Learning to Ride

No one's at work again today but I'm feeling more philosophical than crazy today. I'm listening/watching to an old Bones ep ("The Woman in the Car"). At one point Booth and Brennan are watching a video of a kid learning to ride a bike. Dad is a little nervous (his baby is growing up), kid is excited, Mom is worried. The mom keeps saying things like "Be carefull" and "don't let go" while the kid is saying "I can do it!" As the kid goes wobbling down the sidewalk, Mom says to Dad "How do we get him back?"

It occured to me that you never 'get them back' (kids that is) you just run along beside as long as possible. (note: I don't have any kids, just a much younger sister.) Parents (and older sisters) always want to hold on to their child, keep him or her at whatever age*. The job of a parent isn't to continue to hold on to the bike seat until all danger has passed. The job of a parent is to run along beside your child until you can't keep up anymore.


*Well, maybe not 11. Or 13, 15, and 17. I have a friend, who's now 25, that I've none since she was 11. The odd teenage years were not good.

Random bits from the weekend

A few thoughts for today, before I head off to Virginia for 3 days (that's total - driving there, being there, driving back - fun!) (the pics @ 8 may not be safe for the weak stomached):

1. I find this way too amusing.

2. I knew it! Deer knew when it was hunting season and not. I don't have photographic proof, but Friday heading home, in a field near my house there was a HERD of deer grazing. I see far fewer deer crossing the road during rifle season than at the any other time of the year.

3. I watched a show on Discovery or TLC a couple months ago about "Purity Balls". I found the whole idea a little creepy. Some of the goals are ok (like waiting for sex and making sure girls know they are loved and valued so they don't jump into the arms of the first guy who'll have them) but the execution is a bit creepy. But, for some unknown reason, the other day I started thinking about the eldest daughter of the preacher and her up coming (at time of shooting) wedding. She says that she and her fiancé had not even held hands because they didn't want the "physical" stuff to get in the way of really getting to know one another. Their first kiss would be right after her father said "You may kiss the bride." Again, I'm all for not letting physical intimacies get in the way of actually getting to know a person but...First off, holding hands isn't exactly a distracting or very intimate form of touching. Secondly, it seems to me that this policy would lead to a very awkward wedding night. If you haven't engaged in any of the normal social/dating touching (holding hands, walking arm in arm, hugging, or maybe even a stolen kiss or two) then how are you going to be comfortable doing much more than that all of a sudden? To go from not holding hands to sex in one day is a big leap no matter how much you love someone. (not that you have to have sex on your wedding night) The whole thing seemed to me like they'd taken some idealized Victorian model and gone a step further towards total sexual repression.

4. What the hell is up with the little sister? Not mine, but that's all I can say without giving away spoilers. And with Sarah away I can't ask her about it. Really I just want to know how long I'm going to have to wait until that question gets resolved. Please, Joss, don't make it all season.

5. Is present tense appropriate when speaking of a first time viewing of a show that went off the air years ago? Should I have said "Please don't let Joss have made it all season"?

6. I hate that I have to have caffeine. About half the time, all I have is my large mug of tea in the morning and yet if I don't have anything caffeinated Saturday or Sunday morning I have a horrible headache Sunday afternoon. Like yesterday. Three ibuprofen and a Coke finally cleared it up.

7. I think I bought lace weight yarn to make socks with. I will now attempt worsted weight socks and probably make a lacy something else. Size 1 needles are tiny.

8. Somewhat related to #2, yum venison:

Random bits

1. Why can I change my password but not get sent my login name, DishNetwork??? (Which is apparently 1 letter short of the one I usually use)

2. Irish was all like "Mom, what are you doing? I don't want to be way up - oh, food.":)

3. Wow, does Ed's car look bad. And weird since it's been a while since I was somewhere with salted roads, or even close enough to such a place that I saw cars covered in road salt occasionally.

4. "Don't eat pork, don't eat bats, don't eat beetles, bugs, or gnats...Put four tassels on your cloak...A message from the Lord."

