same direction as the stars they orbit are spinning. Except one, which is orbiting backwards. Scientists believe a near collision with another, larger planet caused a planetary "slingshot" that caused the reverse orbital path.
Theory 2. Death Star located.
_
The alternate title to this post could be "The increasing urbanization of America and the clear dichotomy of experience-based opinions about wilderness adventures." Or simply "Don't hate the camper, hate the camping."
Early in the first season of "Man vs. Wild", the critically-acclaimed, highly popular (most popular show on the Discovery Channel currently) program in which Bear Grylls, former member of the British SAS is dropped into wild locales with only a few tools and forced to find his way to freedom, an episode was aired in which Bear floated himself down whitewater rapids without a boat or floatation device...or so we were initially led to believe. It was later revealed that the local authorities had required Bear to wear a lifejacket under his clothing, for fear he might die and they get sued. From the moment that was disclosed, the show's tenor changed, and it added disclaimers as the show returned from commercial breaks claiming: "Some situations may be presented to Bear so that he can demonstrate survival techniques..."
And so began the polarization of the show. On the one hand, you had people who still loved it, because Bear was a charismatic host, because watching him eat live spiders was fun, or because they simply enjoyed the wild locales and learning how to survive in them. On the other hand, you had a group of people who cried "fraud!" and talked about how "his crew is always helping him" or "his clothes got dry unnaturally fast" or "Survivorman is real, but Man vs. Wild is staged."
For myself, I love, absolutely love, the show. Bear is obviously fearless, and I find that incredibly entertaining. I also love the places he goes, because I love the wilderness. I love being places where you can't hear the hum of society, can't even hear the nearest highway. I love sitting in natural places, with mosquitoes buzzing around me, and just listening to my own brain tick away. I took a vacation with two friends to Rocky Mountain National Park 2 years ago, and we pitched camp the first night as flakes of snow the size of quarters fell so heavily we couldn't get a fire going. In the morning, we awoke to 4 inches of snow. My boots were frozen solid, and there was a layer of ice on the outside of the tent that had to be broken up before we could pack it. I loved that night.
Sometimes I wonder, just as an idle thought, what would happen to the world if something collossal and terrible happened. What if a blast of electromagnetic energy from the sun wiped out every electronic thing on earth, and in a moment, we were plunged into a Bronze Age? What if a virus wiped out massive swaths of the human population, and those who survives found themselves in a state of anarchy? Who would survive that? Who would go crying to the government for help? Who would be rounded up into camps? Who would go into the wilderness and face a life like those who lived 200 years ago?
Part of the appeal of Man vs. Wild is the idea that by watching it, I somehow become a tiny bit less pathetically helpless. I convince myself "oh, I could find clean water in the Amazon by cutting water vines," and somehow that placates my fear that if all Hell broke loose, I'd be a victim and not a victor.
As for the claims that Survivorman is more real than Man vs. Wild, that is probably true. But what else is true is that Survivorman is boring and hard to watch, as it's basically just Les Stroud sitting around, complaining about his joints and playing his harmonica while he hopes he catches a rat in his fall-trap for breakfast. Simply put: Survivorman is boring. Man vs. Wild is awesomely fun and active, with Bear glissading down mountainsides at 45 mph, climbing 200 ft. rock faces at the edge of the ocean, eating the eyeballs out of a frozen sheep corpse, using a camel's stomach cavity as a tent, etc. etc. Bear does fun things, Les doesn't do anything. If I have to choose Gryll Survival or Stroud Survival, give me Man vs. Wild!
I remember one episode of Man vs. Wild, where Bear was walking across a frozen lake, and for some reason, he decided to show us how to make two holes in the iced lake surface, strip down to undies, and jump into nearly frozen water and swim from one hole to another. It seemed like an incredibly stupid thing to do, and immediately afterward you got the sense that Bear had regretted it. And honestly, it didn't really teach the audience anything about survival other than that you can successfully swim 12 feet under ice and not die.
But I came away from that moment of the show, as I have many times in the show, with a sense of marvel at the resilience of the human body. When Bear clings to a rock face for 2 hours before he gets to the top, when he eats food that logic tells us is not fit to eat, when he bounces his body down through a river rapid, it teaches me deep down that although I probably won't ever be in those situations, when I am in tough situations I absolutely can survive them. I'm not dumb enough to get lost in the Canadian Rockies. But I am dumb enough to camp overnight in early May in the American Rockies during a blizzard, and I survived that.
Man vs. Wild may not teach you anything that you will use during your lifetime, except that you can survive.
And the next person that tries to tell me that Les Stroud is more legit than Bear Grylls, please click this link. Or this link. Or this link. And for a laugh this link.
_
Early in the first season of "Man vs. Wild", the critically-acclaimed, highly popular (most popular show on the Discovery Channel currently) program in which Bear Grylls, former member of the British SAS is dropped into wild locales with only a few tools and forced to find his way to freedom, an episode was aired in which Bear floated himself down whitewater rapids without a boat or floatation device...or so we were initially led to believe. It was later revealed that the local authorities had required Bear to wear a lifejacket under his clothing, for fear he might die and they get sued. From the moment that was disclosed, the show's tenor changed, and it added disclaimers as the show returned from commercial breaks claiming: "Some situations may be presented to Bear so that he can demonstrate survival techniques..."
And so began the polarization of the show. On the one hand, you had people who still loved it, because Bear was a charismatic host, because watching him eat live spiders was fun, or because they simply enjoyed the wild locales and learning how to survive in them. On the other hand, you had a group of people who cried "fraud!" and talked about how "his crew is always helping him" or "his clothes got dry unnaturally fast" or "Survivorman is real, but Man vs. Wild is staged."
