|
I'll know by the end of the week whether or not I have a job in the private space industry. |
|
I moved my blog to http://insearchofconcentration.blogspot.com/
The reason being that it has better free image hosting and I like the format more. I'll still check in on my friend accounts here but all my blogging will go on over there. |
|
Well, it's been roughly a little more than a week since I started doing this no bread/sugars/corn syrup/etc. idea and I figured I'd give an update.
First off, I'm feeling good. I've been cooking on average about 1.5-2 times per day (breakfast and dinner, with dinner leftovers used for lunch from one to three days). My weight fluctuates a lot normally but I seem to be either holding a steady weight or actually gaining weight (which is what I want). However, I seem (this is perception, and could be wrong) to be losing fat and putting on muscle with the exercises I have been doing, which is great. My GI tract and everything associated with it seems to be behaving a LOT better than it normally would, because, frankly, I suffered from mild constipation quite frequently in the past. Hopefully this good behavior continues.
I sleep better at night and have been waking up easier and more refreshed, and I enjoy my meals and cooking, still, a lot more than I had been (when I did cook, which was rare). My perception of my testosterone level is that it has gone up, and I seem to be more energetic when I want to be.
I don't get massively sleepy after meals. I do get mild drowsiness but nowhere near the amount that I am used to. I hardly drink caffeine (3 cups of cheap coffee max a week) just because I don't like spending money on coffee, and I like to have a sensitivity to it for when I really might need it (like long drives).
Overall, I've been consuming a crapload of fruit and vegetables that I normally wouldn't eat, including a new oddity that I picked up yesterday called a ground cherry (Physalis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physalis which was okay, wouldn't eat it every day but good for variety. I've also been eating lots of nuts.
My expenditure for food has increased, but only by so much when I consider the fact that I was still getting my food as takeout or fast food from somewhere about 1 meal a day, and skipping breakfast.
My gym habits have just been going for a few weeks now, and this week is the only week that I've tried a low volume, high intensity approach to strength training. I did a crazy exercise on tuesday that took me 25-30 minutes (included some sprints, lots of core free weight work) and that left me panting and sweating afterward. I'm supposed to then wait a while before hitting the gym again, to allow my body to repair. So, I'll have to wait longer before I see how this different strength (actually, power) training approach will affect my weight gain and musculature.
I hate spending lots of time in the gym, hate eating around the clock, hate feeling sleepy all the time, and also hate being unable to sprint fast or do power lifts, so this plan seems perfect for me. So far, good, gonna let it continue. |
|
I've been reading Art de Vany's website (http://www.arthurdevany.com/) for a while now, and went through his essay on what he calls Evolutionary Fitness. He'll turn 70 this year and is my height (6'1") but weighs around 205 pounds with a body fat percentage somewhere around or south of 8%. His ideas on weight lifting involve increasing weight with low reps (not a large volume of sets) that are performed to lactic acid buildup (not failure, as this kills form). The reps are also performed quickly on the heavy push or pull and slow on the return, utilizing the fast twitch muscle fibers the most. As for cardio and all that, he is strongly against marathoning and performing at the aerobic threshold for long periods of time, as it puts a lot of unnecessary stress on the heart and body, resulting in lot of early deaths of marathoners and other athletes of the sort. His idea is that peak power output (sprinting) is the best measure of fitness. Also, he suggests a lot of recovery time in order to let the body maintain itself after his workouts (which try to avoid machines and tend to stick to free weights, especially dumbbells.) He also adds in random meal skipping and random workout variations in order to keep the body from getting used to a routine.
As for diet, it's low-carb (but high in fresh fruits and vegetables) without sitting there and tracking down all the details like a lot of other diets suggest. I know that there's no way in hell I'll sit down and record everything I eat. He even goes so far as to suggest that it's mostly pointless to track such things, as there's not a good way to measure your energy expenditures for activities that are nonlinear (like sprinting, power lifting, etc.), but to do the best to stay in the positive energy balance (more energy into your body than out).
So, why does he think this is a good idea? The thought process is when humans evolved (and humans haven't changed very much genetically since hundreds of thousands of years ago or longer), they were hunter-gatherers and had no access to the sugary, processed stuff that we have today. So, our bodies are optimized by evolution for a diet high in vegetables and meat. High sugar and carb loads (from sweets, breads, etc.) induce huge spikes of insulin that cause severe problems (diabetes, arteriosclerosis, etc.). Looking at fossil records of humans, he brings up his knowledge that those fossils that come from hunter-gatherer societies have very large tendon/muscular attachment points to bones (reflecting powerful musculature) and large height. Fossils from agricultural societies (such as south american tribes that relied heavily on corn) are short in stature, have bad teeth, etc. I remember enough from anthropology, when I took it, that what he's saying about those particular groups is correct. It all makes sense to me, and I figure that the idea is worth a shot, anyhow. And I dislike spending long times running, in the gym, etc. where his exercises emphasize fun, short, activities. One (albeit anecdotal) piece of evidence for his ideas is this example of twin brothers:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/Twins.tiff
One was conditioned for long distance running, the other for field events (shot-put, spear throwing, sprinting would be my guess). What Art wrote is here: http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/09/twins.html#000207 I know that I would rather look like the twin that did field events, and I'd have much more fun doing similar activites than just running for miles.
So, I'm trying to follow his advice, gradually getting into it. My observations about myself, recently, are mainly:
1- I've put on some muscle (this is mainly just because I started going back to the gym, though)
2- I'm losing body fat
3- I enjoy my meals more (mmmm, protein and fresh fruits/veggies in all their glory)
4- I don't pass out while in my lab after breakfast or lunch because I don't have a huge spike in insulin like I did when I ate a crapload of carbs every day.