5. I can be a little anal about maps, precision, and accuracy; this can sometimes make my job unnecessarily difficult. But not as anal as the Kentucky Survey they report well locations as DD.xxxxxxxxxx0! (That's to less than a millimeter.)

6. My parent's are OLD.

7. (related to 6) Mom's surgery is Monday. They'll be doing it vaginally so at least the recovery shouldn't be too bad or long. Except for the anesthesia which will take about 6 months to completely clear her system if past experiences are repeated. Nettie gets to spend Sunday night with me.

8. At this rate I'll be back at Circuit City hoping they have an even better deal on Season 5 of Buffy. (Season 4 started $5 less than at B&N plus 10% off. The cashier had to enter the discounted prices manually!)

9. I should really get back to work.

10. If I start digging here I end up in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Danke, Maple Leaf.

Hmmm...

Random religious/theological rambling brought on by a documentary I watched (most of) last week and Travel with Rick Steves, a flash on a scene from Godspell (specifically my high school's production) and talking to myself while driving to work:

How do evangelical Christians* reconcile their often very public professions of faith with Jesus' preaching against this(Luke 18:9-14)? I suppose Jesus wasn't preaching against honest public faith/religiousness only false shows and following the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. It still seems, to me, that randomly (to everyone else) walking up to someone and handing them a tract isn't what He calls us to do.


*Not all, everyone is different, YMMV, exceptions to prove the rule, simplification/generalization...

Buffyverse - friend or foe?

A month or two ago Honu-Girl suggested I try watching/listening to Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Hulu, as it was fluffy enough to make it a good distraction while doing boring work. (I was more productive while watching than not, until the IT guy caught me chewing up huge amounts of bandwidth.) I'd watched the first two seasons at work and then Honu-Girl got me the 3rd season for Christmas (delivered in a very pretty box she got from Sarah, so it was like a present from Sarah, too!), so I'm up to episode 8 or 9 now ("Helpless"). I have a question for Buffy fans: What's up with Synder?

He shows up as a principal with a grudge against Buffy. At first he just seems to be a hard ass. Then we learn that he knows about the vampires, etc. in Sunnydale* and I started to wonder which side he's on - does he think Buffy's on the vamp side or does he suspect she's the Slayer (or at least on the human's side) and why doesn't he like her/what does his dislike potentially say about where he stands. He clearly has connections in local politics and the police chief and the mayor are in on the Home of the Hellmouth bit. The mayor clearly has no particular problem with the local demon population (as long as he keeps his job - "Band Candy") but we don't know about the police chief (very minor character, "School Hard" I think). Now, after "Band Candy"**, he knows for sure she's the Slayer but I hadn't seen him since.

So, is he pro- or anti- demon? Is he pro- or anti-Slayer?
(I'm ok with minor spoilers)

* Was the name a ploy by the founders to hide the demonic presence?
**Seeing your Mom and Watcher make out - ewww, as bad as realizing your parents have sex.

Curse the Darkness

Some thing I saw of TV the other night got me thinking about “curse” words. I understand the religious prohibition on blasphemy. Not necessarily the specifics – was stoning really necessary for speaking the secret name of God? – but the general rule I can deal with and vaguely understand. I can understand not using ‘damn’ as a general swear word unless you really mean you think that thing/person/rule/whatever should be sent to hell. I have even, unsuccessfully, toyed with not damning things lightly. What I don’t get is why other ‘four-letter words’ that have no religious connotations are also usually considered wrong to use by the religious and culturally are less polite than the religious ones (in the US at least). Now ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, and ‘ass’ are generally considered impolite ways to refer to sexual intercourse, feces, and one’s backside* and their derivatives, which may or may not have anything to do with the original meaning, are equally vulgar. One should certainly be mindful of one’s company when using these words. But, why do the religious care about them? They aren’t blasphemy – no taking of God’s name in vain, no casual damning of innocent inanimate objects.