For myself, I love, absolutely love, the show. Bear is obviously fearless, and I find that incredibly entertaining. I also love the places he goes, because I love the wilderness. I love being places where you can't hear the hum of society, can't even hear the nearest highway. I love sitting in natural places, with mosquitoes buzzing around me, and just listening to my own brain tick away. I took a vacation with two friends to Rocky Mountain National Park 2 years ago, and we pitched camp the first night as flakes of snow the size of quarters fell so heavily we couldn't get a fire going. In the morning, we awoke to 4 inches of snow. My boots were frozen solid, and there was a layer of ice on the outside of the tent that had to be broken up before we could pack it. I loved that night.
Sometimes I wonder, just as an idle thought, what would happen to the world if something collossal and terrible happened. What if a blast of electromagnetic energy from the sun wiped out every electronic thing on earth, and in a moment, we were plunged into a Bronze Age? What if a virus wiped out massive swaths of the human population, and those who survives found themselves in a state of anarchy? Who would survive that? Who would go crying to the government for help? Who would be rounded up into camps? Who would go into the wilderness and face a life like those who lived 200 years ago?
Part of the appeal of Man vs. Wild is the idea that by watching it, I somehow become a tiny bit less pathetically helpless. I convince myself "oh, I could find clean water in the Amazon by cutting water vines," and somehow that placates my fear that if all Hell broke loose, I'd be a victim and not a victor.
As for the claims that Survivorman is more real than Man vs. Wild, that is probably true. But what else is true is that Survivorman is boring and hard to watch, as it's basically just Les Stroud sitting around, complaining about his joints and playing his harmonica while he hopes he catches a rat in his fall-trap for breakfast. Simply put: Survivorman is boring. Man vs. Wild is awesomely fun and active, with Bear glissading down mountainsides at 45 mph, climbing 200 ft. rock faces at the edge of the ocean, eating the eyeballs out of a frozen sheep corpse, using a camel's stomach cavity as a tent, etc. etc. Bear does fun things, Les doesn't do anything. If I have to choose Gryll Survival or Stroud Survival, give me Man vs. Wild!
I remember one episode of Man vs. Wild, where Bear was walking across a frozen lake, and for some reason, he decided to show us how to make two holes in the iced lake surface, strip down to undies, and jump into nearly frozen water and swim from one hole to another. It seemed like an incredibly stupid thing to do, and immediately afterward you got the sense that Bear had regretted it. And honestly, it didn't really teach the audience anything about survival other than that you can successfully swim 12 feet under ice and not die.
But I came away from that moment of the show, as I have many times in the show, with a sense of marvel at the resilience of the human body. When Bear clings to a rock face for 2 hours before he gets to the top, when he eats food that logic tells us is not fit to eat, when he bounces his body down through a river rapid, it teaches me deep down that although I probably won't ever be in those situations, when I am in tough situations I absolutely can survive them. I'm not dumb enough to get lost in the Canadian Rockies. But I am dumb enough to camp overnight in early May in the American Rockies during a blizzard, and I survived that.
Man vs. Wild may not teach you anything that you will use during your lifetime, except that you can survive.
And the next person that tries to tell me that Les Stroud is more legit than Bear Grylls, please click this link. Or this link. Or this link. And for a laugh this link.
_
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
First off, if we had 5 times as many people in our country, we'd graduate way more engineers and scientists than China. No mention of percentages, just raw totals.
Second, not every single engineer or scientist who graduates becomes an instant innovator. In developing countries, like China and India, most engineers work jobs that are not at all about innovation, like civil engineers building roads, or structural engineers designing buildings, or mechanical engineers designing railroad cars to haul coal out of the mountains. The article implies that because other countries are graduating engineers, it therefore follows that the amount of innovation they are performing is increasing (at a greater rate than the United States rate of innovation is increasing). This is not necessarily true.
Articles about America "slipping" from their proud post of #1 make me laugh. It's always the same old "watch out for China" scaremongering.
_
Second, not every single engineer or scientist who graduates becomes an instant innovator. In developing countries, like China and India, most engineers work jobs that are not at all about innovation, like civil engineers building roads, or structural engineers designing buildings, or mechanical engineers designing railroad cars to haul coal out of the mountains. The article implies that because other countries are graduating engineers, it therefore follows that the amount of innovation they are performing is increasing (at a greater rate than the United States rate of innovation is increasing). This is not necessarily true.
Articles about America "slipping" from their proud post of #1 make me laugh. It's always the same old "watch out for China" scaremongering.
_
Everyone here at work was talking yesterday and today about GM's announcement that in preliminary testing the Volt gets 230 MPG. If this is true, it's revolutionary.
But we (and by we I mean the cadre of drooling engineers and environmentalists) need to sit back for a second and ask ourselves two key questions:
1. If GM, one of the worst car manufacturers, who for the last 20 odd years has had anything but an impeccable record, who clearly resisted high mpg cars until the bitter end, who is going through bankruptcy...if GM can make an electric vehicle that gets 230 mpg, for goodness sake what could someone else do? I humbly submit that during TAE's lifetime a car will be in mass production that achieves 1,000 mpg.
It's not really that much of a stretch, actually. GM's technology gets about 40 miles on a battery, then the engine kicks in and recharges the battery. They believe they can get 5 recharges (plus the initial charge) for every gallon of gas in the tank. But the battery pack GM is using is not especially advanced. Research into supercapacitors, which are (in an oversimplified definition) basically batteries that charge virtually instantly, as well as other battery research is still in full swing. The Tesla Roadster, for example, can travel 244 miles on a single charge of its battery pack.
2. When will there be a Google of electric cars? For those who remember the fledgling days of the internet, just about as soon as the internet went mainstream, so too did search engines. Anyone remember "Infoseek" or "Lycos" or "Altavista"? I remember Ask.com emerging as an incredibly easy tool...just type in your question and 1 time in 10, it'd give you the correct answer. Microsoft search emerged, a typical behemoth with limited user functionality and way too much going on all over the screen.
