colliething
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Colliething woes
Pete the colliething has had some difficult-to-quantify problems with balance and strangth lately. About a week ago we noticed what we hoped was a tooth abcess, but which turned out to be a mass, on his jaw. The mass was just biopsied as a 'malignant melanoma' (I still have to find out if there is such thing as a non-malignant melanoma). Surgery to remove the mass left him much more balanced and generally better off, and it doesn't seem as if it had spread to the lymph nodes nearby yet, but we are now in the exploring-options phase. A wonderful friend who has been through the cancer thing with several dogs got me in touch with a canine oncologist, who provided lots of information for us to stew over this weekend before we have a chance to set up a formal consultation. I am out of town all weekend, so that makes it worse somehow. This picture is very recent; from just a few evenings ago.
¶ 2:29 PM 0 Comments
Links to this post
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Iran vote in the senate
[CCing Bill Redpath and Shane Cory because I know they adore getting
my suggestions for the LP :) ]
my suggestions for the LP :) ]
A potent and important issue for a statement from the LP is the vote
in the Senate to declare part of the Iranian army a terrorist
organization, AND the vote in House to step up sanctions against Iran.
Bad on so many fronts, but the two most obvious ones are:
1) The senate vote is saber-rattling at its worst, and lays the
groundwork for military intervention at which the Democrats can again
pretend surprise after their complicitous behavior. Those asses are
doing nothing more than jumping on the anti-brownpeople bandwagon, in
the service of Big Oil!
2) Sanctions. Yes, punishing our *own* merchants and the poor of Iran
and propping up dictators overseas by giving a convenient target for
them to point to for their own economic mismanagement has worked so
well in the past... in Cuba, for instance.
For my radical friends who agree these votes are important and should
be addressed by the Party leadership, I urge you to add your pleas to
mine for action to Bill Redpath and Shane Cory. Send them an email
urging them to issue a fast and powerful statement on one or both of
these votes.
- Susan Hogarth
¶ 5:38 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Spider!
Finally - a new spider pic for the Spiderblog. I ran across this guy at a recent shooting party.
¶ 5:17 AM 0 Comments
Links to this post
Finally - a new spider pic for the Spiderblog. I ran across this guy at a recent shooting party.
Mill in late summer
Last weekend was another opportunity to break something at the mil;. Amazingly, I did OK and didn't slip any drive belts or burn any stones. However, the water and the wheat supply were so low I probably ground about enough for one loaf of bread. And wheat is a PITA to grind - dusty as hell. Nothing like the beautiful cornmeal I ground a few weeks ago. But I got some great pictures :)
¶ 5:09 AM 0 Comments
Links to this post
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Bison!
Monday, September 24, 2007
blabberwocky
The wonkiness of some Libertarians is simply amazing. On a list created to (ostensibly) discuss the Party's platform, one fellow with more thesaurus than brains writes with a perfect assurance which makes me wonder if Wikipedia is, after all, an unalloyed Good Thing:
Our situation can also be discussed in terms of the people of this country being stuck in a sub-optimal Nash-Cournot equilibrium, in which the typical individual cannot get better outcomes only by changing his own strategy unless others also change theirs. What we in the LP are, in effect, trying to do, is to persuade enough people to change their individual strategies so that we attain a Nash-Cournot equilibrium with a higher utility function value of the liberty component.
Oh, well; since he's put it so clearly, naturally I have to agree!
Actually, as far as I can make out what he's jawing about, it's simply a particularly uninspired description of the human condition: You can only change yourself, not those around you. Well. At the risk of seeming crude: Duh.
This bogus erudition turns out to be the soporific prelude to this warmongering self-styled libertarian's defense of military (and perhaps non-military) interventionism:
The LP will never gain this popular support, so long as it repels about one half of potential libertarians. Liberty theory is distorted by addition of anti-interventionism. The LP must welcome both wings if it is to triangulate and gain any kind of leverage.
This means, the platform must not prohibit US military actions abroad or on US soil.
I love it. The LP must embrace interventionism to 'triangulate' - whatever that is supposed to mean. But it gets better:
Do not think that anti-interventionists will be satisfied will merely trying to prohibit foreign intervention.
The same logic (to the extent that it is based on liberty theory) would apply equally to domestic intervention.