So, I am seeing results, and the reason I started studying this guy was because I was annoyed with how much time I was losing by falling asleep when I was supposed to be working. I thought it was inescapable, as I started trying caffeine, started eating smaller portions, etc. Nothing was working, in fact, I was getting worse (being mostly inoperative for as much as an hour after a meal) for months. And in all the things I was doing, I was still eating a lot of carbs in the form of either pasta, rice, bread, or sugar. As soon as a killed those carbs in favor of breakfasts high in protein and fresh plant matter (for instance, yesterday morning I had a pork chop, two eggs, canteloupe, and a whole bunch of grapes for my biggest meal of the day, biggest breakfast I'd had in a LONG time), I didn't get incoherent after meals anymore.
As for enjoying meals more, last night I tried buffalo cube steak with two whole peppers (red and green), onion, fresh avacado, and some cherries. Normally I would've had some bread with that meal, and normally I would immediately nap for at least 30-60 minutes afterwards. I actually stayed awake that time, and didn't get the irresistible urge to pass out.
So I'm hoping this continues, because the beginnings of it seem to be working very well for me. Looking back over my spring break where I ate a crapload of fastfood and had some kind of bad allergic reaction (hives like mad) afterwards, I'm wondering if I was pushing myself towards diabetes and compromising my health very severely. After spring break I was still eating fast food, but not as much, and my sleepiness after meals was getting worse. So far, I seem to have corrected that. Will it continue? Only one way to find out....
As for those of you with medical interest (Ooooohhh Melissa!), Art mentioned this with some examples:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/2006/07/more_damage_fro.html
"Here are some real cases to review – and many of these are people I know personally: Greg Welch, one of the most versatile all-around triathletes ever (he won Ironman Hawaii, the ITU Worlds and the world Duathlon Championship) was forced to retire at age 37 due to heart problems. He has had over 10 open heart surgeries and wears a pace-maker. Mark Montgomery, who was a top pro triathlete for many years, had his pace-maker installed at age 46 as a result of V-tach issues. Johnny G, the developer of the popular “Spin” classes and a RAAM racer, has severe cardiomyopathy and recently had a pacer-maker installed. Maddy Tormoen, 3-time world Duathlete-of-the-Year and 35-year old Emma Carney, twice ITU World Triathlon champion each now have defibrillators implanted in their chests to correct life-threatening arrythmias. Chris Legh and Julianne White, both Ironman winners, have each had entire sections of their colon removed immediately after a race due to “ischemic conditions” where the blood supply to the GI tract was rerouted for so long (as the body diverted the blood to its periphery to cool itself) that whole sections of the colon literally died from lack of oxygen and nutrients. John Walker, one of the greatest milers of all-time was diagnosed with Parkinsons at age 46. Marty Liquori, another world-best miler was diagnosed with leukemia at age 43. Bruce Balch, Steve Scott and Lance Armstrong (all endurance athletes) all got testicular cancer after a few years of competing. Most of the top runners from the 80’s don’t run anymore; many can barely walk due to arthritic conditions. And we think endurance training is healthy?
Greg Welch's story, linked from his own website, is here:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/headings/newsarchives/welch.html
Interesting reading, for sure. |
|
Saturday seemed to be the beginning of a disappointing weekend for flying. I arrived at the field and had to open the gate, as I was the only person there. I got out of my car and watched the weathervane and the howling wind reminded me of my inexperience. It was a beautiful day though, and it would be a shame to come out this far and not fly at all. I put the plane up about 3 times, all short flights because I was nervous of the wind. The last flight a severe gust hit and I just throttled up and sent the plane higher, it wobbled back and forth from the gust and stayed in one place in the sky. While I was nervously keeping it flying close a couple that had just pulled up in their car watched me. The wind calmed momentarily and I put it down in the high grass, causing the idling motor to quit.
I talked to the couple for a bit, then decided to wrap it up and head back.
On sunday I arrived at the field around 10am, and left at 5pm. Seven solid hours of watching and chatting with some fun flying mixed in there. I watched as a younger guy put up his foam electric plane and fooled around in the wind, and then put up his much larger stunt machine that flew and sounded beautifully with a 4 stroke engine. There's something about the bigger planes that make them much more fun to watch than the little ones, probably the smoothness with which they react and their apathy towards the wind.
I started my plane and did some of my own fooling around. Doing the pre-flight checks, I noticed the engine hesitating when I opened up the carburator to give it full throttle. I let it build up RPMs with it completely open and then pinched the fuel line, hearing a surge and a higher pitch scream fromt he motor. Too rich. There was too much fuel getting into the engine, making it run too cool and not fully combusting. I twisted the needle valve, closing the fuel line until the engine screamed at it's highest, and then I opened it up a little more. Faint smoke was still coming from the exhaust, so I knew that it wasn't burning so hot that it would damage the engine. I closed the throttle to idle and the engine calmed. I played with the throttle adjustment until it was slow enough that it would barely pull the plane in the air. After I finished this last adjustment, I admired the engine's ability to hold a steady idle. There's something about being able to tweak a small electronic adjustment on a controller that isn't physically connected to the plane that commands the carburator to open or close oh so slightly so that it happily purrs away, sipping on fuel at a steady speed, content even to let the tank run dry until I push the throttle forward. Wanting to get in the air though, I blipped the throttle several times to full throttle and then back to idle to make sure there was no gurgling or hesitation. When you're low and slow, and it's about to hit the fan, you want the engine to spark to life as soon as you throw that control stick forward so you have more manuevering speed. It seemed well-adjusted so I dropped it back to idle, picked it up off the test stand, and set it on the ground.