Enter Google (and PageRank). A single line on a white screen enabled you to quickly get the exact information you needed, usually on the first query, and the first result link. It was, simply put, revolutionary in its function (while not inventing the search engine idea).
So you have Google, that took someone else's idea, and turned it into an awesome, wonderful product.
I humbly submit that electric vehicles are probably headed the same way. You currently have a cadre of small companies trying to develop and market their electric vehicles, like Tesla, Aptera, and others (good listing here), and you've got the Microsoft analogue, namely GM, with their less-than-stellar entry, the Volt.
I would suggest that if electric vehicle development continues with the same veracity (and it probably will based on the current Administration), that within the decade a company, possibly one on the list linked above, will emerge with the Google of electric vehicles. Their vehicle will be simple to operate, absurdly efficient, good-looking, safe, and reliable.
I am happy GM is developing the Volt, the absence of electric cars on the road today is an insult to human development. But until we completely separate ourselves from the combustion engine, we're really not much further along than when Daimler strapped an engine to a wagon 110 years ago.
Here's TAE's free instruction manual for any car manufacturer interested in a 1,000 mpg vehicle.
Double De-Coupled Drive Assemblies:
An ECM, brushless DC motor is used to drive a worm gear assembly which turns the drive shaft. This motor is driven by a trunk-bottom-mounted bank of ultracapacitors with a total weight just under 200 lbs. A single charge drives the car 140 miles. Capacitors can be discharge 100% without failing, unlike batteries, so the capacitor bank is not recharged until 140 miles have been driven. At that point, a compressed air-based motor turns a winding that rapidly recharges the capacitor bank. The compressed air motor is assembled for 3,000 psi air. It takes about 2 minutes to recharge the capacitor bank. The 3,000 psi air is sent from a 10 gallon holding tank. A regulator feeds the air to the compressed air motor at 3,000 psi, however the compression range of the 3,000-5,000 psi. By having this range, it allows the tank to be recharged as needed, to a much higher level than needed, like the air compressor you may have in your garage. The compressor is driven by a small, 2-stroke combustion engine about the size of a weed-whacker engine. This engine turns on whenever the air tank reaches 3,000 psi and runs the pressure back to 5,000 psi. This process takes about 10 minutes and consumes 1/4 gallon of fuel.
You can recharge the capacitor bank 2 times before the compressed air tank must be recharged. You can recharge the compressed air tank 4 times per gallon of gas/oil mix. This means you get 8 recharges per gallon of gas.
If you add in the initial charge, you have 9 charges, at 140 miles each, for a grand total of 1260 mpg.
What's hilarious is that except for the supercapacitors, I have all the parts necessary to build this engine sitting in the high-pressure lab not 50 feet from where I am sitting. Just call me Larry Page.
_
But we (and by we I mean the cadre of drooling engineers and environmentalists) need to sit back for a second and ask ourselves two key questions:
1. If GM, one of the worst car manufacturers, who for the last 20 odd years has had anything but an impeccable record, who clearly resisted high mpg cars until the bitter end, who is going through bankruptcy...if GM can make an electric vehicle that gets 230 mpg, for goodness sake what could someone else do? I humbly submit that during TAE's lifetime a car will be in mass production that achieves 1,000 mpg.
It's not really that much of a stretch, actually. GM's technology gets about 40 miles on a battery, then the engine kicks in and recharges the battery. They believe they can get 5 recharges (plus the initial charge) for every gallon of gas in the tank. But the battery pack GM is using is not especially advanced. Research into supercapacitors, which are (in an oversimplified definition) basically batteries that charge virtually instantly, as well as other battery research is still in full swing. The Tesla Roadster, for example, can travel 244 miles on a single charge of its battery pack.
2. When will there be a Google of electric cars? For those who remember the fledgling days of the internet, just about as soon as the internet went mainstream, so too did search engines. Anyone remember "Infoseek" or "Lycos" or "Altavista"? I remember Ask.com emerging as an incredibly easy tool...just type in your question and 1 time in 10, it'd give you the correct answer. Microsoft search emerged, a typical behemoth with limited user functionality and way too much going on all over the screen.
Enter Google (and PageRank). A single line on a white screen enabled you to quickly get the exact information you needed, usually on the first query, and the first result link. It was, simply put, revolutionary in its function (while not inventing the search engine idea).
So you have Google, that took someone else's idea, and turned it into an awesome, wonderful product.
I humbly submit that electric vehicles are probably headed the same way. You currently have a cadre of small companies trying to develop and market their electric vehicles, like Tesla, Aptera, and others (good listing here), and you've got the Microsoft analogue, namely GM, with their less-than-stellar entry, the Volt.
I would suggest that if electric vehicle development continues with the same veracity (and it probably will based on the current Administration), that within the decade a company, possibly one on the list linked above, will emerge with the Google of electric vehicles. Their vehicle will be simple to operate, absurdly efficient, good-looking, safe, and reliable.
I am happy GM is developing the Volt, the absence of electric cars on the road today is an insult to human development. But until we completely separate ourselves from the combustion engine, we're really not much further along than when Daimler strapped an engine to a wagon 110 years ago.
Here's TAE's free instruction manual for any car manufacturer interested in a 1,000 mpg vehicle.
Double De-Coupled Drive Assemblies:
An ECM, brushless DC motor is used to drive a worm gear assembly which turns the drive shaft. This motor is driven by a trunk-bottom-mounted bank of ultracapacitors with a total weight just under 200 lbs. A single charge drives the car 140 miles. Capacitors can be discharge 100% without failing, unlike batteries, so the capacitor bank is not recharged until 140 miles have been driven. At that point, a compressed air-based motor turns a winding that rapidly recharges the capacitor bank. The compressed air motor is assembled for 3,000 psi air. It takes about 2 minutes to recharge the capacitor bank. The 3,000 psi air is sent from a 10 gallon holding tank. A regulator feeds the air to the compressed air motor at 3,000 psi, however the compression range of the 3,000-5,000 psi. By having this range, it allows the tank to be recharged as needed, to a much higher level than needed, like the air compressor you may have in your garage. The compressor is driven by a small, 2-stroke combustion engine about the size of a weed-whacker engine. This engine turns on whenever the air tank reaches 3,000 psi and runs the pressure back to 5,000 psi. This process takes about 10 minutes and consumes 1/4 gallon of fuel.