The seven words you can’t say on TV are becoming more and more socially acceptable. One day you may even be able to say them on mainstream TV, at least in fleeting usages or, of course, in culturally appropriate situations^.As the “younger” generations work their way up into positions of power in the FCC things will change, slowly, if we can ever get the religious fanatics to shut up long enough to understand the difference between blasphemy and vulgarity.

This leads me to a tangent**: You may recall the wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl half-time a few years ago. Shortly after this, and the resulting kerfuffle, I heard a father commenting (a letter to Morning Edition perhaps?) that the SB is family entertainment and he didn’t appreciate his young sons being exposed to a nipple. I’d been watching that half-time show. Personally, if I were going to be offended by a brief flash of female bits I would have been doubly offended by the half-time show. Based on the comment of that father, dry-humping one another while wearing little more than a bikini is OK but the human body is bad. (I may be mixing my half-times up. The scantily clad, practically stripping dancers may have been another year.) Consistency anyone?


*Ass is perfectly acceptable if referring to a donkey, even in church.
^ This is why it’s OK that ‘fuck’ appears in every other sentence in Saving Private Ryan but it has to be beeped out of an Emmy acceptance speech.
**This is not particularly timely, I know.But we will be subjected to dubious singing and dancing during the Super Bowl half-time again soon.

Just desserts

Last night I was watching "Life in the Undergrowth" on the Science Channel (one of my preview channels this month!). I love David Attenbourgh and last night was no exception.

They were talking about bugs, or more properly land-dwelling arthropods. There were some great slow-motion shoots of dragonflies (they beat their wings separately, cool huh?) and flies landing upside-down; Sir David jumping when the spider jumped out of his lair to ambush the stick; some wasp larva considering hitching a ride on his finger; really cool larva that light up the roof of a cave and catch flies in their silken snares... The standard great photography I've come to expect from nature shows all with Attenbourgh's calm, comforting voice. But the best bit was the cicadas.

They featured the 17-year cicadas of the eastern US. There was a brood a couple of years ago and one the summer I was between 6th and 7th grade. The larva come up out of the group starting in late spring and they don't really start dying, IIRC, until late summer. And, if you have the wrong trees (or right depending on your precpective) in your area they are EVERYwhere. And they are LOUD, at least the males. And bad fliers, and they will, briefly, fly without heads, which makes them even worse fliers. Did I mention they are everywhere and loud? Sorry, back to the film...

So, they've got a male relatively isolated on a branch while Attenbourgh explains his call (loud buzzing) and the female's response, which is a click that can be replicated by snapping one's fingers. Of course he demonstrates this. Then he uses snapping his fingers to get the male to walk along the branch (thinking he's on his way to a hot date). The bug goes left, then he makes the bug turn around, only this slightly back fires. The male flies over and lands on Sir David's ear, buzzing the whole time. Attenbourgh was obviously not prepared to have a the thing walk around on his head, much less buzz in his ear; he's desperately snapping by the twig while grimacing and trying to keep up the narration. The male finally decides that his date is on the twig and flies back. The crew leave him to find a real mate.

That folks is what happens when you tease a desperate male cicada - you get one of the disgusting things crawling on you when you cannot simply squash it.

Buffalo and a Manatee?

I don't think so.

Is it just me or does Appa look an awful lot like a water bear? Interesting that a sky bison would look like a water bear, seeing as how those are completely different nations. But maybe it was foreshadowing of the sky bender Avatar's partnership with two water nation kids?

Thank you to Chad for having a weekly picture of Appa with baby for scale (or that the other way around?) and Ugly Overload for reminding me of the cutest polyextremeophiles around.

Real America?