Extending the antenna on my transmitter, I walked to the cockpit area and leaned on the support with the pilot backrest, checked the wind direction, and did a third or forth check on the controls to make sure everything was okay. Nobody was in the sky, so I rolled on the throttle, pointing it into the wind, and watched for either wing to droop as I built speed. The left wing was drooping some, so I applied right aileron and pulled back on the stick. It quickly shot straight into the air and I adjusted the controls slightly so it would fly straight with my hands off the controls. I throttled back, the flat bottom of the wing makes the plane run away like a scalded cat, if the cat had wings. A little nervous on the controls still, I gained altitude until I would be comfortable doing manuevers. I decided on the flat turn, something that involves all three sets of control surfaces at once, so that I could practice my coordination. I start with hard left rudder, which makes the plane turn and roll left, but I don't want the plane to roll left, so I compensate by throwing in moderate right aileron, which kills the plane's tendency to roll. Both of these actions throw two sets of surfaces into the wind, creating drag and causing the plane to drop some, so I added in some up elevator to keep it level. Done properly, the plane turns like it is a car on a road. Satisfied with my left turn, I tried the right turn too. Much better than before, though I can always use more practice. The wind picked up a bit, so I decided to keep the plane in the sky longer. I added throttle and headed to the right then pulled back on the elevator, making the plane do a nice slow loop. Once at the top, I throttled back to keep the plane from gaining too much speed, and the wind caught it and blew the loop into an ugly corkscrew. That's okay for now, I thought, and brought it back up to 1/3 throttle to just carve up the sky.
My tank was getting low, so I headed closer to the landing strip and made a couple of complete turns, throttling back to lose altitude. Heading parallel to how I wanted to land, but in the opposite direction, high and beside the grassy runway, I brought the engine slowly to idle. The nose quickly dropped (the thrust from the engine was no longer pushing so strongly on the elevator, so being nose-heavy it pitched down), and I responded by pulling back and levelling the nose. This keeps the plane flying slow. If I had let the nose continue to drop, it would quickly charge downward, arriving to the runway too fast, or "hot". I slowly dropped the left wing, making it turn toward the field, and lined it up with the runway, flying above and beside a large tree. I noticed I hadn't dropped the throttle all the way, so I brought it down until the stick stopped, and the plane continued to slow as I kept the nose level. It was coming in a bit too sharp, so I added some up elevator, and it slowed down and leveled out, but still had a bit too much downward velocity, so I blipped the throttle, slowing its decent more. It touched down and I pulled back on the elevator, killing its speed, and turned it towards me, taxiing it back to the pits. Good flight and decent landing, but still nervous. I shut everything off and headed over to the main group.
Two of the people at the field were waiting the club professional pilot to arrive and test out some planes. One of the guys had a brand new "3D" plane. A 3D plane (really, all planes are 3D unless they are landbound) flies much more on the propeller than the wing, and can hover and has enough control to turn on a dime in the sky. Some people are into that, I don't know if I will be, I find the more exact and smooth flying planes easier to watch and more relaxing, anyway.
The pro arrived and went to the new plane and began helping the owner prepare it for its first flight. They fiddled with it for about an hour before they deemed it was ready, adding weight to the tail, as it seemed nose heavy. The pro took the plane off and it immediately bucked and bounced and twisted around in the sky, seemingly flying under an inhuman mind. The pilot managed to land it, and figured there was too much weight in the tail, which would make the plane act in such a way. They removed some weight, checked the balance again, and took off. The plane looked fine on take off, then all of the sudden it acted like a horizontal tornado was sucking it through the sky. Up down, spiraling, it was going in every direction at once. Somehow the pilot got it back over the field, dropped the throttle, and it looked like he almost had a safe landing. Then, it started to pitch up and stall hard, so he gave it some throttle. CRUNCH, it smacked into the ground face first and the plane snapped in half, behind the wing. The six or so people watching all expressed their disgust at such a landing in various four-letter combos and waited for the owner to bring the plane back so we could investigate.
The transparent red plane was repairable, but its pretty, clean, straight wood frame would never be the same as viewed through that glassy covering. Everyone gathered around as the transmitter was turned on and the controls checked to see what happened. While the pro was checking the movements on the controls, I noticed one of the aileron servos (of which there are two) anemically nudging the aileron, not even providing enough movement or thrust to push against the airflow over the wing. I voiced my observation and the pilot concurred. Servo failure. In such a case, the aileron affected would move unpredictably, making the plane impossible to stay ahead of. The pilot looked at the brand on it, Hitec, cheapest model they made for airplanes. He mentioned his own, disappointing, experiences with them and concluded higher quality equipment was needed.
I talked to him for a bit about his knowledge of radio equipment. He was given radio equipment as part of his deal to represent the supplier in competitions. He had flown Futaba for a while, but kept on destroying the servos they made, and at their pigheaded denial of improvement, moved to his favorite equipment, JR.
After our chat he went to fly an aircraft of his own design, another 3D plane, which he was going to show one of the regulars how to fly. Right after take-off, he began doing high throttle, snappy, insane maneuvers that require the sharpest eye to even fathom. I couldn't keep up with what was going on, and flinched when it came towards the observation area. "Don't worry, he's a really good pilot" someone mentioned to me. Certainly, I thought, and though his last flight of someone elses plane ended in a crash, it was due to mechanical failure. Just a few seconds later, SMACK, headfirst into the ground. "I lost orientation" he grunted. The transparent yellow material made it difficult to tell which side of the plane was which, so the speedy flight lasted all of half a minute. It would be repairable, though. In fact, both crashes weren't up to the caliber of my own nosedive into the ground from about 20 feet that I accomplished just a short while ago. That had led to a long night of assembling my new plane and repairing that crashed one--a day that ended a little past 6am the morning after the wreck. "He's not having a good day..." I remarked, looking over at the owner of the first plane, who was tearing covering off of his it, looking disturbed, but focused on getting his "broken in" plane in the air once again. I could relate, but my failure was the fault of my own misjudgement. His was purely mechanical and I don't think it could've been prevented except for maybe a thorough test of servo strength before the flight. Note to self...do that before flying new servos. Stick away from transparent covering as well.