You can recharge the capacitor bank 2 times before the compressed air tank must be recharged. You can recharge the compressed air tank 4 times per gallon of gas/oil mix. This means you get 8 recharges per gallon of gas.
If you add in the initial charge, you have 9 charges, at 140 miles each, for a grand total of 1260 mpg.
What's hilarious is that except for the supercapacitors, I have all the parts necessary to build this engine sitting in the high-pressure lab not 50 feet from where I am sitting. Just call me Larry Page.
_
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
I don't know what the above words mean.
What I do know is that in a country of 340 million people, it's unintelligent to advocate "local polyculture" where every little area of the country has its own diverse little ecosystem. There's been a reader vs. Patrick go around on Sullivan's blog about The Omnivore's Dilemma a book I won't pretend to have read. The commenter writes:
Here's the quote from a farmer (Blake Hurst) that sparked the backlash:
Here's the problem I see: local polyculture works when you have tiny little isolated villages in 1720 that were self-sufficient, and only by necessity. What I cannot understand is how people expect a nation of our size, with a population that is 98% not farming, to feed itself a genetically diverse, locally grown, cornucopia of foodstuffs when all but a couple of us don't have time to farm.
The other problem I see with this argument is the complaint that beef and pork are unnatural, or at least we eat an unnatural quantity of them. The anti-red-meat-people typically advocate more fish, both for the sake of the environment, and for hyped up circulatory health benefits.
Except, the world fish market is in a state of free-fall, environmental collapse, with major food species disappearing, prices sky-rocketing, chemical substances found in fish rising, and fish habitats disappearing!
Corporate, no-till farming, which I have argued for on this blog, is probably the most sustainable way we can feed 7 billion people on this planet (without destroying the planet). The other two options, environmental collapse or human population collapse...seem less fun.
_
What I do know is that in a country of 340 million people, it's unintelligent to advocate "local polyculture" where every little area of the country has its own diverse little ecosystem. There's been a reader vs. Patrick go around on Sullivan's blog about The Omnivore's Dilemma a book I won't pretend to have read. The commenter writes:
Pollan is as critical of industrial organic farming as he is of industrial farming in general because he thinks that centralized food production makes us susceptible to attack or disease and limits the diversity in a healthy diet and severs important cultural ties to food. He came away from writing the book an advocate of local polyculture, not an advocate of organic farming.
Here's the quote from a farmer (Blake Hurst) that sparked the backlash:
Biotech crops actually cut the use of chemicals, and increase food safety. Are people who refuse to use them my moral superiors? Herbicides cut the need for tillage, which decreases soil erosion by millions of tons. The biggest environmental harm I have done as a farmer is the topsoil (and nutrients) I used to send down the Missouri River to the Gulf of Mexico before we began to practice no-till farming, made possible only by the use of herbicides. The combination of herbicides and genetically modified seed has made my farm more sustainable, not less, and actually reduces the pollution I send down the river.
Here's the problem I see: local polyculture works when you have tiny little isolated villages in 1720 that were self-sufficient, and only by necessity. What I cannot understand is how people expect a nation of our size, with a population that is 98% not farming, to feed itself a genetically diverse, locally grown, cornucopia of foodstuffs when all but a couple of us don't have time to farm.
The other problem I see with this argument is the complaint that beef and pork are unnatural, or at least we eat an unnatural quantity of them. The anti-red-meat-people typically advocate more fish, both for the sake of the environment, and for hyped up circulatory health benefits.
Except, the world fish market is in a state of free-fall, environmental collapse, with major food species disappearing, prices sky-rocketing, chemical substances found in fish rising, and fish habitats disappearing!
Corporate, no-till farming, which I have argued for on this blog, is probably the most sustainable way we can feed 7 billion people on this planet (without destroying the planet). The other two options, environmental collapse or human population collapse...seem less fun.
_
Why do I keep saying I'm not a genius like Ezra Klein? In 2003, when Ezra was a whopping 19 years old, he started a blog with Matt Singer, Ryan Davis, and Joe Raspars. The name of this blog was "Not Geniuses."
When I was 25, as Ezra is now, I certainly wanted to be taken seriously, and fortunately I wasn't. A 25 year-old simply hasn't been out to pasture long enough to write policy.
Ezra Klein, to me, is a poignant reminder that my generation has really not seen hardship at all. He reminds me that as my grandparents generation disappears, so too does a way of life where patience, saving, conservativism, and prudence ruled. Ezra Klein, blogging like he's important, reminds me that my generation has become accustomed to instant gratification. Blogging means you don't have to claw your way up any journalistic totem poles before you can write editorials every day. Blogging means you can eviscerate people who at your age were in the trenches of northern France with bullets whizzing over their heads.
The reason I mostly avoid politics on my blog, or at least minimize them, is because of "not geniuses" like Ezra Klein.
_
When I was 25, as Ezra is now, I certainly wanted to be taken seriously, and fortunately I wasn't. A 25 year-old simply hasn't been out to pasture long enough to write policy.
Ezra Klein, to me, is a poignant reminder that my generation has really not seen hardship at all. He reminds me that as my grandparents generation disappears, so too does a way of life where patience, saving, conservativism, and prudence ruled. Ezra Klein, blogging like he's important, reminds me that my generation has become accustomed to instant gratification. Blogging means you don't have to claw your way up any journalistic totem poles before you can write editorials every day. Blogging means you can eviscerate people who at your age were in the trenches of northern France with bullets whizzing over their heads.