To which I say (setting aside the confusing term 'liberty theory'): Damn Right!
This is rich: Here is a so-called libertarian defending foreign intervention on the grounds that if we admit that it's wrong for the US government to bully/murder foreigners, it's wrong for the US government to bully/murder Americans. And we can't have that sort of dangerous thinking in the Libertarian Party. Next thing you know, people will be saying dangerous things such as government is the problem, not the solution. Horrors!
¶ 8:54 AM 5 Comments Links to this post
Our situation can also be discussed in terms of the people of this country being stuck in a sub-optimal Nash-Cournot equilibrium, in which the typical individual cannot get better outcomes only by changing his own strategy unless others also change theirs. What we in the LP are, in effect, trying to do, is to persuade enough people to change their individual strategies so that we attain a Nash-Cournot equilibrium with a higher utility function value of the liberty component.
Oh, well; since he's put it so clearly, naturally I have to agree!
Actually, as far as I can make out what he's jawing about, it's simply a particularly uninspired description of the human condition: You can only change yourself, not those around you. Well. At the risk of seeming crude: Duh.
This bogus erudition turns out to be the soporific prelude to this warmongering self-styled libertarian's defense of military (and perhaps non-military) interventionism:
The LP will never gain this popular support, so long as it repels about one half of potential libertarians. Liberty theory is distorted by addition of anti-interventionism. The LP must welcome both wings if it is to triangulate and gain any kind of leverage.
This means, the platform must not prohibit US military actions abroad or on US soil.
I love it. The LP must embrace interventionism to 'triangulate' - whatever that is supposed to mean. But it gets better:
Do not think that anti-interventionists will be satisfied will merely trying to prohibit foreign intervention.
The same logic (to the extent that it is based on liberty theory) would apply equally to domestic intervention.
To which I say (setting aside the confusing term 'liberty theory'): Damn Right!
This is rich: Here is a so-called libertarian defending foreign intervention on the grounds that if we admit that it's wrong for the US government to bully/murder foreigners, it's wrong for the US government to bully/murder Americans. And we can't have that sort of dangerous thinking in the Libertarian Party. Next thing you know, people will be saying dangerous things such as government is the problem, not the solution. Horrors!
¶ 8:54 AM 5 Comments Links to this post
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Creepy
Looking for quotes about ballots, I came across this:
When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against them. It's a remarkably shrewd and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Why am I not surprised at the author of this quote?
¶ 9:09 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against them. It's a remarkably shrewd and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Why am I not surprised at the author of this quote?
¶ 9:09 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Friday, September 21, 2007
"When ideas start to matter, libertarians will win."
When ideas start to matter, libertarians will win.
That's the concluding line of a piece written by Koen Swinkels about Ron Paul's candidacy:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swinkels1.html
It captures something I've tried to put into words before by saying that elections are a lagging, not leading, indicator of public opinion. By this I mean that the winning of an election should be viewed not primarily as a means of getting power, but as an indication that people are already on our side. This explains my concern with the current Libertarian Party leadership's emphasis on winning elections - I feel that it is in large part an instance of putting the cart before the horse.
I think that in two significant ways the attempt to copy the electoral strategy of the power parties (DP and RP) is a mistake.
First, in an ideological sense, such an emphasis on achieving electoral success without ideological acceptance makes sense only if your goal is to use other people to get what you desire - in our case that would be freedom. However, the very nature of libertarianism is the desire to convince others that you should each be free to pursue your desires independently. The idea that any meaningful reform (or deconstruction, if you will) of the deeply flawed state we have now can be accomplished by a few people voted into place without understanding by those who still see the state as father-protector and mother-provider is a terrible mistake. Our task is to enlist others in our cause and to persuade them to view it as their own cause. And our cause is not the lowering of a certain class of taxes, or doing away with a particular government agency! It is nothing less than the freeing of individuals to pursue their lives and enrich their communities in peace and freedom.
Second, in a strictly practical sense, American politics is not so constructed that an ideological party can capture the segment of the voter population which is most closely ideologically aligned with it. Instead, the system here encourages the vast majority of voters to adopt the 'lesser of two evils' approach - and this will not change simply by having the LP shift a few ideological-points in one direction or another (vaguely 'rightward' seems to be the trend right now, though that can always change). The best chance such a strategy has of working is that the LP assumes the largely non-ideological place of one of the existent power parties. And how would this make things better?