On last night's The Daily Show John presented an equation and a short quiz to help one figure out if one lived in Real America™ or not. Obviously, I failed the quiz since I was watching The Daily Show, but I was wondering about Tuscaloosa in general. To check the validity of the equation I'm going to do Andalusia, AL, also. I lived there for two years; it is pretty much Real America™. So I've collected the numbers I could and guessed the ones I couldn't. Here goes the calculations:

(p*c*a*Jr)/(S*(Pth-Pt)*(1/t-b)) = R
If R is less than 10 you live in Real America, if not you are going to hell.

p, population = 89000 (Tuscaloosa City), 171160 (Tuscaloosa Co)
c, Cost of a cup of coffee = $1.85
a, # of art house theaters = 2 (Bama, and the Ferg)
Jr, # of streets named for ML King, Jr. = 2 (one in T-town, one in Northport)
S, # of ids needed to buy Sudefed = 1
Pth, # of people who wear trucker hats = IDK
Pt, # of truckers = IDK
t, # of churches = 205 (Tuscaloosa addresses), 352 (in the county total, best I can tell YMMV)^a
b, # of bars = 12 (Tuscaloosa addresses), 13 (in county)^b

For whole of Tuscaloosa county: (171160)(1.85)(2)(2)(352-13)/1(1000^c)=1717488

For Andalusia:
p=8794; c=1.50; a=0; Jr=1; Pth=IDK, Pt=IDK the ratio is higher than in Tuscaloosa is my guess; t=60; b=3

R=0


I think I've just found a couple of serious flaws in this equation. One improvement would be to put (t-b) in the denominator not the numerator (or 1/(t-b) in the denominator). The higher the church to bar ratio the "realer" a town gets, so it should make R get smaller. If your town has an art house theater or a street named for Dr. King then the population has to be tiny. Of course many would argue that the existence of an art house theater means you are not living in Real America™. Another problem with the equation is the whole Pth thing. Does have more non-truckers wearing trucker hats make your town realer? I've seen them on students who might not have been real Americans™.

Luckily all of this will be rendered moot in two weeks when all Americans, Real™ or otherwise (but legally eligible to vote), vote for our next president and, hopefully, all talk of "real" Virginia, "real" American values, and any thing else that tries separate the country stops for another 4 years. (Ok, 2.25 - until the next primary season begins.)

^a Several zip codes outside the city limits show up as Tuscaloosa, a cursory yellowpages.com search doesn't separate the two.
^b the phone book listings include many restaurants with bars as well as pure drinking establishments.
^c I'm estimating here, I'm not sure I know the true differences between a baseball hat and a trucker hat but I don't see very many of the later, as I would define them. This number could be as high as half a freshman class at UA (or 2,250).

Hot? Y/N

So last night's Heroes premiere (don't worry, no spoilers) and Sarah's villain worship reminded me of something (which I don't think I written about before).

I saw some online "posters" for the upcoming Star Trek movie and Spock is kinda' hot. (so's Kirk) I turned the TV to 13 just before 8 last night as some of the stars were shaking hands etc, on the red carpet before the show began (BTW, is Hayden old enough to wear a jacket without a shirt? Especially when said jacket is in danger of exposing her mammaries? Hmm, 19, I guess so.) and when I saw Zachary Quinto, my heart skipped a beat. Pre-psychopathic break, mousy watch-repairman Gabriel Gray was cute, maybe he just needed some confidence. But Sylar just doesn't appeal to me.

The reason, I think, is that Sylar isn't a nice guy. I mean, really, he's a psychopathic killer - a really not nice guy. Sure he can be charming but don't forget he cuts people's heads open and pretty much kills anyone who gets in his way. His personality keeps me from identifying him as attractive. The actor is a good looking but the character isn't attractive to me.

If I don't know you then all I can judge attractiveness on is your appearance. Obviously no assessment of appearance, by me anyway, is purely based on the form of the face and/or body because how one carries oneself, one's facial expression, etc. is also factored in. But once I know someone then character and personality get added in. Personality can make or break attractiveness.

It's not like go walking down the street rating everyone's hotness. If I did, frankly, most people would end up falling into the "ok" category. Since, who he is is the biggest part of whether I find a man attractive most guys look alright, too me, to begin with at least. Some men definitely fall in to the "ooo, nice" category.* I think, oddly enough, I would discriminate among women better than men because it wouldn't be 'attractive to me' I'd be judging but rather 'attractive to the average male'.