Everyone was wondering around the two accidents, a superstitious haze settling over their own thoughts of flight. I looked around a bit, checked out the wind, and said "Screw it, I'm flying" walking over to my plane. I fueled it up again, started the remarkably reliable engine (especially after it swalled a ball of dirt and was partially disassembled after the crash), and went for the sky. I just putt-putted around on 1/3 throttle until I had enough (still nervous) and took it in for a landing. I took my other plane, much more sporty, and set it on the table, considering flying it again. However, there was some excitement at the other end of the field.
Three of the people that were around, including the pro pilot that now had 2 more crashes on the record, put up in the sky. Two of the planes were a flying triangle design (of the pro pilot's) with an oversized motor and some fins for stability. They flew like rockets. The third was a midsized biplane that the owner had bought (crashed, though not badly) for $20. I've never seen anything like what happened while all three were in the air. I've seen airshows with jets and prop planes, but this was silly fun. The two triangles chased each other around the sky, turning on dimes, doing low and fast passes, barrel rolls so fast you can't count them, flying by and harrassing the biplane. The biplane could turn like those darts though, it just couldn't match the speed. In fact, those things could fly circles around the biplane, and they passed so close to each other that I could've sworn they were going to hit multiple times. But they didn't, and all came back to the ground safely once again. The pro pilot, even after those crashes, flew excellently, even landing without engine power (no fuel) after an inverted approach. He flew the plane upside down until he was about 20 feet away from where he wanted to land, then rolled the plane over with just a foot of altitude to spare and settled on the ground. Excellent.
I fueled my plane again, preparing for its third flight of the day (its flights being considerably longer than the shorter, windier flights the day previously). I then heard another engine start to my left. The biplane pilot was getting ready to head up into the sky with me, I'd never flown with someone else in the air with me before. He called his takeoff and already in the air, I kept my plane away from the field for long enough for his safe climb. I recognized the voice as the biplane pilot, a carpenter by profession that built beautiful planes from plans and scratch. We circled around in the sky, he followed me around a bit and I chuckled some. I got this feeling, something about sharing the sky with someone else was pretty cool. There's a good deal of trust, courtesy, and respect involved because of the value of what's being controlled up in the air. I called an approach and he acknowledged, and I performed an okay landing with a single bounce. I turned the plane around, called a takeoff, and got up there again. I flew for awhile more, getting ready to land on the opposite end of the field when I saw someone bring a third plane out. I aborted my approach, adding full throttle to come around and gain altitude. He didn't call his takeoff, I was only aware of it because I heard the high pitch shriek of an electric motor. Pretty soon there was a purple plane darting over my head. It was high enough for me not to get nervous, but I wondered what happened when it disappeared, because behind me was the clubhouse and trees. Just after I hoped to myself that it didn't hit me, I heard a loud smacking noise. I then heard the people not flying hustle to whatever wreckage there was. I just relaxed and continued to fly, enjoying the airspace. At least I didn't have to worry about it hiting me now. I set her down again after flying away most of the tank and continued to prep the stunt plane.
There was some kind of failure on the plane that had gone overhead, lost control, and smacked a tree. It was repairable, and was the final crash of the day (at least while I was there). After the more experienced pilots checked the wrecked plane, I asked for help on my stunt plane. I wasn't sure if the center of gravity was proper for smooth control (it's first flight had been very similar to the first crash of the day, except without the rolling, and I managed to get it back in one piece). Sure enough, it would need some adjustment, and that would have to wait until I took it home. I decided on another flight on the repaired trainer, fueled up, and went for it again. I was joined by another pilot flying a sportier plane than I, but we stayed in our own airspace and I realized something. I was relaxing. I wasn't nervous keeping the plane up in the air. I leaned up against the post in the cockpit area and just enjoyed watching everything going on with my plane. I tried another loop, this time the wind was so mild the plane made a clean circle in the sky. I landed a little while later, feeling refreshed, knowing I got my battery's worth out of the charge on the receiver. I can't wait to do it again.
 |
| » Beauty in design |
|---|
There's something about getting a pretty pile of wood, plastic, glue, and some aluminum, chrome, and brass into the air in a way that it can come back down and still be that pretty pile of said materials. I headed out to the field today, wanting to get the urge to fly out of my system long enough that I could concentrate on other things. My intention was to simply break in the motor of my Tower Hobbies 40 trainer. Once I arrived, however, and felt how much thrust the engine could make at full throttle as it tried to tear itself from my hand, tasted the oily exhaust in the air from the screaming little two-stroke, and made some adjustments to the controls of the plane, I couldn't resist letting the little sucker tear a hole in the sky. There was hardly any wind, so it didn't matter greatly which direction I convinced the plane to head into, but it quickly took flight, found a direction, and just went for the clouds. At full throttle, it's hard to keep the thing anywhere near the ground, as it wants to raise its nose in such a case.
The thing is, it's a trainer. A trainer meaning it's supposed to basically fly itself in case you screw up. It flies itself, but it is much less stubborn than the PT-20 that I built and flew a few years ago. That PT-20 would find the slightest breeze a hundred feet up and fly right into it, no matter what direction I had it pointing. This bigger plane would point it's nose and gently level it's wings. The PT-20 would actually see-saw it's wings over a balance point, making it difficult to control.
In order to understand such things, you have to realize a plane is a lot like a lever. As long as that lever is balanced in a particular way, it will point in the general direction that you placed it almost no matter what happens. Engineers design on paper, and the thing about paper is they assume that almost everything is perfect about the situation. The wind is constant or non-existent without gusts, the engine provides a constant thrust with no swirling over the air moving through the propeller, the landing gear doesn't cause asymmetrical drag forces that want to cause the plane to twist itself around, etc. However, even with fooling around on paper and assuming these perfect things about the plane, it can still fly well if you do your job well. Even with the little wrinkles in the covering of the skin it still tracks in the direction you point it, even if the wings aren't level. Gusts will affect it a little bit, but because of the dihedral (the v-shape of the wings), it will always tend to correct itself. I could relax my hand on the sticks and not tell it to do anything, and it would be perfectly content flying straight and level on it's own. That's something about good design that some people can just see to appreciate. There it is, a hunk of wood, plastic, and metals, ALIVE, breathing in air, spitting out oil, screaming for the short time that it has fuel in it's little plastic heart to pump, making the most fundamental shape in the sky with its path, a straight line, which was thought up by philosophers thousands of years ago.