I am not here saying that participating in elections is a bad thing. There are many advantages to Libertarians participating in the electoral system as an ideological party - this is why so many anti-state activists have joined and stay active with the LP. It is, in my opinion, the reason the LP continues to function at a reasonably high level for an ideological party in America even after 35 years. My point is that our focus as a political party cannot be the same focus that the DP and RP have, because we do not want the same thing they want. Libertarians want Americans to agree that individual freedom is the answer, not that particular Libertarians will enact or implement any particular five-year-plan for liberty. Republicans and Democrats want, fundamentally, to rule others. Libertarians want, fundamentally, to be left to rule themselves. The way this will happen is when a significant number of our neighbors both understand and share this desire. Kindling and cultivating understanding of and desire for freedom should therefore be our first task. We should not whine that 35 years have passed and things have, in many ways, grown worse. This was, after all, precisely the situation in the decade before the first American revolution.
The Libertarian Party should engage vigorously in electoral politics. We should strive at the national level to obtain and keep 50-state ballot access. Our local parties should educate, recruit, train, and support strong principled libertarian candidates (take note the order of operations I suggest). In my vision, Libertarian candidates who win - and they will win - will be members of their communities who are respected personally and for their commitment to principle and to freedom - not for their ability to make deals or bring back pork to the district. These Libertarian office-holders will be enthusiastic supporters of an uncompromising vision of freedom which will further educate and attract the neighbors. Their job will not be to 'enact' freedom (a confused idea!) but instead to kindle the desire for it and understanding of it so strongly that the power-party politicians are forced to compromise in an (ultimately vain) attempt to continue in office themselves.
When Libertarians start winning elections in large numbers, it will be either because they have assumed the traditional roles of power politicians - and then what will we have achieved? - or because those around them in their communities have heard their message of peace and freedom and have embraced it as their own heartfelt desire. As Swinkels wrote: "When ideas start to matter, libertarians will win." I agree wholeheartedly. I only hope that the Libertarian Party will continue to be the natural home of those libertarians as Americans turn their thoughts and aspirations once more to freedom from oppression here at home.
¶ 9:28 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
That's the concluding line of a piece written by Koen Swinkels about Ron Paul's candidacy:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swinkels1.html
It captures something I've tried to put into words before by saying that elections are a lagging, not leading, indicator of public opinion. By this I mean that the winning of an election should be viewed not primarily as a means of getting power, but as an indication that people are already on our side. This explains my concern with the current Libertarian Party leadership's emphasis on winning elections - I feel that it is in large part an instance of putting the cart before the horse.
I think that in two significant ways the attempt to copy the electoral strategy of the power parties (DP and RP) is a mistake.
First, in an ideological sense, such an emphasis on achieving electoral success without ideological acceptance makes sense only if your goal is to use other people to get what you desire - in our case that would be freedom. However, the very nature of libertarianism is the desire to convince others that you should each be free to pursue your desires independently. The idea that any meaningful reform (or deconstruction, if you will) of the deeply flawed state we have now can be accomplished by a few people voted into place without understanding by those who still see the state as father-protector and mother-provider is a terrible mistake. Our task is to enlist others in our cause and to persuade them to view it as their own cause. And our cause is not the lowering of a certain class of taxes, or doing away with a particular government agency! It is nothing less than the freeing of individuals to pursue their lives and enrich their communities in peace and freedom.
Second, in a strictly practical sense, American politics is not so constructed that an ideological party can capture the segment of the voter population which is most closely ideologically aligned with it. Instead, the system here encourages the vast majority of voters to adopt the 'lesser of two evils' approach - and this will not change simply by having the LP shift a few ideological-points in one direction or another (vaguely 'rightward' seems to be the trend right now, though that can always change). The best chance such a strategy has of working is that the LP assumes the largely non-ideological place of one of the existent power parties. And how would this make things better?