The reason I mostly avoid politics on my blog, or at least minimize them, is because of "not geniuses" like Ezra Klein.
_
TPI:
Maybe I'm not seeing what the "crisis" is to which he is referring. Health care, bank bailouts, automotive manufacturer bailouts, Guantanamo closing, farm subsidies for biodiesel, increased funding for renewable energy including "cap-and-trade" are not crises. These issues happen over months, or years, and should be exhaustively talked about before action is taken.
I would never accuse TPI of cloaking agenda (he always puts it right out there in my face), but there is a tendency for people to call controversial issues "a crisis" in order to justify the hurried way they force them through government. Just look at the Republican party, and Bush 43 during 2002-2003, rather than analyzing all the Iraq data, rather than sending people to Iraq to discuss things with Saddam directly, rather than organize a unilateral NATO/U.N. action against Iraq, the GOP cloaked Iraq in a "crisis" and forced a stupid war down our throats. Now, 7 years later, almost everyone agrees that not only was the war a poorly planned waste of American resources and lives, but also it was predicated on a series of bald-faced lies.
What if, instead of kowtowing to the President's "crisis", instead the blue bloods in the Senate had bravely filibustered, and denied the President funding for his little Middle East vendetta? Can anyone honestly tell me that the Dems wouldn't have filibustered (or at least aggressively delayed) the Iraq War if not for the overwhelming support of it from even their constituency base?
Is that not what is going on here? The Republican (and to a certain degree, the Blue Dog) constituency bases are strongly opposed to any form of government health care system, but Obama has not instilled an effective enough false sense of fear in the American people, and as such the GOP isn't afraid to filibuster.
But then again, I'm not a genius like Ezra Klein.
_
Having a bicameral legislature in which 40% of one house representing as little as 12% of the population can routinely bring governance to a halt is the kind of institutional quirk that can destabilize a regime in a crisis.
Maybe I'm not seeing what the "crisis" is to which he is referring. Health care, bank bailouts, automotive manufacturer bailouts, Guantanamo closing, farm subsidies for biodiesel, increased funding for renewable energy including "cap-and-trade" are not crises. These issues happen over months, or years, and should be exhaustively talked about before action is taken.
I would never accuse TPI of cloaking agenda (he always puts it right out there in my face), but there is a tendency for people to call controversial issues "a crisis" in order to justify the hurried way they force them through government. Just look at the Republican party, and Bush 43 during 2002-2003, rather than analyzing all the Iraq data, rather than sending people to Iraq to discuss things with Saddam directly, rather than organize a unilateral NATO/U.N. action against Iraq, the GOP cloaked Iraq in a "crisis" and forced a stupid war down our throats. Now, 7 years later, almost everyone agrees that not only was the war a poorly planned waste of American resources and lives, but also it was predicated on a series of bald-faced lies.
What if, instead of kowtowing to the President's "crisis", instead the blue bloods in the Senate had bravely filibustered, and denied the President funding for his little Middle East vendetta? Can anyone honestly tell me that the Dems wouldn't have filibustered (or at least aggressively delayed) the Iraq War if not for the overwhelming support of it from even their constituency base?
Is that not what is going on here? The Republican (and to a certain degree, the Blue Dog) constituency bases are strongly opposed to any form of government health care system, but Obama has not instilled an effective enough false sense of fear in the American people, and as such the GOP isn't afraid to filibuster.
But then again, I'm not a genius like Ezra Klein.
_
Monday, 10 August 2009
Left-leaning geniuses like Ezra Klein love to complain that the filibuster is a terrible American policy, but only tend to do so when the Republican Party is the minority. Similar Republican whining can be heard during the reverse case.
Now I'm no history scholar, but wasn't the argument for consolidation of the Roman Triumvirate, and Augustus Caesar's rise to power upon dissolution of the Triumvirate, based largely on the argument that the Roman Republic couldn't move quickly enough? Once again, I'm not a genius like Ezra Klein, but it seems to me that Congressional bodies are large for the specific reason that they must move slowly, and to check the rash behavior of the Executive Branch.
Nor do I understand what exactly he wanted Congress to do? Quickly pass a law enabling the Federal Reserve to act? That would have slowed things, obviously, but what is not obvious to me is in absence of a filibuster, exactly what would Congress have been able to swiftly do??
Once again, I am not a genius like Ezra Klein.
_
The filibuster is making [Congress] less relevant. If you look back at the financial crisis, the lead response came from the Federal Reserve, because everyone understood that Congress couldn't move quickly enough.
Now I'm no history scholar, but wasn't the argument for consolidation of the Roman Triumvirate, and Augustus Caesar's rise to power upon dissolution of the Triumvirate, based largely on the argument that the Roman Republic couldn't move quickly enough? Once again, I'm not a genius like Ezra Klein, but it seems to me that Congressional bodies are large for the specific reason that they must move slowly, and to check the rash behavior of the Executive Branch.
Nor do I understand what exactly he wanted Congress to do? Quickly pass a law enabling the Federal Reserve to act? That would have slowed things, obviously, but what is not obvious to me is in absence of a filibuster, exactly what would Congress have been able to swiftly do??
Once again, I am not a genius like Ezra Klein.
_
Friday, 7 August 2009
I've avoided the health care debate because I mostly think it is complex, hard to understand, extremely politically biased and most of the "experts" I hear are lying through their teeth because of their side's agenda. Frankly, it's been hard for me to form an opinion, much less a strong enough one that I needed to publically proclaim it here on the blogosphere.
But when I read Dean Kamen's interview from the upcoming Popular Mechanics issue, I had to chuckle, because for me he nailed it:
He goes on to suggest that a nationalized health care system is fraught with one especial danger: it will deincentivize innovation. If there is no (or less) private channels for profit, then there is less incentive for genius innovators to develop new drugs that would make them rich:
The problem he is driving at, I would submit, is that in the health care industry, and actually in all "cutting-edge" technology industries, socialism drives directly against innovation. Socialized health care may seem to enable larger numbers of people access to basic healthcare, but in fact by doing so, it removes the interest for private companies to develop expensive, novel solutions that are initially only affordable to the wealthy.