That's the basic test of such things, as an engineer. Can you make something that existed at one point as some trees, rocks, and petroleum sludge FLY through the sky in a straight line on its own, under its own power? It all comes back to that idea of a straight line....
That said, I successfully took off and landed the plane two times today when I had just wanted to break in the engine. After I had landed it the first time, someone had seen it flying from the road and came over to say hi. To build confidence in my abilities I let him watch me take off and land it one more time before I called it a day. I didn't want to develop the complacency of thinking my plane was pretty enough, mounted on my wall, without letting it breath the air a few hundred feet above my head, something I couldn't do if I wanted, without wings and an engine, anyway.
It wants to fly, it doesn't want to slowly rot away, it's carburetor dry, the lubricating oil long since having dripped out its body.
Apr. 30th, 2007 @ 05:44 pm
|
| » Guns in the right hands and the VT shooting |
|---|
Been looking at this for awhile, definitely worth looking at.
But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.
In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.
Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.
What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.
And then there's Penn and Teller, who I admire a lot for speaking their minds and killing political correctness when the opportunity arises. Their take on this is, in three parts:
here
Of note is the case of a woman who left her gun in her car due to a new law that required owners to leave their weapons in the car. The day that happened, someone came into the restaurant and killed several patrons, including her parents (if i remember correctly). If she had ignored the bad law and kept the gun on her person, she'd still have a living family.
Apr. 24th, 2007 @ 05:31 pm
|
| » Hummingbird studying |
|---|
Maybe I'm just a weirdo...
But if I have a cup of coffee or other caffeine, I understand my lectures a lot better if I watch the recorded version at 2 times the normal speed. This goes even for something that I'm not entirely comfortable with, like partial differential equations. If I try to watch the lecture at normal speed, I get sleepy and distracted and can't remember what's going on. But, at 2x, I can focus, follow, and understand most of what's going on.
I know you do something similiar, sis, and I'm liking this way a lot more than actually going to class. Spending 75 minutes on watching lectures a week vs. 150 minutes is a huge difference, and if I need to see something again, even if I have to watch the entire lecture, it only takes 25 minutes.
Apr. 4th, 2007 @ 09:13 am
|
| » My immune system is attacking my body again |
|---|
Hives, Hives, HIVES. Went to the doc, got a 10 day supply of a steroid to get the hives to go away, then have an appointment with my reg. doctor and then allergist. I'm going to make them run blood work on me when I get back to eliminate the possibility of it being a disease and not an allergy. The doc thought it was a food allergy, but I can't find a common denominator in the food I've eaten, unless it's something like corn (which I ate absolutely 0 of since 8pm tuesday and still got some nasty hives today at around 10pm, I made sure that nothing I ate had corn in the ingredients). I just don't know what the hell it is, the only meds I'm taking are benadryl and the steroid, and since this is how I reacted before when I thought I was allergic to ibuprofen/my laundry detergent, I now doubt those allergies.
Mar. 22nd, 2007 @ 02:05 am
|
| » Doesn't surprise me... |
|---|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/06/ap/national/main2538741.shtml
Think of the implications of that. Give someone a badge and a gun and they think they own you. Feel protected yet?
Mar. 6th, 2007 @ 08:39 pm
|
| » For the record... |
|---|
Mucinex is by far the best help for a cold I've ever had. That's all.
Feb. 2nd, 2007 @ 07:31 pm
|
| » Well, hmmm |
|---|
I've been busy lately, which is unusual because of my newfound habit of slacking. I fixed it. How? I've been spending less time on the internet doing unnecessary things (facebooking, chiefly) and suddenly it's just been working.
Why this sudden about-face?
Sometime this weekend I realized that I was obsessing about the wrong things, and I'm slowly trying to change it. It's hard, because the problems I've been having (not serious, just annoying and time-consuming) have been lingering in me since at least middle school, maybe earlier. Some of them were reinforced by my parents. I'm trying to move away from what I consider bad personality traits in myself and nurture the ones I enjoy. It's working, just slowly. One of the annoying ones is complaining. I'm tired of it. But am I complaining about my complaining? Eh, don't really care.
Otherwise, I had a great weekend. Went to the Hoggetowne Medieval Faire dressed up as a pirate, tasted some mead and drank some beer, and saw a couple friends perform in the human chessboard. I also saw a really cool juggling/acrobat/fire breathing act (www.barelybalanced.com) which features an absolutely gorgeous woman doing some very difficult things. Aside from that, I was definitely impressed and entertained.
Immediately afterward (well, after dinner, anyway) I taught a lesson for the SHO annual swing dance with the Prez. About 100 people showed up, along with a reporter from the Alligator. I gave her my info and some info on the dance, tho I wasn't mentioned by name in the article (nor was the president, but I'm not really bothered by it), but what bothers me is they didn't mention where you can find the club every week. Sure, we have a nice article showcasing us, but if people were wondering where to meet us to learn to dance, there was no contact info or location. Ugh.
And then Sunday I was getting some work done, and it turns out I was doing a complex combination of linear algebra and calculus in order to derive the finite element equations for an electrostatics problem using Galerkin's method correctly! I had been getting the wrong answers using my derivation but it was an arithmetic error and not a problem with the 3 pages or so of hard work. After that realization, it was still early in the day and it was beautiful outside, so I went down to Lake Wauberg just because. It was chilly, but I went out on the little beach there and laid down on the lounge chair and relaxed, listening to some Zeppelin while watching birds fly and clouds blow to the southeast. Little bits of serenity like that are great, and started this week off very well. The only problem is I have a slight head cold now with a sore throat. Damn microbes.