I am not here saying that participating in elections is a bad thing. There are many advantages to Libertarians participating in the electoral system as an ideological party - this is why so many anti-state activists have joined and stay active with the LP. It is, in my opinion, the reason the LP continues to function at a reasonably high level for an ideological party in America even after 35 years. My point is that our focus as a political party cannot be the same focus that the DP and RP have, because we do not want the same thing they want. Libertarians want Americans to agree that individual freedom is the answer, not that particular Libertarians will enact or implement any particular five-year-plan for liberty. Republicans and Democrats want, fundamentally, to rule others. Libertarians want, fundamentally, to be left to rule themselves. The way this will happen is when a significant number of our neighbors both understand and share this desire. Kindling and cultivating understanding of and desire for freedom should therefore be our first task. We should not whine that 35 years have passed and things have, in many ways, grown worse. This was, after all, precisely the situation in the decade before the first American revolution.
The Libertarian Party should engage vigorously in electoral politics. We should strive at the national level to obtain and keep 50-state ballot access. Our local parties should educate, recruit, train, and support strong principled libertarian candidates (take note the order of operations I suggest). In my vision, Libertarian candidates who win - and they will win - will be members of their communities who are respected personally and for their commitment to principle and to freedom - not for their ability to make deals or bring back pork to the district. These Libertarian office-holders will be enthusiastic supporters of an uncompromising vision of freedom which will further educate and attract the neighbors. Their job will not be to 'enact' freedom (a confused idea!) but instead to kindle the desire for it and understanding of it so strongly that the power-party politicians are forced to compromise in an (ultimately vain) attempt to continue in office themselves.
When Libertarians start winning elections in large numbers, it will be either because they have assumed the traditional roles of power politicians - and then what will we have achieved? - or because those around them in their communities have heard their message of peace and freedom and have embraced it as their own heartfelt desire. As Swinkels wrote: "When ideas start to matter, libertarians will win." I agree wholeheartedly. I only hope that the Libertarian Party will continue to be the natural home of those libertarians as Americans turn their thoughts and aspirations once more to freedom from oppression here at home.
¶ 9:28 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Interventionism
Someone once described foreign aid as the transfer of wealth from the
poor people of a rich nation to the rich people of a poor nation.
poor people of a rich nation to the rich people of a poor nation.
My corollary: Military intervention is the transfer of blood and
wealth from the powerless people of a powerful nation to the powerful
people of a powerless nation.
And, to be perfectly clear - "powerful people" = dictators
¶ 5:09 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
AI: Will it eat us or keep us as pets?
Will Super Smart Artificial Intelligences Keep Humans Around As Pets?
- And other questions from the Singularity Summit
Ronald Bailey | September 11, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO—By 2030, or by 2050 at the latest, will a super-smart artificial intelligence decide to keep humans around as pets? Will it instead choose to turn the entire Earth, including the messy organic bits like us, into computronium? Or is there a third alternative?
These were some of the questions pondered by the 600 or so technosavants meeting in the Palace of Fine Arts at the second annual Singularity Summit this past weekend. The meeting was convened by the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. The Institute's chief goal is to make sure that whatever smarter-than-human artificial intelligence is eventually spawned by exponentially accelerating information technology that it will be friendly to humans.
[full story at http://reason.com/news/show/122423.html ]
I liked this bit especially:
Hall suggested that instead of fixed moral rules (which a super smart AI with access to its own source code could change later anyway) progenitors should try to inculcate something like a conscience into the AIs they foster. A conscience allows humans to extend and apply moral rules flexibly in new and different contexts. One rule of thumb that Hall would like to see implemented in AIs is: " Ideas should compete; bodies should cooperate."
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com
¶ 5:13 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
- And other questions from the Singularity Summit
Ronald Bailey | September 11, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO—By 2030, or by 2050 at the latest, will a super-smart artificial intelligence decide to keep humans around as pets? Will it instead choose to turn the entire Earth, including the messy organic bits like us, into computronium? Or is there a third alternative?
These were some of the questions pondered by the 600 or so technosavants meeting in the Palace of Fine Arts at the second annual Singularity Summit this past weekend. The meeting was convened by the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. The Institute's chief goal is to make sure that whatever smarter-than-human artificial intelligence is eventually spawned by exponentially accelerating information technology that it will be friendly to humans.
