Q: Phil - Where the fuck have you been?
A: I've been to 8 countries outside the US (chronologically they are Ireland, Canada, England, France, Australia, Denmark, Mexico and Aruba) and 29 out of 50 states. I've been near the geographic center of North America, and to the southern-most point in the US. I've been to a LOT of airports around the country, including a personal best 5 in one day (AGS-ATL-HSV-BWI-ROC) on April 27, 2012. The longest day of my travel life was in October of 2008 when I flew from Rochester, NY to Canberra, Australia. I departed Rochester at about 3pm on October 3, 2008 and landed in Canberra (hopping through Chicago, San Francisco and Sydney) at about 11am on October 5, 2008. All told I spent about 38 hours traveling, which is a record I hope stands for the rest of my life.
Q: Luke - Will the Clarkson Men's Hockey Team ever win a National Championship? Is Casey Jones' system failing, or is the new cadre of recruits going to finally make it work? Who is the guy behind the Richard Nixon mask? THESE QUESTIONS AND MORE ON THE NEXT.......ASK MITTSOB
A: Three questions and a dramatic statement. Not exactly the normal format of a question I get but I'll tackle them one at a time.
First, I think that it's likely that the Clarkson Men's Hockey team will win a National Championship (by which I assume that you mean the NCAA Men's Hockey Tournament and not, for example, the National Spelling Bee). Unfortunately the last time the team made the finals was was 1970 when they lost to Cornell 6-4, and they haven't even made the tournament since 2008 when they lost in the quarterfinals to Michigan 2-0. Given the team's performance over the past few years (see question 2) it feels unlikely but times change and I have faith in our team!
As to your second question, I sheepishly admit that I have not watched nor listened to a minute of Clarkson Hockey this season outside of the game that I attended at RIT in October. Yes, I'm a bad fan. To help close that gap I brought up the ECAC Hockey Page for Clarkson to see how the season unfolded, and the more I read the more disappointed I became. We went 8-11-3 in conference, lost in the first round of the ECAC playoffs to RPI, and to make matters worse we went 1-2-1 against SLU. Those facts alone give me pause and make me question how effective our coach's system is. Looking deeper we were in the bottom half of most statistics including Goals, PIM, Power-play (goals, opportunities, etc), Saves and Save Percentage. The only area that we seemed to do well was in Penalty Kills (3rd). With all of that data I won't jump to the "OMG Casey Jones' system is failing OMG" position, but I will express my disappointment in this past season and my hope that new recruits will help. Time, as always, will tell.
Finally, as to the identity of the guy behind the Richard Nixon mask, I plead total ignorance as to what you're talking about. Is there someone in a Richard Nixon mask attending Clarkson Men's Hockey games? The only person I identify with being behind a Richard Nixon mask is Brett Gobe, but that only makes him A guy in the Richard Nixon mask, not THE guy in the Richard Nixon mask.
Q: Mike Guethle - We've had the snowiest January on record followed by the coldest February on record. March shows no sign of warmup. When will the snow melt, and is barn cat dead?
A: Based on when the snow melted last year (a comparably cold winter) I would say that the snow will finally finish melting sometime in the first week of April. The last snowfall of the season will likely come in May of this year given the trends of the past few years, but any accumulations will be short lived.
Because it was such a brutally cold winter in the northeastern United States I'm going to guess that Barn Cat did not survive. That makes me sad despite the fact that I have not, nor never will actually MEET Barn Cat. Hopefully I am wrong about Barn Cat's fate.
Q: Matt Neal - Are smurfs insects or mammals?
A: Smurfs appear to have a skeletal structure covered by muscle, fat, skin and hair. Therefore I think this puts them into the mammal category.
Q: Phil - Will the Sabres successfully complete the tank job or will they Buffalo all over it?
A: Unfortunately my lack of hockey viewing this season extends to the NHL as well. When I moved to western New York in 2002 I decided to adopt the Buffalo Sabres as my professional hockey team but my attention has waned in the past few years. Thus I was only peripherally aware of the tank job that Buffalo was attempting this season. I say "was" because at the time of this writing (April 11, 2015) Buffalo has clinched last place with a loss to the Columbus Blue Jackets on Friday, April 10, 2015, so it seems that they've succeeded. Their prize is a guaranteed #2 lottery pick and a 20% chance at the #1 overall lottery pick. Was it worth it? Personally I think it's dangerous to put all of one's faith into a single draft pick, but let's face it, it's hard to finish worse than last. But if any city can figure out how, it's Buffalo!
Q (1 of 2): Bill - Who are the two candidates for president in 2016? Editor: don't let him wuss out on this, I want a definitive, well-thought out answer.
A: As a consumer of political news I welcome this challenge, but as a man with limited time on his hands I loathe this challenge. But accept this challenge I will!
Some ground rules and formatting up front. Candidates are grouped by political party and presented in alphabetical order. Next to each name will be their current/most recent political job. I'll try to include at least one recent news article about the person in the answer embedded with my thoughts and opinions on the person.
Democrats
At the time of this writing (March-April, 2015) two Democrats have announced their intention to run for President. The popular view is that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee but that is far from certain (see: Obama, Barack Hussein).
Joe Biden (Vice President of the United States of America)
"Uncle Joe" Biden has been involved in American politics since the late 60's, and was elected to the Senate in 1972. He has mounted several presidential campaigns over the years and was a prominent Democrat member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his tenure in the Senate. In 2008 after losing in the Democrat primary he was chosen by candidate Obama to be his running mate and became the 45th Vice President of the United States in 2008, a position he retained in 2012 with President Obama's reelection.
Vice President Biden is well known for his gaffes and inappropriate and borderline racist comments over the years but he has not suffered any serious consequences for them. Likewise his foreign policy experience (one of the reasons that he was chosen for Vice President) has been criticized by many people including most recently former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Will any of that impact his ability to try for another run at the Presidency? No. The only thing stopping him from trying is Hillary Clinton, which is the same thing stopping anyone from running on the Democrat side. Personally I hope he tries again because he's an entertaining figure in politics and he'll provide some much-needed comic relief.
Hillary Clinton (Most recently Secretary of State of the United States of America)
The first entry in our "Back to the 90's" series is Hillary Clinton, who announced her candidacy on Sunday, April 12, 2015. Former Secretary Clinton has been engaged in the American political scene for the last 40+ years. Her husband William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the US. During his presidency she was brought in to design and implement a new Health Care system for the country (known at the time as Hillarycare).
After her husband left office in 2000 she was elected Senator from New York, and after a term and a third she ran for President starting in 2007. Her election to the Presidency was supposed to be a shoe-in but she ran into the political force of Barack Hussein Obama and wound up losing the Democrat Primary in 2008. Her name was floated as a potential Vice President for Obama, but ultimately she was offered and accepted the Secretary of State position after his election. What did she accomplish as Secretary of State? Not much. She flew hundreds of thousands of miles around the world meeting with diplomats and visiting foreign countries. To me that qualifies her as a travel agent or host of a show on the Travel Channel. She presented the President of Russia a misspelled reset button to symbolize a reset in Russia/US relations. She claimed to have come under sniper fire during a visit to Iraq (which was later proven false). On September 11, 2012 the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya was overrun by a coordinated attack in which the ambassador and three other American embassy personnel were killed. She blamed the attack on reaction to an obscure YouTube video (unlikely but also not disprovable), later famously proclaiming "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
The past few weeks have uncovered new scandals regarding her time at the State Department (another well-written summary can be found here). The Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign governments while she was secretary, in direct violation of administration policy. She and members of her staff used a privately owned and maintained email server at her residence in Chappaqua, NY to conduct official State Department Business. She turned over all work-related emails from that server to the State Department and then deleted all emails on the server, thus ensuring that the public will never know if she ACTUALLY turned over all of her work-related emails. Most recently a book called Clinton Cash has been written detailing how Former President Clintons' speaking fees increased after she became Secretary of State and how her positions changed based on contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
But what difference at this point does it make? She's Hillary Clinton! First Woman President! And remember the 90's? They were great, right? Hillary Clinton was in the White House in the 90's! Also, vagina! #ReadyForHillary
Al Gore (Most recently Vice President of the United States of America)
Speaking of the 90's, ladies and gentlemen, Al Gore! The recent stumblings of Hillary Clinton have sent the left side of the political world looking for alternatives. The New York Times chimed in recently with this piece practically begging the former Vice President to run.
Al Gore served as a congressman from Tennessee from starting in 1977 and was elected to the Senate from that state in 1984. In 1992 he was chosen by Bill Clinton to be his Vice President where he served until 2000. In 2000 he lost the Presidential Election to George W. Bush. Since that loss he has been involved in a wide variety of environmental causes and has amassed a multi-million dollar fortune in the process. He founded (and later sold) a liberal-left media group called CurrentTV.