For example: The then-VP of a company I used to work for was a jerk. He was jerk to his ex-wife (from what I was told), the employees who worked directly for him, the other division heads, other employees at the company... One day the secretary for our group was bemoaning embarrassing herself in front of him because she hated to make a fool of herself in front of a "good looking man, and [he] is a GOOD looking man." My other co-worker and I, looked at each other and did mini-eye rolls. After the the secretary left the room we both said, "good looking????" I suggested that maybe, if you don't know him at all? Neither of us thought he was all that good looking anyway. But to be honest, at that point (or now) I don't think I could separate his personality from my assessment of his looks.

So how does it work for y'all? Do you think Sylar's sexy? Or just Zachary Quinto?

*They are one of the few perks of working on a college campus while the students are here. Luckily most students don't look so young that I feel dirty admiring them, yet.

Who needs a reason?

Apparently not the writers of the song "I am a Patriot", the song in the opening montage of episode 8 of Carrier. I didn't pay much attention the first time I watched it, other than to notice it was bad (although I liked the chanty/spiritual-ish bit at the beginning and end), but last night I caught another line that made my estimation of the song and songwriter sink a little lower (although I wonder if it was written for the show, so may not be all the sw's fault). The chorus is (iirc):

I am patriot,
And I love my country,
Because my country,
is all I know...

You love your country because it is all you know? I think this is the saddest reason to love one's country and be willing to die (and kill) for it. Not knowing any different is not a good reason for much of anything. It's right up there with "the Bible (preacher/Momma) says so". It is also, imho, a reason that can fall apart if it is questioned too much. What happens if/when you learn more about the world and the USA? (Ever try talking to someone who can't even entertain the hypothetical that the Bible/preacher might be wrong about some little thing? Like if they question that one little thing their faith/world will implode? It's like that.)

I've never lived anywhere else, and have only been overseas once, but I like to learn about the world and what life is like elsewhere (and would love to travel more). I also paid attention in my history classes. So while I certainly don't think the our government is infallible (or our culture the best for everyone and always) but I do think we have an excellent foundation to build our government on (it would help if policies actually mattered more to voters than slogans/image) and the freedoms on which our country was founded have made it a pretty good place to live. The 1st Amendment rights and the principle that "all men are created equal" (in dignity and under the law) and that we all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (whatever that last bit is suppose to mean) have allowed us to become a nation and people that many long to join. We aren't perfect but we are a lot better than many places out there. The ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are why I love my country not just because it's home.

Randomness

May I ramble for a minute? (or two, mostly about TV)

I don't know if I'm being overly sensitive or not but there are a couple of commercials on recently that kind of piss me off with the whole "idiot woman" shtick. I'm not sure why these two or three stick out to me but, man, do they annoy me.

On the topic of commercials, ASPCA has one that I can't watch. I either have to mute the TV and not look up or change the channel. I think the reason ads for things like the Children's Miracle Network don't upset me is that those kid's suffering, as bad as it is to be poor and in a 3rd world country, wasn't intentional. All a dog (cat, rabbit, bird,... any pet really) asks for is to be cared for. All kids really want is to be loved (and fed). The thought of someone being intentionally cruel to an animal (or child) is very upsetting to me, and baffling. I can't watch the animal cop shows on Animal Planet, either.

On last night's "Bones" rerun, why is the administrative guy so set on not getting to the bottom of the deaths? Besides they can prove the guy didn't hang himself, and was dead when he was hung, even if the method they suspect he was killed by (with?) can't be proven. So obviously someone was trying to cover up something big, like possibly the previous murder or, as it turned out, artifact smuggling.

I'm starting to have doubts about the appropriateness of my outfit for my niece's wedding Saturday. I'm beginning to think it isn't dressy enough, even though the bridesmaids are wearing tea-length dresses. Do you think I could hire someone just to dress me? Surely, if stars pay big bucks to be badly dressed I could find someone to do it well on the cheap. Maybe I could just find myself a husband who likes to cook, clean, do laundry, mow, is fashion literate, and can work from home so he has time to do these things.