Jan. 30th, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
|
| » Mistakes and lessons learned |
|---|
Warning: This is all about me, and written just for me. Honestly I just don't care if anyone else reads this or not. I want this down somewhere so I'll remember it.
AND IT IS A RANT, triggered by someone who I'm pretty sure doesn't read this, but if they do, hahahahhaha
Mistake #1: Trusting someone just because it "feels right"
-Only rarely does it just so happen that because something feels right that coincidentally things are actually right. I'm tired of emotions overriding my common sense and past experiences. Someone has to earn their trust from me before I decide to trust them. I've trusted too easily in the past, and screw it, it doesn't work
Mistake #2: Trying to please them
I'm tired of listening to shitty music that I don't enjoy, to caving to demands that end up just pissing me off, to being the chaser. It's not like I'm some ugly stupid sonofabitch that needs to pander to a girl's needs to get her attention. If I have to wade through bullshit for the hope that I will get attention that I deserve, then fuck it, I don't want to have anything to do with them.
Mistake #3: Ignoring warning signs
If she still communicates daily with a serious ex-boyfriend, I don't want to have anything to do with her. If she goes out of her way to visit the idiot in a hospital after he almost killed himself on a motorcycle, babying him for days while ignoring my attempts to contact her, when his mother and new girlfriend is around, she can eat shit and die. If she runs to meet other people and not me she can go away. If she doesn't want to touch me after not seeing me for over a week, I'm getting away right then and there. If I smell a lie, she can go to hell. If I think I am STUPID for being with her, then by golly, RUN AWAY.
So what am I going to do?
What I want!
I've been kissing the asses of girls that didn't deserve it for way too long now. Why? In the hopes that acting nice or sweet would make them like me. And I've been in situations where the girl liked me first and made the first move several times, and only once did it amount to something. I know that one was because I felt the same way back. I've spent way too much time trying to fix obviously broken ideas that will never work. And I get taken advantage of, taken for granted, or what have you. And I let it happen.
Well, I'm done with that.
I think I'm a good looking guy, and I've also been told so, therefore I'm not worried about that. I've already graduated college with a ridiculous GPA in a very hard major. I have an eclectic personality with a wide variety of interests. I think I'm interesting. You know what though? I'm tired of broadcasting things about me. I want someone to actually work at it to get to know me. That's how I know they are actually interested. Two girls have done that for me, and that is a damn sure sign that I want to keep them around. I don't want to have anything to do with girls that are just attracted to me superficially, are easy, or lack moral character. I never have and have no desire for one-night stands or anything like that. Girls that can't wait for a decent guy to come along and go to hell.
I'm going for what I want, I'm the prize. If I'm not happy, then I don't want to have anything to do with them. I am perfectly capable of taking care of and entertaining myself. I'd much rather be alone and happy than with someone and miserable because of the way they treat me. I'd love to have someone dependable and attractive and intelligent and fun and worth talking to, but until I find that person the rest of them can pound sand.
Whew, felt good to get that out.
And now, Soundgarden:
You wired me awake
And hit me with a hand of broken nails
You tied my lead and pulled my chain
To watch my blood begin to boil
But Im gonna break
Im gonna break my
Im gonna break my rusty cage and run
Too cold to start a fire
Im burning diesel burning dinosaur bones
Ill take the river down to still water
And ride a pack of dogs
Im gonna break
Im gonna break my
Im gonna break my rusty cage and run
Hits like a phillips head
Into my brain
Its gonna be too dark
To sleep again
Cutting my teeth on bars
And rusty chains, Im gonna break my
Rusty cage and run
When the forest burns
Along the road
Like gods eyes
In my headlights
When the dogs are looking
For their bones
And its raining icepicks
On your steel shore
Im gonna break
Im gonna break my
Im gonna break my rusty cage and run
Jan. 14th, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
|
| » Have you had your workout today? |
|---|
Early this week, I got an email from the cycling list-serve about someone I know selling a fixed-gear roadbike for $175. The particular model I got retails for around $700 new, and this one is about a year and a half old. To be honest, the idea of buying a fixed gear bike both scared the crap out of me and fascinated me, so I went for it.
Why is that? Every bike you have probably ever ridden had either a freewheel or freehub. I don't remember the difference between the two, but the end effect is the same: you can stop pedaling at any time and coast. I think this was originally designed for safety bikes, but this also allows the installation of gears. Without coasting, a slip in the chain during shifting gears could destroy at least the chain, and maybe the gears as well.
A fixed gear does not allow coasting at all. If the wheel is turning, the pedals have to be turning, unless the chain is broken. This isn't too bad when you're going slow, but if you are flying down a hill your feet have to be firmly attached to the pedals or completely off the pedals, any thought of being in between results in at least some lost flesh, maybe worse. In fact, the first time I ever road a fixed gear I was trying to slow down (I was going downhill) and my feet disconnected from the pedals. I was instantly in a huge amount of pain as the pedal impacted my shin and took a chunk of skin away.
So, in spite of all this, I bought it. I put on some pedals with toe-clips (straps that connect your shoes to the pedals so its difficult to lose your footing), grabbed my backpack and helmet, and decided to just ride.
It had been a long time since I just took a bike out just for fun. And this bike was all fun. It only has a front break. There are no other possible things I could do to control the bike because there are no gears. Because there's a solid connection between the pedals and wheels, I can actually slow down by applying backward pressure on the pedals. Towards the end of my ride I could ride mostly without even touching the front brake.