The fact that his name is being floated now interests me as an observer of these things. Has it been long enough since the 2000 debacle for Al Gore to make a reappearance? Personally I think so. 16 years is enough time for a new generation of voters to come of age and for the sins of the past to be forgotten (for example, Al Gore was raising campaign money from the Chinese well before Frank Underwood was).
But who cares what's in that lockbox? Remember the 90's? They were great, right? Al Gore was in the White House in the 90's! Also, environment! #ReadyForAlGore
Martin O'Malley (Most recently Governor of Maryland)
Martin O'Malley served two terms as Governor of Maryland from 2007 to 2015. Before that he was mayor of Baltimore from 1999 to 2007. He's got executive experience and left-wing values, so in a normal year that would make him a viable candidate for the Democrat party's nomination. Unfortunately for him this is not a normal year. He's starting to make appearances in NH and has begun to (gently) poke at Hillary. What I expect will happen is that eventually the Clintons will swat him like a mosquito and that will be the end of his candidacy.
Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont)
Bernie Sanders is an Independent Senator from Vermont who is a self-labeled Democratic Socialist (in the mold of the Democratic Socialist parties in Europe) who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. He began his political career as Mayor of Burlington in 1981 and was elected to the House of Representatives on his second effort in 1990. He was elected to the Senate in 2006 and won reelection in 2012. He is currently the only officially-declared challenger to Hillary Clinton.
Senator Sanders has been a champion of far-left causes for his entire career. He is most famous for delivering an 8.5 hour speech on the Senate floor (incorrectly labeled as a filibuster) in December of 2010 against extension of the tax cuts signed into law during the George W. Bush administration. His platform seems to be a very far-left populist message of taking money from billionaires and distributing it to the rest of the country. It's a very popular message among the left but I'm not sure how it's going to play in a general election. Regardless I'm happy that he's in the race because he'll put pressure on Secretary Clinton and provide some competition on that side of the race.
Elizabeth Warren (Senator from Massachusetts)
Senator Warren is currently a darling among the left. Part of her admiration seems to be based on her firm allegiance to the "you didn't build that" wing of the Democrat party. Her left-populist, class-envy positions are popular with the far-left and there's already a movement to draft her into the nomination. Thus far she has not declared or indicated any interest, but if Hillary Clinton were to suddenly disappear she would be a first-tier candidate.
There are many similarities between Senator Warren and President Obama. Both are former college professors. Both were aided in achieving their college positions by their minority status (1/2 African-American for Obama, 1/12th Native-American for Warren, though this was later proven false and provided her the nickname "Fauxcahontas"). Both hold views that are on the far-left of the American political spectrum. Both were first-term Senators when they seriously considered Presidential runs. So if you think that the Obama regime has been a success, by all means let's try it again!
James Webb (Most recently Senator from Virginia)
James "Jim" Webb served one term as Senator from Virginia from 2007 to 2012. He was elected as part of the Democrat wave of 2006 where the Republicans lost both the Senate and the House. In his time in the Senate he served on the prominent military and foreign committees (Foreign Relations, Veterans Affairs and Armed Services). He decided to leave after one term, and in November of 2014 formed an exploratory committee for a Presidential run, which is unique among the candidates on the Democrat side of the ledger.
Senator Webb falls into the same left-wing populist category as our current President, but the fact that he served a full term in the Senate gives him more experience than Senator Warren, so he's go that that going for him, which is nice. Personally I believe that his run is for a position in a future Clinton administration (most likely Defense Secretary). This is a tactic used over the years by many candidates, and we'll have several more examples when we get to the Republicans.
Republicans
As a conservative I am supremely happy with the crop of candidates. I will say upfront that I have not currently chosen a candidate, but out of the ones listed below there are only a couple that I would not enthusiastically support. All face an uphill battle but I believe that all are qualified to at least wage that battle.
Jeb Bush (Most recently Governor of Florida)
For our third and final entry in the "Back to the 90's" sweepstakes, I give you Jeb Bush. Governor Bush is the son and brother of former US Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively. He was elected as Governor of Florida in 1998 after losing in 1994 and served two terms as Governor. During his tenure he lowered taxes and implemented conservative government reforms including cutting spending and making it easier to remove government employees. He worked to reform education, something that he has continued in his time outside of office with his support of Common Core. At this point he has only declared that he's exploring a run for President, not actually declared but the popular opinion is that he'll get in sometime this spring/summer.
Governor Bush is the leader among establishment Republicans and has the most big-money donors supporting him. That will help his chances but with the rise of the conservative grass roots since 2009 I don't know if it will be enough.
Ben Carson (N/A)
Dr. Ben Carson is a pediatric neurosurgeon who was invited to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2013. There he gave a very pointed and critical speech directed partly at President Obama, who was in the room with him during the speech. For this he received praise from conservatives and condemnation from the left. Since that time he has become a prominent conservative commentator, appearing often on Fox News and talk radio outlets. He officially announced his candidacy via a video released on May 3, 2015.
Dr. Carson's views tend to the conservative/libertarian, which I like, but mastery of Medicine does not qualify someone to be President, nor does rhetorical flourish, so I'm not a fan of his Presidential run and I don't think he has a chance of winning. His knowledge of foreign affairs is particularly lacking as evidenced by an interview he gave with one of my favorite conservative talk show hosts. In my opinion he is running not for President but for a Cabinet Secretary position (Surgeon General most likely) in the eventual Republican nominee's administration.
Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey)
Governor Chris Christie is one of my personal favorite figures in national politics today. He began his political career in 1995 as a county legislator, was appointed US Attorney for New Jersey by President George W. Bush from 2002 to 2008, and then ran for an won the Governorship in 2009. He won reelection in 2014 and is currently the chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
Governor Christie is a bombastic, fearless, articulate man. He balanced budgets in New Jersey without raising income, sales or business taxes. He is a vocal critic of the teacher's unions in New Jersey, and supports school choice. Unfortunately he has been dogged by a number of media-driven complaints and controversies for the past two years. The most famous of these involved the closure of two lanes of the Fort Lee entrance to the George Washington bridge from September 9-13, 2013. This caused numerous traffic headaches for residences and became a national scandal known as Bridgegate. The closures were ordered by one of Christie's aides who was later fired. In January of 2014 Governor Christie held an epic 108 minute long press conference, answering every question that the press could come up with about the incident, which seemed to deflate a lot of attention. An investigation of the incident concluded in December of 2014 and cleared the Governor of any wrongdoing.
He's been keeping out of the spotlight lately, which I think is for the best. In my opinion he would be an entertaining candidate, but I don't think he's the best we can do.
Ted Cruz (Senator from Texas)
In general I do not like Senators as Presidents. The last six and a half years have more than borne this out. However, I really like Ted Cruz. He is smart and a great speaker, and he backs up his principles with action (filibustering overnight in the Senate, for example). He does well in large groups and in long interviews, and does not require a teleprompter to tell him what to say. He clerked in the Supreme Court and has argued nine times in front of that same court.
He was also the first Republican to openly declare his/her candidacy. Since the announcement he has made the rounds in Iowa, given several media interviews, and started meeting with voters. The most recent controversy he's been involved in is regarding an interview given by Mark Halparin in which Cruz was challenged to prove that he was authentically Cuban. Senator Cruz bore it well and the interviewer was rightly chastised for his racism. It isn't the end of it, but the public shaming of Halparin is encouraging.
Carly Fiorina (Most recently candidate for Senator from California)
Carly Fiorina is most famous for being CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 2002 to 2005. Her first political activity was an unsuccessful senate campaign in 2010, but she's been very vocal about her desire to run for President this cycle. On the one hand I like executive experience, and Carly Fiorina certainly has that. She seems very smart, accomplished, and can think fast on her feet. She has been going after Hillary Clinton in speeches and is at least partly shielded from gender politics by being a woman. She officially announced her candidacy during an appearance on ABC's This Week program on May 3, 2015.
Unfortunately I think her lack of national political experience is going to hurt her as the race gets going. True, she's a good speaker and can battle back against the inevitable bias in the media, but that won't be enough to push her candidacy over the edge. I see Carly Fiorina giving this a go for two reasons. First, to raise her national profile. She could come back and run for Senate or Governor from California again. Second, she could also be running for a Cabinet Secretary position, probably Secretary of Treasury.
Lindsey Graham (Senator from South Carolina)
I am not a fan of Lindsey Graham. He has been in Washington for far too long, and as such has become a member of the establishment wing of the Republican Party (see also McCain, John, Boehner, John and McConnell, Mitch). Anyone who has spent that much time in the US Senate is not qualified to be President of the United States of America. The one interesting thing about his candidacy is that it increases the probability of the Naked Leprechaun Riding on a Unicorn Scenario, which I will come to in due time. [Ed. The WHAT?!? Trust me, it's good!]
