You can buy just about any beverage you want, whether distributed in bottles, cans, or cartons, and you never worry about the product leaking out all over the place. However, if that product is milk, it's almost guaranteed to leak if not kept absolutely upright. Why is that? Are the dairy folks really so clueless that they can't solve a problem that EVERY other beverage manufacturer has solved? Or, could it be that they intentionally produce poorly sealed containers so that the product will go bad more quickly, and they'll sell more product? That seems the most likely explanation as far as I can tell. Shame on you for shady sales methods!
Miss Teen South Carolina goes Inane
This is funny sad funny sad funny sad funny sad oh never mind, just watch it and judge for yourself.
How to climb a transmission tower
This is a really amazing video. The guys who work on these transmission towers have nerves of steel. The funny part, is it takes at least nerves of plastic to watch this!
This video tends to come and go on Youtube, sorry!
How condoludent can you get?
Actually, it’s “convoluted”, but this has to get some kind of award for one of the more creative spelling perversions.
Thanks, David, for tossing me this one.
missing comment box
It has come to my attention that when you try to leave a comment, the box for you to type your comment into is missing!!
Sorry about that – I'll do my best to get it fixed soon.
Exchange – Two Domains, Two Users – joe @ domain1.com & joe @ domain2.com – How?
Exchange – Two Domains, Two Users – joe @ domain1.com & joe @ domain2.com – How?
This site also has other useful and concise information on Exchange and supporting multiple domains in one instance.
cute quote of the day
Laughter is like changing a babys diapers. It doesnt solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia
Women’s fashion brands – insulting?
As most husbands do, I am occasionally dragged kicking and screaming into apparel stores. So while my wife is looking at blouses and pants and other things she might want to buy, I wander around looking at signage, and poking my nose into other departments. I have noticed that the brand names of women's fashions, especially products designed for "large" women, are very interesting. You have to wonder: are the companies using these brand names really that stupid, or are they intentionally trying to offend their customers?
Here's one of my favorites: Sag Harbor. Wow! Could you possibly pick a brand name for overweight women that is more obviously insulting? I suppose they could have gone for Flab Central but I guess it doesn't have a nautical ring to it.
How about Faded Glory? Nice – let's bag on the elderly.
Bullocks is another interesting one. Here we have an entire store, targeting women of all sizes, named after a castrated male bovine. Oh yes, that's lovely. You just can't get more feminine than that, can you?
It's not just women who are the target of insulting brand names.
Fat Boy Burgers – why yes, that makes me want to eat there and get fatter.
xxxxx For Dummies (insert just about anything) – I refuse to ever buy one of these books. Just because you don't know about a given subject, doesn't make you dumb. It makes you ignorant, and ignorant changes to informed once you have some information. Dumb refers to a mental state which can't be fixed. I should publish "book titles for dummies". In there I could recommend a better method of choosing titles, advocating such shining examples as "Makeup for the Ugly", "Physics for Morons", "Trampoline for Parapalegics", "Cooking for Anorexics" , "Stilts for the Short", and "Origami for the Tall" (a book on small sports cars).
Do you know of any more like these? Leave a comment, and I'll add them to the list!
No penalty for mistakes
It's rather interesting how this has evolved. Governmental agencies (IRS, FBI, Police, FAA, FCC, etc) have an enormous amount of power to "catch the bad guy". Unfortunately, as one might expect, there are times when mistakes are made, and a "good guy" is falsely accused, and sometimes prosecuted, fined, and/or imprisoned. When time goes by and it comes to light that a mistake in fact was made, there is no penalty to the authorities. This is a very bad system, as by its nature, it encourages action but does not encourage accuracy. This is like trying to guide a child by rewarding them for good behavior, but doing absolutely nothing for bad behavior. That is a model that simply does not work.
There was a case highlighted recently on "Penn & Teller's Bullshit" regarding a man who was arrested, tried repeatedly, and harassed for years by an overly zealous District Attorney. He is confined to a wheelchair, and in constant pain as the result of an automobile accident. This is a life which is miserable enough, but then he was targeted as a possible illegal drug seller, with his own prescription drugs as the contraband. His doctor prescribed his pain medication, and he had on-hand a 30 day supply. This was apparently over some "limit" and so he must be a drug trafficker. His house was placed under surveillance and even though no evidence was found supporting the theory that he might be reselling drugs, the DA decided to go ahead and arrest him. Police burst into his house, terrifying his family, searched the premises, and hauled him off. After spending some time in jail, his case was tried and he was found not guilty. The DA wasn't willing to let it go at that (although he'd already been subjected to a lot of indignity, expense, and inconvenience for no good reason), and so he filed an appeal. The case was tried several more times over the following years, and the poor guy's family just couldn't move on. The DA apparently stated to him that "I can do this indefinitely". What?? Why does this jerk still have a job? This is not serving the public interest in any way, and should not be tolerated. The trouble is, this wonderful DA has no reason NOT to behave this way. He has nothing to loose!