After getting used to the idea of not being able to stop pedaling at any point, I decided my first challenge would be center drive. Center drive is the third steepest hill on campus (newell being 2nd, frat row being 1st), but steep enough to really hurt if something goes wrong. In fact, the previous owner told me that he was going down center drive, his feet came off the pedals, and he had to crash into some bushes in order to stop (it's really hard to steer a bike with your feet suddenly out sideways, away from the meat grinding pedals). I figured I was comfortable enough to give it a reasonable shot, so I went for it.
The first time going down the hill I rode the front brake the entire way. I applied a little bit of back pressure on the pedals, but mostly tried to get a feel of how fast my feet would have to be rotating with the pedals. The second time, I took my hand off the brake entirely. I slowed my descent with some backward pressure, but I went down much faster, and it was exciting. One part that was scary though was a rough part of the road where it was just dirt (from laying a pipe across the street I guess). Normally I would let up on my brakes in such a circumstance, to make sure I didn't lose traction, but this time I had to hold on and try to tread gently on the pedals. If I had applied too much back pressure, the wheel would have skidded. My pressure had to be just enough to keep my feet on, nothing more.
And after that hill, I decided I would try newell. Newell, however, I decided was too steep to go down for today. I decided instead to go up newell. Now, keep in mind I only have one gear. I can't downshift to make it easier. So, I stood up and grunted the whole way and managed to pull it off without dismounting. It was difficult because the gearing is set for high speed and not torque.
I love the feeling I get when the I ride it. It requires a constant concentration in order to conserve energy and be comfortable. I enjoyed it so much I decided to keep riding, and that meant I spent 2 hours just riding the thing around campus, seeing how fast I could go, checking out different hills, and just enjoying myself. My mind was completely clear after that. It was a blast.
Jan. 12th, 2007 @ 04:41 pm
|
| » A fresh start |
|---|
Now that I am free of the apparent lying and passive-aggressive bullshit of last year, I am ready to hit the ground running, though I want to keep a few things in mind:
I lost around 7 or so pounds since thanksgiving, and am desperately trying to stuff my face to put the weight back on. I need to increase my appetite, and the only way I have found that works is more cardio. That means I'm going to try to do some running. No clue how that's going to go. It'd work better if I had a jogging buddy that lived nearby and wanted to run early in the morning, like 6:30ish. Also, I have a new Ipod shuffle now, which will make any athletic trip less boring.
I have a very respectable library of difficult books (like mathematics, science, etc.) that I would love to get at. I read essays and non-fiction daily and can finish a small novel-sized volume very quickly. I want to set goals of what I want to accomplish in the more difficult books so I can actually make my way through them. No telling.
And I want to smack this math course I will be taking down, just need to do a few points better than I did last semester. (to get an A instead of B+)
Jan. 7th, 2007 @ 01:39 pm
|
| » YESSSS!!! |
|---|
I'm not allergic to shellfish!!!! Woooohoooo!
Got back from the allergist and then went to Harry's for some celebratory seafood. I just have to watch out for bad fish. The allergist thought there was a chance it was scromboid fish. When fish spoils, it produces histamine, causing something that can look like an allergic reaction when its really just food poisoning. He mentioned a severe case in Gainesville where one guy had two bites of a tuna steak from a cafeteria and actually passed out. The doctors initially thought that he had some sort of heart attack or condition, but he came to and told them about the fish. So, be careful and make sure that your seafood is fresh.
On another note, one of the gifts I got for Christmas was defective and I turned it into best buy at the suggestion of my 'rents. With the gift card I received from the turn in, I got some movies and music that I wouldn't normally buy:
Pump Up the Volume - I loved this movie when I saw it a loooong time ago, and now I have it.
Seven Years in Tibet - After seeing/holding a lot of Tibetan sculptures and hearing about Tibet from the artist previously mentioned, I was interested in seeing this movie.
True Romance - One of my favorites, though I don't care much for Tarantino except for this movie and Pulp Fiction, and I prefer True Romance over Pulp Fiction any day
Clint Eastwood "Hero" collection - A boxed set of three movies, none of which I have seen, but I wanted to give them a shot. I've liked Clint Eastwood in the movies I've seen him in.
Jamaroquia - Traveling Without Moving - Something different, and I think I could dance to a few of these songs
Primus - They can't all be Zingers - A collection of the most popular songs by Primus. Les Claypool rocks at bass and I didn't own any Primus beforehand. It's weird music, good to disturb my roommates with.
Soundgarden - Greatest Hits - Listening to Soundgarden just plain puts me in a good mood. Forget the depressing lyrics, I like the music and the singer's voice as an instrument. If only they had better lyrics....
Jan. 5th, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
|
| » It keeps going |
|---|
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027315.php#027315
Also:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-09T161427Z_01_N09449134_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-PRISONERS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-4
"The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. We rank first in the world in locking up our fellow citizens," said Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, which supports alternatives in the war on drugs.
"We now imprison more people for drug law violations than all of western Europe, with a much larger population, incarcerates for all offenses."
Dec. 11th, 2006 @ 01:46 pm
|
| » What the...? |
|---|
I hadn't heard of Operation Northwoods before today.
Nothing surprises me anymore
Dec. 7th, 2006 @ 06:35 pm
|
| » That was lame |
|---|
Apparently there's a short in my apartment's wiring. Suddenly both upstais bathrooms' wall outlets won't work and the cable outlet in my wall (the one we use just for internet) doesn't get a cable signal. Something went weird over the weekend.
Dec. 3rd, 2006 @ 03:57 pm
|
| » 79 years ago |
|---|
Albert Jay Nock wrote a very good article, here are some highlights:
I did not know how to take this, nor do I now. Let me draw a rough parallel. Suppose vast numbers of people to be contemplating a machine that they had been told was a plough, and very valuable -- indeed, that they could not get on without it -- some even saying that its design came down in some way from on high. They have great feelings of pride and jealousy about this machine, and will give up their lives for it if they are told it is in danger. Yet they all see that it will not plough well, no matter what hands are put to manage it, and in fact does hardly any ploughing at all; sometimes only with enormous difficulty and continual tinkering and adjustment can it be got to scratch a sort of furrow, very poor and short, hardly practicable, and ludicrously disproportionate to the cost and pains of cutting it. On the other hand, the machine harrows perfectly, almost automatically. It looks like a harrow, has the history of a harrow, and even when the most enlightened effort is expended on it to make it act like a plough, it persists, except for an occasional six or eight per cent of efficiency, in acting like a harrow.