Let me put it this way: if I develop a powered suit that enables people to have super strength, but it costs 1 billion dollars a piece, then only a tiny handful of people will be able to afford it. But those people's money will provide the profit incentive I need to develop the suit in the first place. Then, seven years after I invent my suit, the patent runs out and 50 companies make cheaper versions of the suit that almost everyone can afford. This is how healthcare works now.
In a socialized health care system, the government would tell me that I had to sell my suit at a price everyone could afford. Because of this, I would either build a pathetic, unimaginative powered suit, or not bother designing the suit at all.
In this scenario, everyone gets access to the existing powered suit technologies, but future technology development has been impeded by "equality."
Kamen puts it this in health care terms:
Remember when the HIV cocktail was 15 grand a month? Now it's on the order of $350...that's 42 times cheaper.
Look, the bottom line is this: although from an ethical standpoint, universal health care may be a great idea. From a cost standpoint, I can imagine that universal health care might be a great idea. But from a health standpoint, any sort of government run health care program will inevitably decrease the quality of care for patients in this country.
"But TAE, socialized health care works great in Europe and Canada!" says the educated dissenter. To which I humbly submit that the FDA does a way better job of safeguarding us from dangerous drugs than its European counterpart. American doctors, as I understand it, are better trained (oh and they get paid a lot more) than their European conterparts. The cost of the U.S. health care system in part is due to the expensive costs of innovation but most major medical innovations since 1920 have been discovered in the United States where privatized health care has boldly lingered on. And in this case, I believe correlation is causation.
_
But when I read Dean Kamen's interview from the upcoming Popular Mechanics issue, I had to chuckle, because for me he nailed it:
Well, I mean the whole supposition that "We have a crisis in healthcare." Our healthcare system has seen some of the greatest achievements of the human intellect since we started recording history: We're developing incredible devices and implantables to improve the quantity and quality of people's lives. We're developing pharmaceuticals that alleviate the need for surgery and eliminate the volatile effects of diseases. We're making the surgeries that are necessary ever less invasive. You can get a stent through your femoral artery all the way up into your heart and fix a blockage without surgery. I'd say, if we have a crisis, it's the embarrassment of riches. Nobody wants to deal with the fact that we're no longer in a world where you can simply give everybody all the healthcare that is available.
Each side of this debate has created the boogieman and monsters, like "We don't want let this program to come into existence because that will mean rationing." Well, I hate to tell you the news but as soon as medicine started being able to do incredible things that are very expensive, we started rationing. The reason 100 years ago everyone could afford their healthcare is because "healthcare" was a doctor giving you some elixir and telling you you'll be fine. And if it was a cold you would be fine. And if it turns out it was consumption; it was tuberculosis; it was lung cancer—you could still sit there. He'd give you some sympathy, and you'd die. Either way, it's pretty cheap.
We now live in a world where technology has triumphed, in many ways, over death. The problem with that is that it's enormously expensive. And big pharmaceutical giants and big medical products companies have stopped working on stuff that could be extraordinary because they know they won't be reimbursed, according to the common standards. We're not only rationing today; we're rationing our future.
He goes on to suggest that a nationalized health care system is fraught with one especial danger: it will deincentivize innovation. If there is no (or less) private channels for profit, then there is less incentive for genius innovators to develop new drugs that would make them rich:
Whatever the marketplace, if talented people are given resources they're going to keep driving us to having better, simpler, cheaper solutions to problems. And, by the way, if they come up with a better solution but it can't be cheaper—which, in the beginning, most things aren't—nobody says you have to buy it. If you think this new drug is too expensive, it's not a good deal, we have a crisis, buy the old one. It's a generic now. It's cheap.
You can't look at the problem and say, "I want them to do more, better, faster miracles—and not invest in research, not invest in development, and have those miracles delivered to me free." It's unrealistic. And people know that about most things. They do. Nobody expects that just because they've made computers better they're going to give them to you free.
The problem he is driving at, I would submit, is that in the health care industry, and actually in all "cutting-edge" technology industries, socialism drives directly against innovation. Socialized health care may seem to enable larger numbers of people access to basic healthcare, but in fact by doing so, it removes the interest for private companies to develop expensive, novel solutions that are initially only affordable to the wealthy.
Let me put it this way: if I develop a powered suit that enables people to have super strength, but it costs 1 billion dollars a piece, then only a tiny handful of people will be able to afford it. But those people's money will provide the profit incentive I need to develop the suit in the first place. Then, seven years after I invent my suit, the patent runs out and 50 companies make cheaper versions of the suit that almost everyone can afford. This is how healthcare works now.
In a socialized health care system, the government would tell me that I had to sell my suit at a price everyone could afford. Because of this, I would either build a pathetic, unimaginative powered suit, or not bother designing the suit at all.
In this scenario, everyone gets access to the existing powered suit technologies, but future technology development has been impeded by "equality."
Kamen puts it this in health care terms:
Every drug that's made is a gift from one generation to the next because, while it may be expensive now, it goes off patent and your kids will have it essentially for free.
Remember when the HIV cocktail was 15 grand a month? Now it's on the order of $350...that's 42 times cheaper.
Look, the bottom line is this: although from an ethical standpoint, universal health care may be a great idea. From a cost standpoint, I can imagine that universal health care might be a great idea. But from a health standpoint, any sort of government run health care program will inevitably decrease the quality of care for patients in this country.
"But TAE, socialized health care works great in Europe and Canada!" says the educated dissenter. To which I humbly submit that the FDA does a way better job of safeguarding us from dangerous drugs than its European counterpart. American doctors, as I understand it, are better trained (oh and they get paid a lot more) than their European conterparts. The cost of the U.S. health care system in part is due to the expensive costs of innovation but most major medical innovations since 1920 have been discovered in the United States where privatized health care has boldly lingered on. And in this case, I believe correlation is causation.