While I'm wishing, could I get some motivation, too?

Update: Oh, doublespeak reminds me. How inconvenient/cumbersome would speaking only in metaphor be? The fact that Picard manages to figure out anything that alien is saying is amazing. Metaphors would be impossible to translate without prior cultural knowledge. Picard picks up a few based on the situation but any meaningful conversation would require some major archaeological study beforehand to learn the meaning of the metaphors. It also seems that a language based on metaphors would be oddly limited and uncreative. The language can be pretty and bring to mind strong images, with the right cultural back ground. Luckily for Picard and the viewers this species also cries so "Kiazi's children, their faces wet" makes sense.

A good night of TV

Friday night's TV was great. I had taped Thursday's so first I watched...

CSI's season finale (?): Warrick, NOOOOOO! The SHERIFF!!!!WTFFFF??????? (Nick better not have a goofy hair cut again next season since they killed off the other hot guy. Not that I'm blowing off any of the other imminently datable but merely cute characters.)

then came Lost: Sun telling her father to STFU (not exactly in those words), FTW!

then Numb3rs: Oh, Charlie stands up to bigotry and stupidity, makes a stand for academic/intellectual freedom, loses his security clearance, and can't work for the FBI any more. And Megan leaves, poor Larry. Although as he said their relationship has never required physical proximity.

And last, but not least, Doctor Who: While no great lines from Donna about how the Ood have to be trusting because they are born with their brains in their hands, the Doctor does make an idiot of himself with Donna (You're only popping round for a visit and coming back, huh?) and gets told off about how he's gets to come and go as he pleases but SOME people have to stick around and work on the inside. The previews for the finale suggest that the Doctor does stick around. (Damn Brits and their short seasons.) Why didn't anyone try breaking the car window? Surely there was a rock or something nearby. For that matter all those people whose car's drove them into the river, didn't any of them attempt to break their windows? Do the Brits not have those little safety tools that are suppose to break car windows and cut you out of a stuck seatbelt? (BTW, does David Tennant ever not look surprised?)

Smashing the Lab

I've now watched two episodes of Discovery's new show "Smash Lab"*, the premiere and last week's (i think). The premise of the show, as far as I can tell, is these four people get together and try to invent something (or adapt an existing technology) to solve a problem, usually with much destruction of cars, house, etc. As Honu-Girl's husband described it "they're trying to be "Mythbusters" without any of the actual science." I love "Mythbusters" (partly because of the science, ok mostly because of it) and think "Smash Lab" could be good but Jamie and Adam may have to be come overhaul it. Allow me to explain. (It's my blog after all, how ya' gonna stop me?)

In the first episode they are trying to build a better median divider based on the arrestor beds at the end of airport runways. (They had a really nice video of a plane driving over/in one.) Some of the problems they encountered were due, no doubt, to budget and time constraints. And the nature of the material means that there isn't much one can do with scaled-down tests.
But I still have problems with their methods. First of all they decide to split up and try two entirely different methods. One group tests adding a 3-foot thick layer of the concrete foam in front of a standard barrier; the other decides that building an EMAS-type bed for the median would be the way to go. This divided their efforts and it felt to me like the producers, at least, were trying to make it seem like a competition.

The first serious problem I had was with their baseline crash. They all start out by doing a test of what happens when a car crosses the median at 60 mph and strikes on coming traffic at about a 30 degree angle (I may be misremembering the angle). Obviously it would be a huge logistical nightmare to have the oncoming traffic moving so those 6 cars are parked and only the median-crossing car is moving. They use accelerometers to measure the force of the impact. My problem at this point is that there is a huge difference in the energies involved in a wreck between one party moving and both parties moving. In their test the relative speed of cars is 60 mph; assuming in real life that the cars would be moving on the other side of the highway, the actual relative velocity would be almost 120 mph. I understand it isn't realistic to do a test under those conditions but I think they should have explained that a real crash would be different because those other cars are moving. They also spent more time than necessary talking about how the stationary cars had been moved and banged up in the test crash; more than necessary , IMHO, because again that is determined by the momentum of the vehicles as they enter the crash and their crash wasn't completely realistic. A nod at the differences between their crash and reality would have satisfied me.