Mike Huckabee (Most recently governor of Arkansas)
Governor Huckabee is a big-government conservative in the mold of George W. Bush. He is socially conservative, a darling of the evangelical right movement, and an effective communicator. He was able to turn his unsuccessful Presidential runs in 2008 and 2012 into a successful television show on the Fox News Channel. Recently he announced that he was going to take a leave from the show, and on May 5, 2015 he announced his candidacy.
Governor Huckabee's brand of "compassionate conservatism" died with the George W. Bush administration in 2008. Sadly the Governor does not yet realize that, but he will, and when he does I hope that he steps aside gracefully.
John Kasich (Governor of Ohio)
John Kasich is currently in his second term as governor of Ohio having won a decisive victory in 2014. Prior to that he served in Congress from 1983 until 2001, then went on to host a show on Fox News until 2007. His name has recently started to be spoken more loudly by the political class, and given the importance of Ohio to the electoral college and his performance as governor (generally positive) I think it's likely he'll get in.
Rick Perry (Most recently Governor of Texas)
Rick Perry is considered a dark horse candidate given his struggles in the 2012 Republican Presidential campaign. His experience as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015 certainly helps his chances, as does the fact that he's run and lost. He seems to have learned some lessons and is keeping a low profile. He has not officially declared, nor has he formed an exploratory committee, but his name remains in the mix.
Rand Paul (Senator from Kentucky)
Rand Paul announced his candidacy on April 7, 2015. His launch was rocky (he got into an on-air confrontation with Savannah Guthrie of the Today Show), but during it he did succeed in pushing back against the media and that shows that he's a fighter. Rand Paul is firmly in command of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, and a formidable wing it is. His father Ron Paul has been a darling of that movement for a long time, and Senator Paul seems to have inherited that support.
He, like Ted Cruz, also suffers from being a first-term senator. Given that there are three total (see our next contestant) that's not that big of an issue, but it's still an issue. I think his bigger issue is going to be the fact that this election is going to be more and more focused on foreign policy, and Rand Paul's isolationist instincts are not going to serve him well.
Marco Rubio (Senator from Florida)
Rounding out the class of first-term Senators running for President, I bring you Marco Rubio. Elected in 2010, Senator Rubio has made a name for himself as a foreign policy expert in the Senate. I have seen and heard him give numerous interviews on foreign policy and he is impressive in those settings. He works without notes, has a clear vision, and articulates it well.
Senator Rubio announced his candidacy on April 13, 2015 in a speech in Miami, FL. The fact that two major politicians from Florida are in the race and that makes the aforementioned Naked Leprechaun Riding A Unicorn Scenario more likely. [Ed. I'm starting to think that you just made up that term. I only wish I had come up with it first!]
Rick Santorum (Most recently Senator from Pennsylvania)
On the plus side Rick Santorum has been out of the US Senate for long enough that any establishment stain has long since washed away. On the minus side, well, he's just not a good candidate. He's been running for President of Iowa for the better part of a decade but hasn't gained much national momentum. He collected the second most delegates in the 2012 Republican Primary but that doesn't seem to matter this time around. Personally I hope he decides to sit this one out but I doubt he will.
Scott Walker (Governor of Wisconsin)
A very successful governor with a rising national profile, Scott Walker is my personal favorite candidate in the batch. First elected governor in 2010 he upset the left in Wisconsin by introducing drastic overhauls in the budget and limiting the power of public employee unions. In retaliation there were demonstrations, protests, and eventually a recall election in 2012 which he won handily. He campaigned again in 2014 and again won re-election.
In January of 2015 Scott Walker first formed an exploratory committee around a Presidential run and began making speeches in Iowa and other places around the country. He would be the first President in a very long time without a college degree (he quit his Senior year to accept a job offer and never finished). Personally I find that to be to his benefit.
Matchup and Victor
Democrats: Hilary Clinton
Who else could it be? I mean really, it doesn't matter how many scandals come about, how many rules and/or laws that she's broken, or how incompetent she has been in her government jobs. She's the nominee. Get used to it. #ReadyForHillary
Republicans: Brokered Convention
One possibility that 2016 presents on the Republican side is what's known as a Brokered Convention. This means that no one candidate has enough delegates to win outright and that the rules of the convention will pick the candidate. I like to think of it like how the Vatican chooses a new pope but without the white smoke. Because of how rare it would be, Hugh Hewitt (another of my favorite radio talk show hosts) calls this the Naked Leprechaun Riding a Unicorn Scenario.
So once the dust settles who will win? My money is on Governor Walker. Admittedly this is some wishful thinking on my part, but to me Scott Walker is the best possible choice for the Republicans.
Q (2 of 2): Bill - Which pair of pep band offspring are the first to hook up? You know it's going to happen eventually...
A: There have been pairings in the pep band for as long as the pep band has existed. Some of these have succeeded (often times spectacularly) while others have failed (equally spectacularly). Pairings of pep band offspring, however, is something that is naturally going to be rarer given the smaller pool of people to draw from.
But how small is that pool? I've decided to bound the potential candidates with the following rules:
1. One parent must have been a member in good standing of the Clarkson University Pep Band for one full hockey season.
2. Both parents must have attended Clarkson University for at least one full year.
This disqualifies a large number of people (including myself and Steve Faux) but leaves in place people like you and your wife. You're welcome. With those rules in place I racked my brain and was able to come up with the following (admittedly incomplete) list in no particular order:
Greg and Kathy Dilmore: 4
Kevin and Karyn Graves: 2
Tim and Marybeth Livingston: 3
Charlie and Serena Blackmer: 4
Jarsh Beckstein: 2
Eric and Alicia Democko: 2
Matt and Meg Stoffel: 2
Bill and Lisa Jeffers: 2
Brian and Jen Walden: 1
Tim and Melissa Sweet: 2
Miscellaneous other couplings I'm forgetting about: 5-10
(I embarrassingly can't remember if Todd or Tony reproduced within the rules above, so if they did then their children apply too. Sorry guys!)
This brings the total number of children to between 25 and 30. Not bad! Let's assume for the sake of this question that all of these children attend Clarkson once they are old enough. The age distributions bring a large number of them to Clarkson at the same time, and common interests (pep band, general Clarkson-ness) means that the probability of romantic interaction become very high.
Assuming that none of the geographically co-located children have been matched together before college (there are large collections in Rochester, NY and Albany, NY, so it's certainly possible), the odds that two of them will get together increase once they reach college age. But which you ask (bringing the question full circle)? I really can't say, but I will say that it WILL happen.
Q: AndrewSmith - What happens to Guethle on St Pattys day?
A: The same thing that happens to Guethle on every other day of the year: he wakes up, he drinks, he has adventures, he drinks, he sleeps.
Q: Jacob - DANCE!?
A: NO THANK YOU!?
Q: Jesse_Burton - How long is original recipe fourloko good for?
A: FourLoko is a combination malt beverage and energy drink that was first introduced in 2005. Its main ingredients are alcohol (12% ABV), caffeine, taurine and guarana. FourLoko became a craze between 2008 and 2010 for its intoxicating and energizing effects. It was banned from several college campuses after incidents involving students drinking too much of the product and the hilarity that did not ensue. In response to the controversy they relaunched without the energy drink components (caffeine, taurine and guarana) and became more of a standard malt beverage.
I posed this question to the competition and learned that malt beverages expire after about 4 months. However if you keep it unopened and refrigerated it will technically never go "bad", it will just grow weaker and less fresh with time.
Q: waits - What form of Guethle would most likely be successful I.e. profitable in the world outside the linkos?
A) reality tv documentary
B) reality dating show
C) Guethle show I.e. Truman show
D) Book deal
E) blog
F) advertising poster boy for a new dating website.
A: Again basing this only on my limited interactions with Guethle (mostly over the last few months on this forum) I'm going to combine A and E leading to D. I can see Mike beginning a blog and hosting his own YouTube TV show, using both platforms to entertain people with his stories and adventures. After a few months/years of this he should have built up an audience and can peddle that into a book deal.
Mike, if you're interested I'd love to help out with this project. There's gold in them thar hills!
Q: Sheamus - What question should I ask in Ask Mitssob - Episode 72?
A: Because it takes me so long to answer these questions (and despite my best efforts that trend is sadly going to continue) I recommend asking a question that you WANT an answer to, but not one that you NEED an answer to.
Q: Jacob - What dead language should we all learn and program into Jolinko for our own personal use?