How is this at all acceptable? If there were penalties for such mistakes, then this sort of abuse would not be allowed to continue. In addition, the DA would be motivated to be really SURE about the case before escalating it to arrest and prosecution. As it stands now, there is no such motivation. Lives can be ruined, and the DA can simply shrug and say "oh gee, I was wrong".
The IRS is another agency which historically has a bad reputation for similar actions, and for wielding seemingly limitless power. Sure, they need to be able to find tax-dodgers and prosecute them, but they have no reason to be careful at all. If the IRS decides to audit an individual or company, that person/company must comply with the audit, expending time, money, and effort for as long as the IRS agent wants to keep digging. When it turns out that there was no merit to the audit, the agent walks away. There is no reimbursement for the time and expense caused by the fruitless audit. So, there is no reason (other than resource limitations on the IRS side) not to fire off audit after audit, in the hopes that one or two will actually end up with some money being made for the IRS coffers. Who cares how many innocent people are damaged in the meantime?
The FAA can suspend a Pilot's license any time they like, and drag the individual through an investigation. Sometimes this is a good thing, and the "bad guy" gets busted, but all too many times the person is not guilty of any transgression, and is sent on their way. For a hobbyist pilot, this isn't too horrible as not being able to fly is just inconvenient and dealing with the whole procedure is a pain. However, for the professional pilot, this means no income for the duration of the suspension. This can be devastating to a person's family finances, and so care should be taken. Because there is no penalty for a mistake, care is frequently not taken, and families are forced into bankruptcy as a result. Here are two interesting cases.
How about people who are sent to prison for a crime they did not commit, only to be exonerated many years later? James Bain from florida served 35 years. Oops, sorry about that, James. They are released and expected to go on with their lives, but their lives have been ruined. Where's the compensation?
I could go on and on in this vein, but I don't believe that is necessary. If stiff penalties were levied against these agencies automatically in the result of a mistake, including compensation for the victims, then they would be more inclined to be very sure of their facts before "getting the bad guy". Why do I say automatically? Most individuals do not have the available resources (time, money, etc) to file suit in these cases, and let's face it, most of the time they simply aren't going to win. When these incidents occur, the poor folks who have this happen to them frequently have no money left over for a suit when all is said and done. Some attorneys might take such a case with the promise of a percentage of the settlement, but since the odds of successfully winning a case against the "powers that be" are low to begin with, this isn't a workable solution either.
Rushing at the last minute while driving – is it worthwhile?
We've all done it – we're driving somewhere, and as we get closer to our destination, we're watching the clock, gritting our teeth, and clenching the steering wheel because we know we're going to be late. So, we stuff our foot down and try to make up for lost time. I know I've done this many times, and recently while doing this, I began to do some mental math and I questioned whether or not it really made a difference. Nevertheless, I kept my foot glued to the floor, cut off 3 people, narrowly missed a school bus full of Nuns and orphans, and screeched into my parking spot … late anyway.
Later, I decided to do some number crunching and see if my off-the-cuff mental calculations were correct. I decided to use a 100 mile trip as a model (mainly because it's a reasonably long trip, and also makes the math nice and neat). My assumption was that cruise speed will be 65mph, and when the driver decides to go into "rush" mode at the end of the trip, it'll zip up to 80mph. Of course, with traffic, those aren't necessarily realistic numbers that you could sustain for any length of time, but we'll use those as a best-case. This means that any time saving we calculate will be less in reality, but we should get a good "feel" for how this plays out.
The graph below shows what happens when you go into "rush" mode. The blue part of the bars is the cruise mode part of the trip (so the first one is all cruise, no rush), and the red part is kicking into high gear. In each successive trip, I started the rush 10 miles earlier, until the last trip is all rush. The number to the left of the bars is the trip time in minutes. As you can see, the trip would normally take 92.6 minutes. By rushing the last 10 miles (which was the trigger behind all this), only 1.7 minutes are saved!
Here's another way to look at it. As you can see from this second graph, if you rush 10% of the trip, you save around 2% on the trip time. If you rush 20% of the trip, you save a whopping 4% on the time. Even if you rush for ALL of the trip, it only gains you something like 23% time savings.
What does this all mean you ask? What's the bottom line? Well, based on the information above, it's clear that rushing the last part of a trip really doesn't buy you much. In fact, one could argue that for short trips, rushing the bulk of the trip would only save you 25% on time, so for a 20 minute "around-town" trip, you'd be saving a whole 5 minutes. It just doesn't seem worth the hassle, extra gas burned, extra risk of incident, and nervous engergy required to shove your way through traffic in a vain attempt to maintain that "rush" speed.
So, next time you are late for an appointment, don't stuff your foot down, just accept the fact that you should have left earlier, and that there is nothing you can do at this point, and continue on. Oh, and thank me for saving you gas, blood pressure, and tires. And send me a check. Yea, that's the ticket.
Inane World 