[full story at http://reason.com/news/show/122423.html ]
I liked this bit especially:
Hall suggested that instead of fixed moral rules (which a super smart AI with access to its own source code could change later anyway) progenitors should try to inculcate something like a conscience into the AIs they foster. A conscience allows humans to extend and apply moral rules flexibly in new and different contexts. One rule of thumb that Hall would like to see implemented in AIs is: " Ideas should compete; bodies should cooperate."
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com
¶ 5:13 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
The Elephant in the Room
[open letter to my fellow LP activists]
The WAR
Or, perhaps I should say, the WARS; wars and occupations of the US government (not 'us', the American people, but the US government).
This is the elephant in the room that we in the Libertarian Party are ignoring. Why is our leadership so silent about US Government Imperialism?
The Libertarian Party is developing a dangerous reputation as a pro-war party because of our (the LP's) perceived weak stands against US military interventionism, empire-building, 'nation-building' (which is nothing more than code for people-destroying), and shameless mercantilism.
A short list of hotspots:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iran
Korea
The LP's stand on interventionism is classically, radically libertarian: DON'T. But through weak leadership in this area, we are allowing ourselves to be painted as weak on the wars or even pro-war (this is especially the case with Afghanistan). This weakens the Libertarian Party by driving off libertarians, but even more importantly it weakens the entire antiwar movement, the movement of resistance to US government aggression at home and abroad (we all know that war is the health of the state). It also deprives libertarians of the chance to work actively, shoulder-to-shoulder, with antiwar activists on the left, which is our best chance to demonstrate what freedom really means to those who may still be in the dark.
War and US government imperialism is perhaps the defining issue - and certainly a defining issue - of this decade, and perhaps of this generation. We have allowed ourselves to linger at the antiwar station while a large coalition of socialists boards the train without us. Why? Are we pro-war? I cannot beleive it. I know the mass of Libertarians are, indeed, libertarian - opposed to foreign adventurism and interventionism of all sorts - economic and military, although of course the latter almost always follows the former in the course of things.
What can rank-and-file Party members and activists do about this elephant in our room?
We need to pressure our leadership - our elected officers, our elected LNC representatives, and our local and state parties, to take bold and decisive action to get the LP aboard the antiwar train. Specifically, we need to:
Libertarian Party activists should take action immediately (actually, several years ago) to preserve the LP as a radical anti-empire political party and - more importantly - start the LP down the path of assuming a true leadership role in the antiwar movement. This pressure needs to come from within the Party. The unfortunate stand on Afghanistan and lack of strong stands against the Iraq war have driven off many antiwar libertarians. I hope they come back, and join us in turning the Party around! But we cannot afford to lose more antiwar activists because that will weaken the Party, perhaps irreversibly.
Let us - the anti-interventionists - be the nucleus of change within the LP, as we work toward making the LP the nucleus of change in our country.
¶ 10:53 AM 1 Comments Links to this post
The WAR
Or, perhaps I should say, the WARS; wars and occupations of the US government (not 'us', the American people, but the US government).
This is the elephant in the room that we in the Libertarian Party are ignoring. Why is our leadership so silent about US Government Imperialism?
The Libertarian Party is developing a dangerous reputation as a pro-war party because of our (the LP's) perceived weak stands against US military interventionism, empire-building, 'nation-building' (which is nothing more than code for people-destroying), and shameless mercantilism.
A short list of hotspots:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iran
Korea
The LP's stand on interventionism is classically, radically libertarian: DON'T. But through weak leadership in this area, we are allowing ourselves to be painted as weak on the wars or even pro-war (this is especially the case with Afghanistan). This weakens the Libertarian Party by driving off libertarians, but even more importantly it weakens the entire antiwar movement, the movement of resistance to US government aggression at home and abroad (we all know that war is the health of the state). It also deprives libertarians of the chance to work actively, shoulder-to-shoulder, with antiwar activists on the left, which is our best chance to demonstrate what freedom really means to those who may still be in the dark.
War and US government imperialism is perhaps the defining issue - and certainly a defining issue - of this decade, and perhaps of this generation. We have allowed ourselves to linger at the antiwar station while a large coalition of socialists boards the train without us. Why? Are we pro-war? I cannot beleive it. I know the mass of Libertarians are, indeed, libertarian - opposed to foreign adventurism and interventionism of all sorts - economic and military, although of course the latter almost always follows the former in the course of things.