A: The easiest dead language to use would probably be Old English. The structure and form seems to be close enough to modern English that we could stumble through with minimal effort. If you want to go really obscure there are many choices. Personally I think Aramaic would be a good one to resurrect. However I think a more productive use of resources would be to use a language that is still in use today so that the community can grow more worldly.
Q: Jesse_Burton - What will my raise be this year and should I be happy about what I get?
A: Based on nothing in particular I think that you will get a raise of between 1% and 5%, since that seems to be a standard these days.
The second part of your question touches on the topic of expectations and happiness. As I've mentioned in past episodes, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts is a man named Dennis Prager. He dedicates the second hour of his Friday show to Happiness, and has written a fantastic book on the subject called Happiness is a Serious Problem. He wrote a column in 2012 entitled Who Is Happy?, and one part of it is relevant to your question:
People who have few expectations.
The more we expect, the less happy we will be — because the more we expect, the less grateful we are for what we receive. And ingratitude is the mother of unhappiness.
I think that's a good way to look at things. If you don't have expectations then you will be happier with the outcomes, and this applies to your situation. If you don't expect to get a raise then you will probably be happy with whatever raise you get. And if you don't get a raise then you won't be disappointed if one doesn't come.
Q: Steve Faux - Why is deciding on a baby name so difficult?
A: First, congratulations on the forthcoming arrival of Faux Baby! Hopefully you and the Fantastic Mrs. Faux are getting through the pregnancy with minimal difficulty and are getting excited for the arrival of your offspring.
Your question is timely since my wife and I have struggled with this problem as well. I think it's difficult because it's a major decision. It is a choice that will define your child's life, something that he or she will be stuck with forever. You'll be calling your child this name through good times and bad. It will help define their identity. Therefore it's not something to be taken lightly.
The second reason its difficult is that you have to pair the name with your surname, and that can prove difficult. "Boss" and "Faux" aren't the most common names, and they naturally eliminate some choices. In any event it's a tough decision and I wish you both the best of luck both with that, and with everything else that's coming your way.
Q: Matt Barrett - What are the chances Steve Faux names his child Seven?
A: Given that the Fantastic Mrs. Faux is involved in the decision I'd say that the chances are somewhere between zero and none.
Q: Sheamus - When will my neighbors take down their Christmas lights?
A: In my opinion it's permissible to leave Christmas lights up while there is still snow on the ground, regardless of what month it is. It's currently April as I write this and snow is still on the ground here in Rochester (albeit fading very quickly), so I would think that your neighbors would take their lights down soon.
Q: Matt Neal - Why do I only have lucid dreams when I drink heavily?
A: Lucid dreaming is the state of dreaming where you are aware that you're dreaming. A quick search yielded a very interesting message board thread on this topic. My guess is that the alcohol is relaxing to you and puts your body into a deeper sleep than normal.
Showing posts with label hockey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hockey. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2015
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
61 - Answers
Q (repeat): Jake - Who has the best chance to win the NBA championship this year? And don't cheap out on me with a "the Lakers have the best record, so they do." I want details, man. Details.
A: What I'm going to do is take the two teams from each conference I think will play in the conference championships, give you the winners, then run the matchup of the conference winners and give you an answer. Sound good? As with all of my prognostications I add the following disclaimer: any money you lose by betting on my less-than-informed picks is your own fault.
Boston Celtics vs. Cleveland Cavaliers
Winner: Cleveland
Ramblings: Cleveland is rolling into the playoffs like a juggernaut. They've won their last 8 games and have an easier path to the finals (at least on paper) than the Celtics. Of course last season they had the theoretically easier path and lost to the Orlando Magic in the conference finals. Will that happen this year? Maybe, but I don't think so. They are absolutely desperate to hang on to LeBron James and have sunk a lot of money and talent into this team. They're going to the finals.
LA Lakers vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
Winner: LA
Ramblings: I think this will be less about LA and more about the fact that whomever LA plays in the conference finals is going to be vastly inferior to them. I looked at the playoff matchups and didn't see a really dominant team in the West other than LA. Therefore I don't think it matters who they play. LA will win and move on to the finals.
NBA Finals: LA Lakers vs. Cleveland Cavaliers
Winner: Cleveland Cavaliers
Ramblings: This is 100% gut feeling, folks. I have no basketball reasons for this other than sheer force of will on LeBron's part. He wants a championship. Badly. And more importantly he wants one more than Kobe Bryant. That's the difference and that's why he's going to carry the team to Cleveland's first championship in team history.
Q: Eric - How many frequent flier miles do you have? and more importantly, how do FF miles work? you don't earn one for each mile you fly do you?
A: Below is the list of carriers and frequent flier miles I have with each.
United: 111,662 miles
Delta: 30,959 miles
US Airways: 9,136 miles
Continental: 2,000 miles
American Airlines: 551 miles
Air Tran: 4 Qualifying Segments
Frequent flier miles for the major carriers tend to work the same way. You earn a mile for every mile that you fly. You can get bonus miles for things like being a very frequent flier with an airline, using an airline credit card, or even just buy them. Once you have the miles you can redeem them for things like flights, hotels, rental cars, and even goods and services. I've linked to each airline's "How to use your miles" page so you can compare them for yourself.
The odd duck in this is Air Tran. They, like Southwest and Jet Blue do things called "segments". They don't give you the number of miles you travel but rather credit for the number of one-way flights that you take. If you do a lot of short hops you can build up credit very quickly, but there's no benefit to taking cross-country flights. These credits, like miles, can be redeemed for a number of different things.
Q: Kristian - Since we all seem to hate Sidney Crosby, what is your humble opinion on said douchebag?
A: First, I don't hate Sidney Crosby. I dislike him and find him to be a whiney, pretty-boy hockey player, but hate is something I reserve for those who really deserve it, like lawyers and people who talk on cell phones during movies.
My opinion of Sidney Crosby the hockey player is that he is talented. Very talented. He is a good skater, has a great hockey mind, and will go far in this league. Like it or not he's been good for the league as both a good player and a good personality. Pittsburgh's hockey program has been revitalized thanks to him and the Canadian Olympic hockey team owes their gold medal to his overtime goal in the final game. In short, he's extremely good.
But despite that I don't particularly like him. On reflection the main reason he rubs me the wrong way is that he's a hockey player that his teammates feel the need to protect. That bothers me. As a hockey fan I know that there have always been "finesse" players in the game and I accept that. But I much prefer the hockey player who can throw a good hip check, get the puck, and score on a well-placed wrist shot from the point. I don't see Sidney Crosby that way. He's a finesse player. Fine, wonderful, good for him. It's just not my cup of tea.
Q: Bill - Why do men like fire so much? Can we burn this quiz?
A: There are many possible reasons for this. First, one instinct that men have is to protect and provide for their family. Fire can be viewed as a tool to aid in that instinct. It has the capacity to heat an area and to cook food.
Second, fire is also a tool of destruction. From a very young age boys tend to display acts of aggression and destruction. They crash toy cars together, build structures out of blocks only to knock them down, and are generally more outwardly destructive than girls. Fire is an extension of that side of male nature.
Third, fire is just plain cool. I mean come on, what guy doesn't like burning stuff? It's awesome!
Oh, and about your second question, this is not a quiz but yes, you can burn it. However, since you just bought the computer you're likely reading this on I don't think you want to do that. I suppose you could print out a copy and burn that. Just don't tell your wife I gave you permission, especially if you end up burning your house down.
Q: Rani - On the topic of fire ... How does a person spontaneously combust?
A: By being not on fire one moment and being on fire the next. [Ed: You think you're funny, but you're not. But I answered the question, didn't I?]
Q: Jarsh - What is hell really like?
A: A little background for those of you who aren't fans of LOST. For a long time the producers of the show have said that the characters are not dead and are not in hell or purgatory. Last night's episode explored that topic a bit. The character on whom the episode focused at first believed that they were in hell but by the end of the episode came to accept that they were not.
Anyway, Jarsh posted the following on his Twitter/Facebook account: They aren't in hell. #alsonotaspoiler.
I responded on Facebook with: "I already knew they weren't in hell because I've been here for three weeks and I haven't seen them."
Now in the interest of full disclosure I'm not actually in hell. It only feels that way. I've spent the past three weeks in Barstow, CA. It's a desert town about halfway between LA and Las Vegas. Because of the amount of time I've spent here I'm losing more of my sanity than normal on this trip. A month is a long time to spend away from one's home, even if one doesn't consider one's self to have a home. If that makes any sense. See, I'm losing it, people! Luckily I'm only out here for another few days, then it's back to good old Rochester. I just hope my house is still standing.
The other reason I think I'm in hell is the fact that the hotel I'm staying in is about a mile away from a train yard. At random intervals during the day and night train cars will be moved around and the screeching sound of brakes can be heard reverberating through the hotel. It's a sound I cannot begin to describe other than to say that if you dislike the sound of nails on a chalkboard, you'd be in hell.