_
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Last night I joked to Mrs. TAE that I need a best friend, and fast. Mrs. TAE is going out of town next week for a few days, and I'll be left alone to my own vices devices. Although I will spend most of her absence priming the apartment in preparation for her move, I am going to take a little personal time and go fishing, overnight, Friday and/or Saturday. Sitting alone on the side of a lake all night, possibly not catching fish is a lot more fun when you have a buddy with you and you aren't alone. So I joked to Mrs. TAE that I should just send a company wide email out to everyone at work looking for a fishing buddy:
However Mrs. TAE suggested that might not be the most effective way to make a catfishing buddy.
So I rethought it:
But what it all really boils down to is this:
_
To: Everyone
Hi, it's me. I need a friend, right away. Must be male, like getting dirty, and enjoy sitting out all night with me catching catfish.
-TAE
However Mrs. TAE suggested that might not be the most effective way to make a catfishing buddy.
So I rethought it:
To: Everyone
Hi, its me. I am looking for a fishing buddy. Must like catfishing, and consider bass and crappie fishing monotonous and inferior. Must like to drink beer and talk about "life." Must be available for overnight fishing trips to nearby Corps reservoirs. Must not be jealous of the length of my pole. Must find that joke funny. Must offer your own jokes about "poles" that are tacky, but delightful. Must have a wife or girlfriend that takes up most of your time so you don't annoy me with being constantly bored and inviting me to do stuff when you know I'm busy with my wife and kid. Must be good at fishing, but not quite as good as me.
-TAE
But what it all really boils down to is this:
To: Everyone
Hi, it's me. I'm looking for a clone of myself to fish with next weekend. Can anyone produce and adult clone of me by next weekend?
-TAE
_
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Apparently Congress has enacted a law that books printed before 1985 are unsafe, and therefore illegal. That's right. Congress has banned books.
But not all books, just the old ones. So that makes it okay, right?
(via Megan)
_
But not all books, just the old ones. So that makes it okay, right?
(via Megan)
_
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Here, it is revealed that DARPA, aka the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is building a quarter-scale test model of a submarine capable of traveling at 100 knots (115 mph). That's fast.
The method by which it does this is it creates a bubble of air around itself and travels through the air bubble, with much lower drag. I'm oversimplifying it, to be sure.
Nevertheless, I had to ask: how long until we build a "warp bubble" and travel inside it at faster than the speed of light?
_
The method by which it does this is it creates a bubble of air around itself and travels through the air bubble, with much lower drag. I'm oversimplifying it, to be sure.
Nevertheless, I had to ask: how long until we build a "warp bubble" and travel inside it at faster than the speed of light?
_
Monday, 3 August 2009
What are we going to do about obesity in this country? Diabetes is skyrocketing, even amongst my young generation, heart issues related to high blood pressure and cholesterol are also rising at an alarming rate.
There's no point enumerating the problem here, we've all seen (or personally experienced) obesity everywhere in America. Apparently even in third world countries, obesity is rising. Who is to blame?
Well, unfortunately, I'd have to say that the engineers are to blame.
Since the 50's, engineers have destroyed every single piece of hard effort a person had to do. We designed lawnmowers with combustion engines strapped to them, then went one better and added a seat, so you could sit on your rapidly growing behind and drink iced tea while you mowed.
We got rid of saws and introducted "chainsaws", got rid of axes and introduced log-splitters, got rid of washbasins and introduced dishwashing machines. We got rid of clotheslines and introduced electric and gas dryers. And why sweat when you are at work, at your crummy 9-to-5? We engineers introduced central air conditioning, central heating, boilers, chillers, cooling towers, and a myriad of small, personal air conditioning systems to keep you at 70 degrees, year round. To hell with discomfort! To hell with burning calories keeping your body temperature up in winter!
We then turned on the food industry, and designed massive farm implements. A manual "picker" was quickly replaced by the 2-row, then 4-row, and now up to 12-row combine that shucks the corn, strips the kernels from the ear (or not), places them in a hopper, and shreds the corn plant to better enable mulching during the winter. Let me put it this way: beans are no longer planted they are "drilled." We invented larger and larger planters, fertilizer sprayers, bigger buildings for raising hogs and chickens, better trailers for hauling cattle to market, bigger railcars for transporting all those beeves, and designed huge assembly-line plants to trim and process that meat into the delicious, fatty foods you enjoy today.
All this engineering managed to drive the price of food down, down, DOWN to never-before-seen levels of cheapness. In a generation, the family farm was gone, replaced with corporate farms that produced millions of bushels of grains, thousands of heads of cattle and pigs, and over a million chickens a piece.
And the restaurants responded in kind: thanks to the cheap food, they could now increase portion size. They could throw huge amounts of sugar and oil into their dishes, not only because it made the food taste irresistible, but also because sugar and oil were cheaper (literally) than dirt.
But all that food meant that engineers had to design new materials for take-out boxes, new industrial washers for all those dirty plates, and new industrial ovens and fryers for all those massive portions of food!
Oh engineers have been busy making us fat!
Let's not forget, however, the cadre of engineers designing biomedical devices to prolong our sickly lives! Need a quintuple bypass? No problem! Engineers have developed arthroscopic surgery devices to minimize the incision size. They've designed better, dissolving sutures that need not be removed. They've designed new implants, with new materials and shapes, so that when your fat body destroys your knees and hips, they can just be replaced! Has all that sugar rotted your teeth? No proble, as engineers have designed new drills for root canals, and new materials to fill the holes in your teeth. New filing and glue materials so rugged, in fact, that they will still exist after your body and bones have turned to dust. To think, all that will remain of you in a thousand years will be your fillings (and a pacemaker and titanium hip and polyethylene knee).