What can rank-and-file Party members and activists do about this elephant in our room?
We need to pressure our leadership - our elected officers, our elected LNC representatives, and our local and state parties, to take bold and decisive action to get the LP aboard the antiwar train. Specifically, we need to:
- Get our local LPs to pass antiwar resolutions.
- Get our state LPs to pass antiwar resolutions.
- Get the Libertarian National Committee to pass strong antiwar resolutions - not simply on Iraq, but on Iran and Afghanistan.
- Encourage - no, demand - LP leadership formulate policy positions at the LNC level - NOT through the issue of staff-written press releases or LP website blog entries.
- Demand of the LNC that the LP join antiwar coalitions and take a leadership role .
- Demand that the LP have an official presence at antiwar rallies.
Libertarian Party activists should take action immediately (actually, several years ago) to preserve the LP as a radical anti-empire political party and - more importantly - start the LP down the path of assuming a true leadership role in the antiwar movement. This pressure needs to come from within the Party. The unfortunate stand on Afghanistan and lack of strong stands against the Iraq war have driven off many antiwar libertarians. I hope they come back, and join us in turning the Party around! But we cannot afford to lose more antiwar activists because that will weaken the Party, perhaps irreversibly.
Let us - the anti-interventionists - be the nucleus of change within the LP, as we work toward making the LP the nucleus of change in our country.
¶ 10:53 AM 1 Comments Links to this post
Awesome description of a rooster
Thanks to Paul for passing this on to me:
Before the barn-door strutted the gallant cock, that pattern of a husband, a warrior, and a fine gentleman, clapping his burnished wings, and crowing in the pride and gladness of his heart--sometimes tearing up the earth with his feet, and then generously calling his ever-hungry family of wives and children to enjoy the rich morsel which he had discovered.
--Washington Irving, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow ¶ 10:03 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Before the barn-door strutted the gallant cock, that pattern of a husband, a warrior, and a fine gentleman, clapping his burnished wings, and crowing in the pride and gladness of his heart--sometimes tearing up the earth with his feet, and then generously calling his ever-hungry family of wives and children to enjoy the rich morsel which he had discovered.
--Washington Irving, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow ¶ 10:03 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Monday, September 10, 2007
Centering the egg yolk
Apparently I am not alone with this problem of uncentered egg yolks (see previous entry):
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5063071-description.html
The inventive method leads to a highly effective and optimal centering of the egg yolk. Tests have demonstrated that centering of the yolk occurs not only radially to the longitudinal axis of the egg but also along the longitudinal axis in such a manner that the egg yolk is centered so that at both ends of the egg, a liberal enclosure of the yolk with egg white is obtained.
The consistent results obtained with the present method are due to the fact that by turning the egg in opposite directions, the liquid egg white continuously flows around the egg yolk. During the cooking process, the egg white initially hardens adjacent the egg shell and progresses inwardly. Thus the space available for the white to pass around the yolk grows increasingly smaller as the egg white hardens so that the yolk must automatically migrate in the direction of the longitudinal axis as well along the axis to a point (i.e. the center) where the layer of egg white surrounding the yolk is uniform on all sides thereof.
¶ 1:31 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5063071-description.html
The inventive method leads to a highly effective and optimal centering of the egg yolk. Tests have demonstrated that centering of the yolk occurs not only radially to the longitudinal axis of the egg but also along the longitudinal axis in such a manner that the egg yolk is centered so that at both ends of the egg, a liberal enclosure of the yolk with egg white is obtained.
The consistent results obtained with the present method are due to the fact that by turning the egg in opposite directions, the liquid egg white continuously flows around the egg yolk. During the cooking process, the egg white initially hardens adjacent the egg shell and progresses inwardly. Thus the space available for the white to pass around the yolk grows increasingly smaller as the egg white hardens so that the yolk must automatically migrate in the direction of the longitudinal axis as well along the axis to a point (i.e. the center) where the layer of egg white surrounding the yolk is uniform on all sides thereof.
¶ 1:31 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
TANSTAAFL! Ha!
Robert Heinlein famously coined the term "TANSTAAFL" - There Ain't No
Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Robert Heinlein apparently never tried to pickle 5 dozen asymmetric
eggs half of whose yolks were so close to (or touching) the shell that
they are not usable for pickling.