My second big problem with the episode is that the first group testing the augmented Jersey barriers didn't run a test with the car just hitting the barrier. They went from no barrier to one with extra concrete in front of it, with no way of knowing what effect the barrier its self had on the situation. It was somewhat amusing that they succeeded in basically making a ramp for the car to jump the barrier, though. The other group's method was basically sound, I think, and with more time and/or money to try out more consistency of concrete they may have built a successful arrestor bed. They did, however, fail to think about the problems of pouring that much concrete, keeping it contained, and keeping the consistency uniform. I can forgive that, not many people have experience pouring a 60' x 30' x 2' bed of concrete foam.

The second episode I watched was them attempting to make an airbag for the front of a train to help reduce the force of impact of the engine with a car at 25 mph (That speed chosen because, apparently, at collisions at 25 mph and above fatalities become much more likely.) After a test crash (car parked on track) two go off in search of appropriate material for the airbags, two work out how to move the car off the track. The search for airbag material, how to fill it quicky using compressed gas (they didn't want to use the chemical reaction used in car airbags?) My main problem with the episode was the lack of true scale models. The two testing different ways to move the car to the side (a wedge, flipper, and pivot) tested them using a foot powered cart on a track and a club chair. A true scale test might have helped in final design and would have alerted them to the problem of how to fold the airbags up out of the way and hold them there. It might also have shown them that the pressure relief valves weren't big enough before the afternoon before the full-scale test. I understand that once they were at the site to set up they didn't have time to go back to the lab and think about these issues. I understand that sometimes you don't have the leeway to reschedule things (like the use of a track spur, train, stunt driver for the train...). The fact that they had to jerry-rig the valves and worked into the night on holding the airbags in place is a sign of poor planning.

Finally after the full-scale test they decide it was a failure and move on. One of the main reasons they decide it was a failure was because the car ended up flipping. It appears to flip because it hit a small embankment not directly because of anything wrong with the airbag system. There was an issue with the pressure relief valves blowing too late to be most effective, but that is hardly surprising considering the work around they came up with.

After all that rambling, the point is: I'm disappointed. It could be good. But the idea that one can successfully invent something using found materials for preliminary tests, no scale testing, and only one attempt at a solution is ridiculous. It might work if one is inventing a new cheese slicer, but one will never solve big problems that way. The show isn't a good example of how something is invented and it could be. But that might not have as many explosions.


*no link to "Smash Lab" because the site is blank. Apparently they haven't invented it yet, or maybe it was a "failure" because they screwed up and then couldn't go back and edit the code.

Eeyore

My sister says "With my luck...." and means it. We all (or most of us anyway) have at one time or another said "with my luck [something bad will happen/continue to happen]" but most of us aren't serious. It is more of a expression of frustration or defeat than of actual belief. My sister seems to believe it. A friend of mine (and her co-worker) likened my sister to Eeyore. Now she may be the "office Eeyore", but his description of her and how she is like Eeyore didn't sit well with me.

Sis will tell everyone, and just about anyone, everything that is going wrong in her life from not getting off the days she requested to her car being reposed. And she often acts/talks like somehow the world is out to get her. These traits would make her a source of depressing conversation but that doesn't make her depressed and Eeyore isn't paranoid.

Eeyore is in the grips of a serious depression. He doesn't think the world, or anyone in it, cares about him. In order for the world to be out to get you, it has to know you are alive. He is genuinely surprised when people do nice things for him. (One of his Disney-catchphrases is "thanks for noticin' me.") He doesn't expect good things to happen or anyone to care. He doesn't want to bother other people. He just sits in his house of sticks and ponders things*. I should know I strongly identify with Eeyore. (or as he spells it Eor.)