Q: Brett - Are you back in town next week? I'd like to dump all the Beaumonts photos on your machine off of my CF card before I go to Virginia for Easter weekend.
A: Yes, I will be back in town next week. I need to get with all of the filmers to collect tapes and to thank them personally for their help with this latest project. I can't wait to see what you guys were able to generate in my absence. I'll give you a call when I get back and we'll link up.
A: What I'm going to do is take the two teams from each conference I think will play in the conference championships, give you the winners, then run the matchup of the conference winners and give you an answer. Sound good? As with all of my prognostications I add the following disclaimer: any money you lose by betting on my less-than-informed picks is your own fault.
Boston Celtics vs. Cleveland Cavaliers
Winner: Cleveland
Ramblings: Cleveland is rolling into the playoffs like a juggernaut. They've won their last 8 games and have an easier path to the finals (at least on paper) than the Celtics. Of course last season they had the theoretically easier path and lost to the Orlando Magic in the conference finals. Will that happen this year? Maybe, but I don't think so. They are absolutely desperate to hang on to LeBron James and have sunk a lot of money and talent into this team. They're going to the finals.
LA Lakers vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
Winner: LA
Ramblings: I think this will be less about LA and more about the fact that whomever LA plays in the conference finals is going to be vastly inferior to them. I looked at the playoff matchups and didn't see a really dominant team in the West other than LA. Therefore I don't think it matters who they play. LA will win and move on to the finals.
NBA Finals: LA Lakers vs. Cleveland Cavaliers
Winner: Cleveland Cavaliers
Ramblings: This is 100% gut feeling, folks. I have no basketball reasons for this other than sheer force of will on LeBron's part. He wants a championship. Badly. And more importantly he wants one more than Kobe Bryant. That's the difference and that's why he's going to carry the team to Cleveland's first championship in team history.
Q: Eric - How many frequent flier miles do you have? and more importantly, how do FF miles work? you don't earn one for each mile you fly do you?
A: Below is the list of carriers and frequent flier miles I have with each.
United: 111,662 miles
Delta: 30,959 miles
US Airways: 9,136 miles
Continental: 2,000 miles
American Airlines: 551 miles
Air Tran: 4 Qualifying Segments
Frequent flier miles for the major carriers tend to work the same way. You earn a mile for every mile that you fly. You can get bonus miles for things like being a very frequent flier with an airline, using an airline credit card, or even just buy them. Once you have the miles you can redeem them for things like flights, hotels, rental cars, and even goods and services. I've linked to each airline's "How to use your miles" page so you can compare them for yourself.
The odd duck in this is Air Tran. They, like Southwest and Jet Blue do things called "segments". They don't give you the number of miles you travel but rather credit for the number of one-way flights that you take. If you do a lot of short hops you can build up credit very quickly, but there's no benefit to taking cross-country flights. These credits, like miles, can be redeemed for a number of different things.
Q: Kristian - Since we all seem to hate Sidney Crosby, what is your humble opinion on said douchebag?
A: First, I don't hate Sidney Crosby. I dislike him and find him to be a whiney, pretty-boy hockey player, but hate is something I reserve for those who really deserve it, like lawyers and people who talk on cell phones during movies.
My opinion of Sidney Crosby the hockey player is that he is talented. Very talented. He is a good skater, has a great hockey mind, and will go far in this league. Like it or not he's been good for the league as both a good player and a good personality. Pittsburgh's hockey program has been revitalized thanks to him and the Canadian Olympic hockey team owes their gold medal to his overtime goal in the final game. In short, he's extremely good.
But despite that I don't particularly like him. On reflection the main reason he rubs me the wrong way is that he's a hockey player that his teammates feel the need to protect. That bothers me. As a hockey fan I know that there have always been "finesse" players in the game and I accept that. But I much prefer the hockey player who can throw a good hip check, get the puck, and score on a well-placed wrist shot from the point. I don't see Sidney Crosby that way. He's a finesse player. Fine, wonderful, good for him. It's just not my cup of tea.
Q: Bill - Why do men like fire so much? Can we burn this quiz?
A: There are many possible reasons for this. First, one instinct that men have is to protect and provide for their family. Fire can be viewed as a tool to aid in that instinct. It has the capacity to heat an area and to cook food.
Second, fire is also a tool of destruction. From a very young age boys tend to display acts of aggression and destruction. They crash toy cars together, build structures out of blocks only to knock them down, and are generally more outwardly destructive than girls. Fire is an extension of that side of male nature.
Third, fire is just plain cool. I mean come on, what guy doesn't like burning stuff? It's awesome!
Oh, and about your second question, this is not a quiz but yes, you can burn it. However, since you just bought the computer you're likely reading this on I don't think you want to do that. I suppose you could print out a copy and burn that. Just don't tell your wife I gave you permission, especially if you end up burning your house down.
Q: Rani - On the topic of fire ... How does a person spontaneously combust?
A: By being not on fire one moment and being on fire the next. [Ed: You think you're funny, but you're not. But I answered the question, didn't I?]
Q: Jarsh - What is hell really like?
A: A little background for those of you who aren't fans of LOST. For a long time the producers of the show have said that the characters are not dead and are not in hell or purgatory. Last night's episode explored that topic a bit. The character on whom the episode focused at first believed that they were in hell but by the end of the episode came to accept that they were not.
Anyway, Jarsh posted the following on his Twitter/Facebook account: They aren't in hell. #alsonotaspoiler.
I responded on Facebook with: "I already knew they weren't in hell because I've been here for three weeks and I haven't seen them."
Now in the interest of full disclosure I'm not actually in hell. It only feels that way. I've spent the past three weeks in Barstow, CA. It's a desert town about halfway between LA and Las Vegas. Because of the amount of time I've spent here I'm losing more of my sanity than normal on this trip. A month is a long time to spend away from one's home, even if one doesn't consider one's self to have a home. If that makes any sense. See, I'm losing it, people! Luckily I'm only out here for another few days, then it's back to good old Rochester. I just hope my house is still standing.
The other reason I think I'm in hell is the fact that the hotel I'm staying in is about a mile away from a train yard. At random intervals during the day and night train cars will be moved around and the screeching sound of brakes can be heard reverberating through the hotel. It's a sound I cannot begin to describe other than to say that if you dislike the sound of nails on a chalkboard, you'd be in hell.
Q: Brett - Are you back in town next week? I'd like to dump all the Beaumonts photos on your machine off of my CF card before I go to Virginia for Easter weekend.
A: Yes, I will be back in town next week. I need to get with all of the filmers to collect tapes and to thank them personally for their help with this latest project. I can't wait to see what you guys were able to generate in my absence. I'll give you a call when I get back and we'll link up.
Friday, March 5, 2010
60 - Answers
Editor's Note: After over a month of hearing nothing from Tim I found two packages from him waiting on my front porch this morning. One was the collection of answers you're about to read and the other is an outline for a short film. At first I was outraged that Tim was wasting his time writing things other than Ask Mitssob, especially since he was so late delivering this round of answers. Then I read the outline. It's good. Really good. So I'll forgive him this time, but that doesn't mean that you have to.
Q: Brett - Any questions?
A: Who am I? Where am I? Why are my pants gone? I have lots of questions these days and disturbingly few answers. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to have fun along the way.
Q: Bill - Alright, so we talked about this on the trip, but I want to see the numbers: Paper towels kill trees, but hand dryers are powered by electricity (really? not magic?) and that's pretty dirty to make these days. Give them each a MOther NAture Rape Score (MONARS for short)
A: My gut originally told me that the answer would be that paper towels are better for the environment. My grandfather worked for a number of paper companies in both engineering and sales and so I've always thought of trees as a renewable resource. Therefore I considered paper towels to be better since they were made from something that could be regrown.
Then my research led me to this site. This research site pointed me at something that should have been obvious: the disposal cost of the paper towels. The graph below outlines the cost analysis that the author did:
As you can see the disposal cost alone of the paper towels is greater than the electricity of the blowers. So this is yet another case where my gut proves to be completely wrong. It won't be the last time.
Q: Matt - It's pretty obvious that the men's hockey team is going nowhere fast this year. What's more, they haven't even improved from last year, and there was plenty of room for improvement. What do you think are the problems the team is facing, and what are the root causes of their problems? Also, what do you think are some solutions?
A: I have seen the Clarkson Men's hockey team play a grand total of three games this season: two games at a tournament in Minnesota and once in Potsdam against Dartmouth. Now in fairness, this is not enough to make a full judgment. But life isn't fair so I'll judge them anyway.