Egg salad available!!!
I now have about 2-3 dozen eggs' worth of mashed egg. Some I've made
into egg salad already (using 'Miracle Whip', by specific request of
Bill), some is just crumbled up and waiting for deployment. I am
making a pilot test to see if the crumbled eggs can be frozen and used
after thawing; I suppose I should have also tried a test bit of the
finished egg salad (might try that tonight). Any wisdom on freezing
boiled eggs or egg salad?
Thursday, September 06, 2007
#%@% DMV! (corrected rant)
[Whoops. Hit 'send' prematurely on previous entry and cannot edit presently. Here's the full-fledged rant.]
I bounced a check to the DMV and rec'd a fairly annoying threat letter from them along with a tacked-on 33% penalty (though "Fair Tax" aficionados would call it 25% - from which the reader who is good with math should be able to deduce the original cost).
So there's this crazy line in the last paragraph after a threat to sic the Awesome Power of the State (i.e. the AG) on me (and yes, the whole letter is in ALL CAPS, as all good thug notes are):
IN ADDITION, THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY FUTURE SERVICES.
(Notice how they spell out 'DMV'? Nice touch. Asses!)
So, umm, I am just thinking to myself: How can I possibly work this 'no future services' deal?! (and I also wonder: Do people always think in italics?) I mean, seriously, who needs any SERVICE the DMV could possibly provide. Please! Cut me off! If only it were that simple. I wonder what would happen if I sent back a note saying "Thanks. Please discontinue all services as soon as possible and leave me in FUCKING PEACE, you soul-leeching bastards!" Think they'd leave me in peace? Hell, no! As an equally thugacious (but better armed) IRS moron told me a few weeks ago "We are required to provide you with this service." To which I can only reply most eloquently: ???!!?!?!???!!!???
The funny part (haha, I can't stop laughing) is that I really have no idea what particular 'service' this is for anyway. Why do they run such a pretense of business? Why not just send periodic threatening letters saying 'give us money!' and spare us the gobbledygook about 'services'? Hell, why not just get our bosses to send them our paychecks and they can send back what they think we 'deserve'.
Fuckers.
OK. Pottymouth attack over. Do you see what a decivilizing effect the state has on generally equable people?
¶ 10:08 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
I bounced a check to the DMV and rec'd a fairly annoying threat letter from them along with a tacked-on 33% penalty (though "Fair Tax" aficionados would call it 25% - from which the reader who is good with math should be able to deduce the original cost).
So there's this crazy line in the last paragraph after a threat to sic the Awesome Power of the State (i.e. the AG) on me (and yes, the whole letter is in ALL CAPS, as all good thug notes are):
IN ADDITION, THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY FUTURE SERVICES.
(Notice how they spell out 'DMV'? Nice touch. Asses!)
So, umm, I am just thinking to myself: How can I possibly work this 'no future services' deal?! (and I also wonder: Do people always think in italics?) I mean, seriously, who needs any SERVICE the DMV could possibly provide. Please! Cut me off! If only it were that simple. I wonder what would happen if I sent back a note saying "Thanks. Please discontinue all services as soon as possible and leave me in FUCKING PEACE, you soul-leeching bastards!" Think they'd leave me in peace? Hell, no! As an equally thugacious (but better armed) IRS moron told me a few weeks ago "We are required to provide you with this service." To which I can only reply most eloquently: ???!!?!?!???!!!???
The funny part (haha, I can't stop laughing) is that I really have no idea what particular 'service' this is for anyway. Why do they run such a pretense of business? Why not just send periodic threatening letters saying 'give us money!' and spare us the gobbledygook about 'services'? Hell, why not just get our bosses to send them our paychecks and they can send back what they think we 'deserve'.
Fuckers.
OK. Pottymouth attack over. Do you see what a decivilizing effect the state has on generally equable people?
¶ 10:08 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
@%$#$ DMV!!
I bounced a check to the DMV and rec'd a fairly annoying threat letter
from them along with a tacked-on 33% penalty (though "Fair Tax"
aficionados would call it 25% - from which the reader who is good with
math can deduce the original cost).
from them along with a tacked-on 33% penalty (though "Fair Tax"
aficionados would call it 25% - from which the reader who is good with
math can deduce the original cost).