I tried to convince my friend that I'm more like Eeyore than my sister but he wouldn't have any of it, then our movie started and conversation ceased in favor of Halle Berry, Bruce Willis and Taco Bell.

*Please note it has been a while since I read any A.A. Milne or watched Winnie-the-Pooh on TV (or movies) so my impressions may be inaccurate and colored towards the Disney version watched more recently. Wikipedia actual has a nice, I think, description of Eeyore and the British-ness of his personality. And while I'm on the subject, I generally prefer Shepard's illustrations (or the other early renditions) and the "classic Winnie-the-Pooh" over Disney's except I do like the blue-grey of Eeyore's coat of the Disney marketed items. (BTW, Pooh should not be bright yellow, but honey-gold)

Feet are NOT the new face.

I think, it was two Fridays ago, when I sat down to watch "What Not to Wear" and got "Fashion Fanatic with Stacy London." I was a bit disappointed but it had some interesting stuff. The episode was all about shoes and handbags. Stacy talked with several shoe designers and went to a shoe factory (I think it was a Ferragamo factory) and made a shoe. Well, actually she cut the upper, sewed the liner, and put a heel on but they couldn't have all be the same shoe because there some glue curing days in between.

There was some good info on why expensive shoes can be better for your feet. (note: Not all expensive shoes are well made but most well made shoe are expensive.) It was depressing to hear the "woman on the street" clips of all these women saying things like "well they make my feet hurt but aren't the fabulous?" It isn't just your feet that are hurt by bad shoes, your knees, hips, and lower back are also. No one needs 4" heels.

Stacy went to an exercise class that is designed to help woman walk properly in high heels, to avoid excess strain on the body. And hopefully make them stop doing that stilted step with the-toe-first-I-don't-know-how-to-balance walk. Girls, they don't make you look sexy if you can't walk in them!

The last bit of the shoe half (or 2/3) of the show was off to a podiatrist. Amongst the cautions about the beginnings of bunions, descriptions of expensive gel-pillow injections to prevent toe joint pain, there was the acid treatment for the souls of one's feet. The acid is just like what's used for an acid peel for ones face, only stronger. It removes callouses from the bottom of your feet and makes them prettier. Yes, apparently feet are the new face.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. I thought callouses formed due to repeated rubbing of the skin, either after repeated blistering or where lesser rubbing occurs but frequently. As in, they serve a purpose - protecting the lower levels of the skin. I, also, thought that part of the reason the bottoms of our feet are rough is to provide traction. That's why our skin is in little ridges on our hands and feet. I've even read horror stories of women who got a little too carried away with the callous remover during a pedicure and slipped in the shower the next day (no serious injuries were reported). So no thank you, I'll keep my tough rough feet if it means I can walk across the floor and not slip. (I can also step on medium sized thorns and not feel it but I go barefoot a lot.)

I'm also not real impressed with a doctor (fairly sure it was a D.P.M. and not an orthopedist, but not positive) who is willing to treat women so that they can wear bad shoes with less pain as much as they want. How about counselling woman to not wear the bad shoes so much? Pain is a warning signal.

My advise to all of you out there looking for shoes:

• If it isn't comfortable when you try it on, it won't be after wearing it for 8 hours.
• If you are going to wear the shoes for very long or very often, buy real leather and don't buy the cheapest shoes; leather lasts longer and will conform to the shape of your foot and you do get what you pay for.
• However, remember that expensive shoes are not always better, sometimes you are paying for the designer's name and not much else.
• If you find a shoe that fits well, remember the brand; shoe makers often use the same last to make all, or many, of their shoes styles. If one fits well, there is a good chance you can order another style and it will fit, too.
• By the same token, if a shoe hurts your foot be wary of buying other shoes by the same maker. And don't wear the painful shoes for long period of time or if you have to stand a lot.
• Last but not least, avoid wearing the same pair of shoes everyday. Shoes last longer if give time to rest (mainly dry out); if you wear the same shoes everyday get two pair they will last more than twice as long.