When I saw the team play in Minnesota there were a few things I observed. First and most importantly I didn't get a sense of team from watching them. On a number of plays I would see a Clarkson do something fairly routine such as skate behind the net and drop the puck. Another Clarkson player who was supposed to pick the puck up always looked surprised. I thought it might be a one-time occurrence the first time I saw it but it just kept happening. Bill and Todd also noticed it and it was a topic of conversation during the game. When a team is firing on all cylinders then things like that are just routine. They'll make no-look passes, move around with ease, and generally find ways to get open. Clarkson wasn't doing any of those things.
Second the team was weak on the fundamentals of the game. They were doing entirely too much chasing the puck, passing poorly, and shooting even worse. They were predictable to the point of humor. "Oh look, another pass right to the other team."
The Dartmouth game started out with the best play I'd seen the team make in the last few years. They broke into the Dartmouth zone stacked three wide. They proceeded to make a series of drop passes that completely fooled Dartmouth's defense and it was only thanks to a great save by their goalie that they didn't score. My jaw dropped when I saw that play happen. Unfortunately that quality of play did not continue throughout the game and they soon dropped into the habits I'd observed in Minnesota.
So what to do about this? In my opinion the biggest problem that the team has is coaching, plain and simple. There is raw talent on the team. The problem is the harnessing of that talent and that responsibility falls to the coaches. George Roll must go if the team is to improve. Harsh? Yes. But frankly he's had four years to make this team into something better than it is. He's failed. A new coach and a re-focus on fundamentals ("Old time hockey, eh coach?") would do wonders.
Q: Lisa - And now for a completely random, more generic question: How are streets named? Who's responsible for determining what your street is named? Why is your street Paul Road, and who is Paul? Why is our street Matthew Circle, and who is Matthew? And more obscurely, why is my parents' street Bright Autumn Lane, and who is Bright Autumn? (you don't have to answer all the questions...I'm just giving examples...but I would love to know how to learn how our streets were named!)
A: The best source I found for how streets are named comes from my oft-used friend Wikipedia. The article explains that there are several reasons for the naming of roads including (but not limited to):
- Scenery
- Famous Citizens
- Numbers (which includes the most common street name in the US: "2nd")
- Themes (such as types of trees, US Presidents, etc.)
- Landmarks
For the streets you listed here are my explanations:
- Paul Road: Paul must have been someone famous in Chili's history.
- Matthew Circle: Ditto.
- Bright Autumn: This is probably a reference to a bright autumn day rather than a person.
I'll have to do some more digging into the history of our towns to find out specific details. Ask me again sometime and I'll tackle it.
Q: Karyn - Is there a external Hard Drive I can buy that comes with free backup/sync software that isn't just a free trial that will expire and then ask me to pay?
A: The software that came with Bill's Samsung hard drive was free and not a trial and it looked pretty good and simple. It's called "Auto Backup" and a link to it can be found here. I'm not sure if it will work with a non-Samsung drive but it's worth a shot.
There are other alternatives out there that I researched. Many of them are pay-only and/or want you to subscribe to an online backup system. One of them that I think would work is Microsoft Sync Toy, which is unfortunately named but looks quite capable. Another option that was recently featured on Lifehacker is called Back4Sure and also looks good. Best of luck and let me know how you make out.
Q: Nate - Gut feeling - will my first child be a boy or a girl? Or other?
A: My gut answer is a girl. I have no factual or rational reason why, I just think it'll be a girl.
Q: vanessa - I'm a grown up now with real taxes to file, should I A)go to a place like H&R Block, B) get my Aunt to do them since she does taxes all professionally and stuff, C) try and do them myself and probably miss a bunch of stuff and do them wrong?
A: Personally I would go with option C. You're a grown-up now but probably not one with a complex enough financial life to justify going to a professional. When you do them yourself you have two choices: by hand or software. My ex-girlfriend preferred to do her taxes by hand using the IRS forms. I have great respect for people who choose to do their taxes that way. Ever since I've entered the real world I have gone with Turbo Tax and I've been very satisfied with the results. Now that I'm a homeowner doing my taxes has gotten more complicated but Turbo Tax was able to keep up with me without problems. In the future I will probably move to consulting a professional but for now my life is still simple enough to just go with Turbo Tax.
The Jolinko community has their own opinions which I've pasted below:
Lisa: D) do them yourself using TurboTax, TaxAct, or some similar software (I recommend TaxAct)
Brad: E) do them yourself on paper to learn everything, then check and file using a tax program (I use H&R Block online for free)
Ultimately its your decision, so make it and plow ahead!
Q: Brad - Since we are on the subject of taxes, since I just got married in October, should I file single, married jointly, or married seperately? And does it matter that we live in seperate states?
A: To answer the last question first, it matters that you live in separate states for your state taxes but not for your federal taxes. Next, you are considered married if you are married on or before the last day of your tax year which is generally the last day of the calendar year for a normal person unless you've defined a fiscal year for yourself.
So now that we know that you're married in the eyes of the IRS (congratulations, by the way) you and your blushing bride have to decide whether to file married jointly or married separately. The decision will impact what kinds of deductions you can claim and also how much they are worth. Since I don't know anything about your financial situation this is something I would consult a professional about. I'm sure that software like TurboTax or a professional service like H&R Block would be able to answer your question better than me. For a LOT more information about filing married jointly vs. separately you can consult the IRS here.
Q: Matt - With the constant updating of technical storage devices, we've already seen the demise of the floppy disk (both of them) so far the CD seems to be holding out the longest so far, so my question is how far down the road do you see the CD finally going the way of its more-squared and floppier predessors if at all?
A: I think that the CD still has a long life ahead of it. People still use it to burn things for one-time use since the cost of the media is less than $.10 per disc these days. The difference between CDs and floppy discs is that CDs are the same size and use the same laser technologies as DVDs and BluRay discs. Therefore they will still be able to be used in computers as long as those computers support those technologies. Ultimately I think that media that is the same size as our beloved CD will remain dominant for the foreseeable future. By this I mean that where a CD isn't enough a DVD will work, and eventually BluRay will take over for DVDs.
Q: Jon - Well Betamax make a comeback?
A: Betamax, surprisingly, never went away as a media format. There is a small but crazy minority of users who still cling to it. It is also used by many professionals due to the fact that the tapes have a longer shelf-life than VHS tapes.
Q: Michaele-Lynne - How do those giant mutant mosquitoes get into my apartment when the windows are all shut (and in the winter!) and I am 4 doors away from the outside???
A: First, these are not "giant mutant mosquitoes". I'll let Brett tell you what they are:
Brett: You mean Mayflies? They probably laid eggs in your apartment somewhere, or in your hair.
Follow the link to find more than you ever wanted to know about mayflies that can be found in Pennsylvania. More information can be found here. Brett may be right that they laid eggs somewhere in your apartment, but it would have to be somewhere with standing water that has been around for at least a few months. This is possible but unlikely.
So my real answer is that I have no idea how they're getting into your apartment. The good news is that they are harmless unless exposed to great amounts of radiation, at which time they will be too busy fighting Godzilla to be of any trouble to you.
Q: Michaele-Lynne - I have another question. Is Brett right???
A: He's right about some things and wrong about other things. I've learned to trust his wisdom and doubt his word only when I am certain of his being in error.
Q: Jake - In related news, Tim requested a question of me. So I'll make him go out of his element. Who has the best chance to win the NBA championship this year? And don't cheap out on me with a "the Lakers have the best record, so they do." I want details, man. Details.
A: This question is so far out of my element that I'm going to punt this time. I will provide an answer in time for the start of the basketball playoffs next month. Sorry, Jake.
Q: Brett - Any questions?
A: Who am I? Where am I? Why are my pants gone? I have lots of questions these days and disturbingly few answers. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to have fun along the way.
Q: Bill - Alright, so we talked about this on the trip, but I want to see the numbers: Paper towels kill trees, but hand dryers are powered by electricity (really? not magic?) and that's pretty dirty to make these days. Give them each a MOther NAture Rape Score (MONARS for short)
A: My gut originally told me that the answer would be that paper towels are better for the environment. My grandfather worked for a number of paper companies in both engineering and sales and so I've always thought of trees as a renewable resource. Therefore I considered paper towels to be better since they were made from something that could be regrown.
Then my research led me to this site. This research site pointed me at something that should have been obvious: the disposal cost of the paper towels. The graph below outlines the cost analysis that the author did:
As you can see the disposal cost alone of the paper towels is greater than the electricity of the blowers. So this is yet another case where my gut proves to be completely wrong. It won't be the last time.
Q: Matt - It's pretty obvious that the men's hockey team is going nowhere fast this year. What's more, they haven't even improved from last year, and there was plenty of room for improvement. What do you think are the problems the team is facing, and what are the root causes of their problems? Also, what do you think are some solutions?