Anyways, before we all go give fast food companies, or high-fructose corn syrup manufacturers, or restaurant portion size, or even our cultural compulsion to eat all the credit for our global obesity problem, please:
Give engineers some of the credit too.
_
There's no point enumerating the problem here, we've all seen (or personally experienced) obesity everywhere in America. Apparently even in third world countries, obesity is rising. Who is to blame?
Well, unfortunately, I'd have to say that the engineers are to blame.
Since the 50's, engineers have destroyed every single piece of hard effort a person had to do. We designed lawnmowers with combustion engines strapped to them, then went one better and added a seat, so you could sit on your rapidly growing behind and drink iced tea while you mowed.
We got rid of saws and introducted "chainsaws", got rid of axes and introduced log-splitters, got rid of washbasins and introduced dishwashing machines. We got rid of clotheslines and introduced electric and gas dryers. And why sweat when you are at work, at your crummy 9-to-5? We engineers introduced central air conditioning, central heating, boilers, chillers, cooling towers, and a myriad of small, personal air conditioning systems to keep you at 70 degrees, year round. To hell with discomfort! To hell with burning calories keeping your body temperature up in winter!
We then turned on the food industry, and designed massive farm implements. A manual "picker" was quickly replaced by the 2-row, then 4-row, and now up to 12-row combine that shucks the corn, strips the kernels from the ear (or not), places them in a hopper, and shreds the corn plant to better enable mulching during the winter. Let me put it this way: beans are no longer planted they are "drilled." We invented larger and larger planters, fertilizer sprayers, bigger buildings for raising hogs and chickens, better trailers for hauling cattle to market, bigger railcars for transporting all those beeves, and designed huge assembly-line plants to trim and process that meat into the delicious, fatty foods you enjoy today.
All this engineering managed to drive the price of food down, down, DOWN to never-before-seen levels of cheapness. In a generation, the family farm was gone, replaced with corporate farms that produced millions of bushels of grains, thousands of heads of cattle and pigs, and over a million chickens a piece.
And the restaurants responded in kind: thanks to the cheap food, they could now increase portion size. They could throw huge amounts of sugar and oil into their dishes, not only because it made the food taste irresistible, but also because sugar and oil were cheaper (literally) than dirt.
But all that food meant that engineers had to design new materials for take-out boxes, new industrial washers for all those dirty plates, and new industrial ovens and fryers for all those massive portions of food!
Oh engineers have been busy making us fat!
Let's not forget, however, the cadre of engineers designing biomedical devices to prolong our sickly lives! Need a quintuple bypass? No problem! Engineers have developed arthroscopic surgery devices to minimize the incision size. They've designed better, dissolving sutures that need not be removed. They've designed new implants, with new materials and shapes, so that when your fat body destroys your knees and hips, they can just be replaced! Has all that sugar rotted your teeth? No proble, as engineers have designed new drills for root canals, and new materials to fill the holes in your teeth. New filing and glue materials so rugged, in fact, that they will still exist after your body and bones have turned to dust. To think, all that will remain of you in a thousand years will be your fillings (and a pacemaker and titanium hip and polyethylene knee).
Anyways, before we all go give fast food companies, or high-fructose corn syrup manufacturers, or restaurant portion size, or even our cultural compulsion to eat all the credit for our global obesity problem, please:
Give engineers some of the credit too.
_
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Regular readers know that my pet "government waste poster-child" is NASA's 600 million dollar toilet that doesn't work. During the latest shuttle voyage to the International Space Station (ISS) it turns out that this lovely, wonderful invention "flooded."
Oh what a glorious day in TAE's lovely life.
You see, part of the problem with the ISS is they want to stop shipping gallons and gallons of water up to it every time they visit. So they devised this elaborate water recycling system at the tune of $150 million, which upon installation, promptly broke, was fixed, and broke again. During this plumbing crisis, TAE enumerated his own daring strategy to build a water recycler at the horrible cost of 150 dollars. I suggested the design, and even offered NASA a working model for a mere $1 million dollars (an inconsequential sum when faced with NASA's hemorrhaging budget).
Now it is revealed that one of the ISS residents wore a pair of "super undies" for 30 days to test the new underwear's antibacterial abilities, smell-hiding abilities, and comfortabilities.
It is my humble suggestion that NASA, having been inspired by one of their very own ex-astronauts insane road-trip across America while wearing a diaper, have decided to scrap their $600 million dollar, semi-functional toilet and just have the astronauts wear diapers in space.
It is TAE's dream that one day he will be put in charge of NASA, in which case we'll have colonists en route to Mars in two months, and a permanent colony built there in under three years. And TAE can all but guarantee the toilets on Mars will be cheap. But sadly, I highly doubt it.
_
Oh what a glorious day in TAE's lovely life.
You see, part of the problem with the ISS is they want to stop shipping gallons and gallons of water up to it every time they visit. So they devised this elaborate water recycling system at the tune of $150 million, which upon installation, promptly broke, was fixed, and broke again. During this plumbing crisis, TAE enumerated his own daring strategy to build a water recycler at the horrible cost of 150 dollars. I suggested the design, and even offered NASA a working model for a mere $1 million dollars (an inconsequential sum when faced with NASA's hemorrhaging budget).
Now it is revealed that one of the ISS residents wore a pair of "super undies" for 30 days to test the new underwear's antibacterial abilities, smell-hiding abilities, and comfortabilities.
It is my humble suggestion that NASA, having been inspired by one of their very own ex-astronauts insane road-trip across America while wearing a diaper, have decided to scrap their $600 million dollar, semi-functional toilet and just have the astronauts wear diapers in space.
It is TAE's dream that one day he will be put in charge of NASA, in which case we'll have colonists en route to Mars in two months, and a permanent colony built there in under three years. And TAE can all but guarantee the toilets on Mars will be cheap. But sadly, I highly doubt it.
_
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)