Surely such a spectacle would make an intelligent being raise some enquiry about the nature and original intention of that machine. Was it really a plough? Was it ever meant to plough with! Was it not designed and constructed for harrowing? Yet none of the anomalies that I had been observing ever raised any enquiry about the nature and original intention of the State. They were merely acquiesced in. At most, they were put down feebly to the imperfections of human nature which render mismanagement and perversion of every good institution to some extent inevitable; and this is absurd, for these anomalies do not appear in the conduct of any other human institution. It is no matter of opinion, but of open and notorious fact, that they do not. There are anomalies in the church and in the family that are significantly analogous; they will bear investigation, and are getting it; but the analogies are by no means complete, and are mostly due to the historical connection of these two institutions with the State.
And then:
The Liberal party was in power in England in 1911, and my attention became attracted to its tenets. I had already seen something of Liberalism in America as a kind of glorified mugwumpery. The Cleveland Administration had long before proved what everybody already knew, that there was no essential difference between the Republican and Democratic parties; an election meant merely that one was in office and wished to stay in, and the other was out and wished to get in. I saw precisely the same relation prevailing between the two major parties in England, and I was to see later the same relation sustained by the Labour Administration of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. All these political permutations resulted only in what John Adams admirably called "a change of impostors." But I was chiefly interested in the basic theory of Liberalism. This seemed to be that the State is no worse than a degenerate or Perverted institution, beneficent in its original intention, and susceptible of restoration by the simple expedient of "putting good men in office."
...The general upshot of my observations, however, was to show me that whether in the hands of Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, and whether under nominal constitutionalism, republicanism or autocracy, the mechanism of the State would work freely and naturally in but one direction, namely, against the general welfare of the people.
More:
This at once cleared up all the anomalies which I had found so troublesome. One could see immediately, for instance, why the hunting tribes and primitive peasants never formed a State. Primitive peasants never made enough of an economic accumulation to be worth stealing; they lived from hand to mouth. The hunting tribes of North America never formed a State, because the hunter was not exploitable. There was no way to make another man hunt for you; he would go off in the woods and forget to come back; and if he were expropriated from certain hunting-grounds, he would merely move on beyond them, the territory being so large and the population so sparse. Similarly, since the State's own primary intention was essentially criminal, one could see why it cares only to monopolize crime, and not to suppress it; this explained the anomalous behavior of officials, and showed why it is that in their public capacity, whatever their private character, they appear necessarily as a professional-crimina1 class; and it further accounted for the fact that the State never moves disinterestedly for the general welfare, except grudgingly and under great pressure.
...the preoccupation with converting labor-made property into law-made property, and redistributing its ownership. The moment one becomes aware that just this, over and above a purely legal distribution of the ownership of natural resources, is what the State came into being for, and what it yet exists for, one immediately sees that the legislative bodies are acting altogether in character, and otherwise one cannot possibly give oneself an intelligent account of their behavior.
Ooohhh and he talks about tariffs too:
It is a primary instinct of human nature to satisfy one's needs and desires with the least possible exertion; everyone tends by instinctive preference to use the political means rather than the economic means, if he can do so. The great desideratum in a tariff, for instance, is its license to rob the domestic consumer of the difference between the price of an article in a competitive and a non-competitive market. Every manufacturer would like this privilege of robbery if he could get it, and he takes steps to get it if he can, thus illustrating the powerful instinctive tendency to climb out of the exploited class, which lives by the economic means (exploited, because the cost of this privilege must finally come out of production, there being nowhere else for it to come from), and into the class which lives, wholly or partially, by the political means.
This instinct--and this alone--is what gives the State its almost impregnable strength. The moment one discerns this, one understands the almost universal disposition to glorify and magnify the State, and to insist upon the pretence that it is something which it is not -- something, in fact, the direct opposite of what it is. One understands the complacent acceptance of one set of standards for the State's conduct, and another for private organizations; of one set for officials, and another for private persons. One understands at once the attitude of the press, the Church and educational institutions, their careful inculcations of a specious patriotism, their nervous and vindictive proscriptions of opinion, doubt or even of question. One sees why purely fictitious theories of the State and its activities are strongly, often fiercely and violently, insisted on; why the simple fundamentals of the very simply science of economics are shirked or veiled; and why, finally, those who really know what kind of thing they are promulgating, are loth to say so.
And to wrap it up, what he thinks about correcting the situation:
My opinion of my own government and those who administer it can probably be inferred from what I have written. Mr. Jefferson said that if a centralization of power were ever effected at Washington, the United States would have the most corrupt government on earth. Comparisons are difficult, but I believe it has one that is thoroughly corrupt, flagitious, tyrannical, oppressive. Yet if it were in my power to pull down its whole structure overnight and set up another of my own devising -- to abolish the State out of hand, and replace it by an organization of the economic means -- I would not do it, for the minds of Americans are far from fitted to any such great change as this, and the effect would be only to lay open the way for the worse enormities of usurpation -- possibly, who knows! with myself as the usurper! After the French Revolution, Napoleon!
Great and salutary social transformations, such as in the end do not cost more than they come to, are not effected by political shifts, by movements, by programs and platforms, least of all by violent revolutions, but by sound and disinterested thinking. The believers in action are numerous, their gospel is widely preached, they have many followers.
or, as Thoreau would say:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
Dec. 1st, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
aeroegnr's journal