A: I have seen the Clarkson Men's hockey team play a grand total of three games this season: two games at a tournament in Minnesota and once in Potsdam against Dartmouth. Now in fairness, this is not enough to make a full judgment. But life isn't fair so I'll judge them anyway.
When I saw the team play in Minnesota there were a few things I observed. First and most importantly I didn't get a sense of team from watching them. On a number of plays I would see a Clarkson do something fairly routine such as skate behind the net and drop the puck. Another Clarkson player who was supposed to pick the puck up always looked surprised. I thought it might be a one-time occurrence the first time I saw it but it just kept happening. Bill and Todd also noticed it and it was a topic of conversation during the game. When a team is firing on all cylinders then things like that are just routine. They'll make no-look passes, move around with ease, and generally find ways to get open. Clarkson wasn't doing any of those things.
Second the team was weak on the fundamentals of the game. They were doing entirely too much chasing the puck, passing poorly, and shooting even worse. They were predictable to the point of humor. "Oh look, another pass right to the other team."
The Dartmouth game started out with the best play I'd seen the team make in the last few years. They broke into the Dartmouth zone stacked three wide. They proceeded to make a series of drop passes that completely fooled Dartmouth's defense and it was only thanks to a great save by their goalie that they didn't score. My jaw dropped when I saw that play happen. Unfortunately that quality of play did not continue throughout the game and they soon dropped into the habits I'd observed in Minnesota.
So what to do about this? In my opinion the biggest problem that the team has is coaching, plain and simple. There is raw talent on the team. The problem is the harnessing of that talent and that responsibility falls to the coaches. George Roll must go if the team is to improve. Harsh? Yes. But frankly he's had four years to make this team into something better than it is. He's failed. A new coach and a re-focus on fundamentals ("Old time hockey, eh coach?") would do wonders.
Q: Lisa - And now for a completely random, more generic question: How are streets named? Who's responsible for determining what your street is named? Why is your street Paul Road, and who is Paul? Why is our street Matthew Circle, and who is Matthew? And more obscurely, why is my parents' street Bright Autumn Lane, and who is Bright Autumn? (you don't have to answer all the questions...I'm just giving examples...but I would love to know how to learn how our streets were named!)
A: The best source I found for how streets are named comes from my oft-used friend Wikipedia. The article explains that there are several reasons for the naming of roads including (but not limited to):
- Scenery
- Famous Citizens
- Numbers (which includes the most common street name in the US: "2nd")
- Themes (such as types of trees, US Presidents, etc.)
- Landmarks
For the streets you listed here are my explanations:
- Paul Road: Paul must have been someone famous in Chili's history.
- Matthew Circle: Ditto.
- Bright Autumn: This is probably a reference to a bright autumn day rather than a person.
I'll have to do some more digging into the history of our towns to find out specific details. Ask me again sometime and I'll tackle it.
Q: Karyn - Is there a external Hard Drive I can buy that comes with free backup/sync software that isn't just a free trial that will expire and then ask me to pay?
A: The software that came with Bill's Samsung hard drive was free and not a trial and it looked pretty good and simple. It's called "Auto Backup" and a link to it can be found here. I'm not sure if it will work with a non-Samsung drive but it's worth a shot.
There are other alternatives out there that I researched. Many of them are pay-only and/or want you to subscribe to an online backup system. One of them that I think would work is Microsoft Sync Toy, which is unfortunately named but looks quite capable. Another option that was recently featured on Lifehacker is called Back4Sure and also looks good. Best of luck and let me know how you make out.
Q: Nate - Gut feeling - will my first child be a boy or a girl? Or other?
A: My gut answer is a girl. I have no factual or rational reason why, I just think it'll be a girl.
Q: vanessa - I'm a grown up now with real taxes to file, should I A)go to a place like H&R Block, B) get my Aunt to do them since she does taxes all professionally and stuff, C) try and do them myself and probably miss a bunch of stuff and do them wrong?
A: Personally I would go with option C. You're a grown-up now but probably not one with a complex enough financial life to justify going to a professional. When you do them yourself you have two choices: by hand or software. My ex-girlfriend preferred to do her taxes by hand using the IRS forms. I have great respect for people who choose to do their taxes that way. Ever since I've entered the real world I have gone with Turbo Tax and I've been very satisfied with the results. Now that I'm a homeowner doing my taxes has gotten more complicated but Turbo Tax was able to keep up with me without problems. In the future I will probably move to consulting a professional but for now my life is still simple enough to just go with Turbo Tax.
The Jolinko community has their own opinions which I've pasted below:
Lisa: D) do them yourself using TurboTax, TaxAct, or some similar software (I recommend TaxAct)
Brad: E) do them yourself on paper to learn everything, then check and file using a tax program (I use H&R Block online for free)
Ultimately its your decision, so make it and plow ahead!
Q: Brad - Since we are on the subject of taxes, since I just got married in October, should I file single, married jointly, or married seperately? And does it matter that we live in seperate states?
A: To answer the last question first, it matters that you live in separate states for your state taxes but not for your federal taxes. Next, you are considered married if you are married on or before the last day of your tax year which is generally the last day of the calendar year for a normal person unless you've defined a fiscal year for yourself.
So now that we know that you're married in the eyes of the IRS (congratulations, by the way) you and your blushing bride have to decide whether to file married jointly or married separately. The decision will impact what kinds of deductions you can claim and also how much they are worth. Since I don't know anything about your financial situation this is something I would consult a professional about. I'm sure that software like TurboTax or a professional service like H&R Block would be able to answer your question better than me. For a LOT more information about filing married jointly vs. separately you can consult the IRS here.
Q: Matt - With the constant updating of technical storage devices, we've already seen the demise of the floppy disk (both of them) so far the CD seems to be holding out the longest so far, so my question is how far down the road do you see the CD finally going the way of its more-squared and floppier predessors if at all?
A: I think that the CD still has a long life ahead of it. People still use it to burn things for one-time use since the cost of the media is less than $.10 per disc these days. The difference between CDs and floppy discs is that CDs are the same size and use the same laser technologies as DVDs and BluRay discs. Therefore they will still be able to be used in computers as long as those computers support those technologies. Ultimately I think that media that is the same size as our beloved CD will remain dominant for the foreseeable future. By this I mean that where a CD isn't enough a DVD will work, and eventually BluRay will take over for DVDs.
Q: Jon - Well Betamax make a comeback?
A: Betamax, surprisingly, never went away as a media format. There is a small but crazy minority of users who still cling to it. It is also used by many professionals due to the fact that the tapes have a longer shelf-life than VHS tapes.
Q: Michaele-Lynne - How do those giant mutant mosquitoes get into my apartment when the windows are all shut (and in the winter!) and I am 4 doors away from the outside???
A: First, these are not "giant mutant mosquitoes". I'll let Brett tell you what they are:
Brett: You mean Mayflies? They probably laid eggs in your apartment somewhere, or in your hair.
Follow the link to find more than you ever wanted to know about mayflies that can be found in Pennsylvania. More information can be found here. Brett may be right that they laid eggs somewhere in your apartment, but it would have to be somewhere with standing water that has been around for at least a few months. This is possible but unlikely.
So my real answer is that I have no idea how they're getting into your apartment. The good news is that they are harmless unless exposed to great amounts of radiation, at which time they will be too busy fighting Godzilla to be of any trouble to you.
Q: Michaele-Lynne - I have another question. Is Brett right???
A: He's right about some things and wrong about other things. I've learned to trust his wisdom and doubt his word only when I am certain of his being in error.
Q: Jake - In related news, Tim requested a question of me. So I'll make him go out of his element. Who has the best chance to win the NBA championship this year? And don't cheap out on me with a "the Lakers have the best record, so they do." I want details, man. Details.
A: This question is so far out of my element that I'm going to punt this time. I will provide an answer in time for the start of the basketball playoffs next month. Sorry, Jake.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
46 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Where do babies come from? OK but seriously folks...what makes diapers so absorbent? How can my Oops I Crapped My Pants hold that much?
A: Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...wait, what? Seriously? You just had your first kid. You know more about this than I do. And by the way, congratulations to you and Lisa on the arrival of Evelyn Shannon Jeffers. I hope she grows up to look like her mother. I mean, nothing personal here, but Lisa's a lot more attractive than you are. I'm just saying.