So there's the crazy line in the last paragraph after a threat to sic
the AG 'Guido' on me (and yes, the whole letter is in ALL CAPS):
IN ADDITION, THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(Notice how they spell out 'DMV'? Nice touch. Asses!)
The funny part (haha, I can't stop laughing) is that I really have no
idea what particular 'service' this is for anyway. Why do they run
such a pretense of business? Why not just send periodic threatening
letters saying 'give us money!' and spare us the gobbledygook about
'services'? Hell, why not just get our bosses to send them our
paychecks and they can send back what they think we 'deserve'.
Fuckers.
¶ 9:50 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
dry up, coffee haters
Just got another mini-lecture from a co-worker about how 'coffee dehydrates'. Err, right. If that were true, I'd be dead, and this fellow apparently agrees (that I should be dead, that is):
http://ezinearticles.com/?Coffee-vs.-Water----Which-One-Actually-Gives-You-More-Energy?&id=297541
(this site is funny in a pathetic way. 'living water', indeed!)
The struggle between water and coffee is intensified further when you take into consideration that for each cup of coffee (100 mg caffeine) your body needs 3 cups of water to compensate for the water loss that occurs due to coffee's diuretic effect.
Struggle? Please. In any 'struggle between water and coffee', water would roll over and play dead. Which, really, it does. But anyway, from this, I should in theory, be dead and well dessicated, which of course I am neither.
For another (less hysterical) view:
http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2002/ja/caffdehydnbfi402.cfm
In a recent review article, "Caffeine, Body Fluid-Electrolyte Balance, and Exercise Performance," published in the June 2002 issue of the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism , researcher Lawrence E. Armstrong, a professor of exercise and environmental physiology at the University of Connecticut, found that caffeine is not the dehydrating demon some people believe. In fact, he concluded that caffeine is no more a diuretic than water.
¶ 3:15 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
http://ezinearticles.com/?Coffee-vs.-Water----Which-One-Actually-Gives-You-More-Energy?&id=297541
(this site is funny in a pathetic way. 'living water', indeed!)
The struggle between water and coffee is intensified further when you take into consideration that for each cup of coffee (100 mg caffeine) your body needs 3 cups of water to compensate for the water loss that occurs due to coffee's diuretic effect.
Struggle? Please. In any 'struggle between water and coffee', water would roll over and play dead. Which, really, it does. But anyway, from this, I should in theory, be dead and well dessicated, which of course I am neither.
For another (less hysterical) view:
http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2002/ja/caffdehydnbfi402.cfm
In a recent review article, "Caffeine, Body Fluid-Electrolyte Balance, and Exercise Performance," published in the June 2002 issue of the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism , researcher Lawrence E. Armstrong, a professor of exercise and environmental physiology at the University of Connecticut, found that caffeine is not the dehydrating demon some people believe. In fact, he concluded that caffeine is no more a diuretic than water.
¶ 3:15 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Bojangles
Rather surprising figures from the Bojangles calorie counter (how pathetic!):
http://calorielab.com/restaurants/bojangles/80
A wing apparently has more calories than a thigh:
Thigh 16 14 21 8 308
Wing 17 19 21 8.5 337
and a plain biscuit more than a berry biscuit:
Bo Berry™ 3 29 10 5.5 220
Biscuit (plain) 4 29 12 5.5 243
Anyway you add it, it looks like a 600-calorie lunch. Unless I toss
half the biscuit to the birds in the parking lot and round off to 500.
That's probably not too bad for an occasional lunch blowout.
Err, not that I'm obsessing or anything...
¶ 1:21 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Another thing you don't want to hear at the dentist's office
Tech: Hi! How are you doing today?
Me: I'd be happier if I wasn't at the dentist's office.
Tech: We'll see if we can make it exciting.
Exciting? Exciting?! The last thing I want form a trip to the dentist is excitement! ¶ 4:36 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Me: I'd be happier if I wasn't at the dentist's office.
Tech: We'll see if we can make it exciting.
Exciting? Exciting?! The last thing I want form a trip to the dentist is excitement! ¶ 4:36 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