As to your real question, diapers are absorbent because of the materials that are used. I found a very good article on the subject at Answers.com, which can be read here. Normally I don't like to plug the competition but in this case their knowledge far outweighs mine. I recommend the whole article to anyone who's even remotely curious about the subject, but the relevant portion of their article follows:
The single most important property of a diaper, cloth or disposable, is its ability to absorb and retain moisture. Cotton material used in cloth diapers is reasonably absorbent, but synthetic polymers far exceed the capacity of natural fibers. Today's state-of-the-art disposable diaper will absorb 15 times its weight in water. This phenomenal absorption capacity is due to the absorbent pad found in the core of the diaper. This pad is composed of two essential elements, a hydrophilic, or water-loving, polymer and a fibrous material such as wood pulp. The polymer is made of fine particles of an acrylic acid derivative, such as sodium acrylate, potassium acrylate, or an alkyl acrylate. These polymeric particles act as tiny sponges that retain many times their weight in water. Microscopically these polymer molecules resemble long chains or ropes. Portions of these chemical "ropes" are designed to interact with water molecules. Other parts of the polymer have the ability to chemically link with different polymer molecules in a process known as cross linking. When a large number of these polymeric chains are cross linked, they form a gel network that is not water soluble but that can absorb vast amounts of water. Polymers with this ability are referred to as hydrogels, superabsorbents, or hydrocolloids. Depending on the degree of cross linking, the strength of the gel network can be varied. This is an important property because gel strength is related to the tendency of the polymer to deform or flow under stress. If the strength is too high the polymer will not retain enough water. If it too low the polymer will deform too easily, and the outermost particles in the pad will absorb water too quickly, forming a gel that blocks water from reaching the inner pad particles. This problem, known as gel blocking, can be overcome by dispersing wood pulp fibers throughout the polymer matrix. These wood fibers act as thousands of tiny straws which suck up water faster and disperse it through the matrix more efficiently to avoid gel blocking. Manufacturers have optimized the combinations of polymer and fibrous material to yield the most efficient absorbency possible.
In addition to information about why diapers are absorbent I also found several sites dedicated to comparing absorbency of diapers. My personal favorite is this study done by a young woman named Vanessa W. back in the year 2000. It's not the most up-to-date study, but I was amused by the vintage Internet website layout. You can also try this site done by the folks at DiaperWare.
Since I don't know how what material "Oops I Crapped My Pants" is made of I can't say how they can hold that much. But thanks for giving me an excuse to link to a YouTube of this fabulous commercial.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do YOU feel about GM?
A: General Motors is a car company. I don't know if I have any "feelings" about it. At least not the same way I have feelings about, say my friends and family. Or the Boston Red Sox. But I do have some admittedly uninformed opinions about how they run their business, and also some ideas about how they could recover and return to profitability.
One problem I see for GM is their reliance on Unionized labor. As I understand it the United Auto Workers (UAW) have an agreement with GM that covers medical costs for all retired GM employees, as well as generous pensions for those same employees. The way I look at it no company can possibly succeed when it pays for people who no longer work for them. Yes, many companies offer pensions and health benefits to their retirees. But employees are retiring earlier and living longer than the people who set up those systems ever planned. The bottom line is that GM is having to pay a substantial percentage of money per car manufactured just to support workers who no longer work for the company. Now, I hold GM responsible for this problem in the same way that I hold other corporations responsible for the way they overcompensate their managers and CEOs.
A second problem for GM is the fact that they are still structured as though they are the biggest fish in the pond of automobile manufacturers. Their business model is built on the assumption that they will have and maintain a certain percentage of the automobile market. What they must do is adapt to the fact that that percentage is now much smaller than it used to be. There's no reason that GM can't be profitable with a smaller piece of the pie, but they first must recognize and accept the fact that their piece is smaller. That means fewer divisions and fewer models, and a focus on profitable cars. It also means that they should be spending more on research and development of new technologies, something I know that you're involved in, Jarsh. Personally I'd like to see them focusing more on better batteries, and the new Chevy Volt is going to help direct their attention in that direction. And that's a very good thing for them.
In the end I guess the main feeling I have for GM is sympathy. They made a deal with the devil, as it were, by taking loans from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. Now they're living with the consequences of that deal. Their CEO has been forced out, and they're soon going to face pressure from the government to do things that will not help their return to profitability. I wish them luck, I really do. It would be a shame if Ford were the only US car company left standing after the dust settles.
Q: Brad Pettengill - Out of the 4 games at the ECAC championship, which one was the best?
A: Of the four games I think that the Friday night game between Cornell and Princeton was the best. A full recap of the game can be found here and the boxscore is here. The main reason for this choice is the crowd rather than the hockey. The tickets I had for the game placed my friends and me in the right-hand section of the Cornell fans.
Before I go on let me just say for the record that Cornell fans are among the least original, most rude, and least subtle fans in the ECAC. Every single one of their chants either involved the word "sucks" or some variation of that theme, and were often incoherent. It was a joke when I was in the Clarkson Pep Band that all of Cornell's cheers were basically "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!" I always thought that it was just because we were across the arena from their fan section when we visited Lynah. Having just spent eight periods of hockey in the middle of their fan section I can report that even close up it's still just "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!"
One more thing: My biggest regret of the tournament is that neglected to wear my "Clarkson is Gorges" tee shirt that my sister had printed for me on my birthday a few years ago while she was attending Ithaca College. For those not in on the joke, there is a popular saying in Ithaca that "Ithaca is Gorges", playing on the fact that there are some nice gorges and waterfalls in the area. It's a dumb saying, but one that you can find on shirts, coffee mugs, and bumperstickers.
Anyway, even though the Cornell fans are obnoxious pricks they were numerous and enthusiastic, which made the atmosphere of the game better. They cheered loudly during the pre-game ceremonies, right down to the usual amplification of the word "Red" during the national anthem. Then the game started and Princeton scored almost right away, taking much of the wind out of the Cornell fan's sails. That wind was restored once Cornell finally scored, but then Princeton tacked on one more at the end of the first period and the wind died. The wind died even more at the start of the second period when Princeton scored again. Seeing the pain in the eyes of the Cornell fans was enjoyable.
Cornell decided to start playing during the second half of the third period. Actually it was one player named Evan Barlow who decided to start playing. He took the puck from coast-to-coast during a four on four and scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a long time. It was enough to wake the Cornell fans from their slumber. Then Cornell pulled their goalie with a minute left in the game and rather than give up an empty-net goal was actually able to score on Princeton. This happened twice in the tournament, which is remarkable since this move usually backfires in the ECAC (and all throughout hockey, now that I think about it).
When overtime began, even as one who really hates Cornell, I found myself getting swept up into the excitement of overtime hockey. It was hard not to. The Cornell fans were on edge and it was infectious. As overtime progressed I decided that I wanted Cornell to win if for no other reason than the fact that the championship game would be much better with that many Cornell fans there. Princeton/Yale would have been just depressing. Especially with the two sub-par bands that the teams brought with them.
When Cornell finally scored the winning goal in the second overtime the place erupted into a sea of joyous red cheering fans. And I felt happy for them, even as I wished for their utter and complete downfall in the championship game. Which came true, so everyone won, in a strange way.
Q: Todd Nielson - So who do you like in the Frozen Four?
A: I am not going to pretend to know much about the four teams playing, which are Boston University, Vermont, Bemidji State and Miami of Ohio. I don't follow college hockey closely enough to render an informed opinion on the subject. But you asked me who I like, not who I think will win, so I'll give that question some treatment.
Vermont: I can't possibly root for Vermont, both because of the 2001 ECAC playoff debacle and because, well, they're Vermont. [Ed: I thought you liked and admired hippies. You are sadly misinformed.]
Boston University: Boston University has been a rival of the University of Maine for many years, and since the University of Maine is the reason I exist in the first place (it's where my parents met) I can't root for them.
Miami of Ohio: There is only one true Miami. It is the land of Dave Barry, Miami Vice, and the Miami Sound Machine. And hockey is not a part of that true Miami.
Bemidji State: Since they're the smallest, least-likely school to win this tournament, and since everyone loves the underdog, I guess I'll jump on the long-shot bandwagon and support Bemidji State, if only to keep my spelling skills strong.
Q: Adam Barnello - Address my comment from the last Mitssob, please?
A: Sure thing. I've printed your comments below, and I'll intersperse my responses and further thoughts between paragraphs.
"Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends."
What wonderful prose this is! So deep! So meaningful! Well done, Barn! Oh, wait, I wrote that. Sorry.
By the same argument with which you justify your position for maintaining marijuana as illegal, you could easily rationalize the return of prohibition. Or the criminalization of tobacco. Both of these are, in a realistic view, as bad or worse than marijuana in terms of health effects as well as deaths associated with their use, and yet no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night. If we're being honest with ourselves here, one is really no different than the other, except the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.
On your first point I will respond with two of my favorite words: "So what?" What is the problem with the return of prohibition? Or banning tobacco? Yes, it clashes violently with my libertarian side, which is even now shouting, "Tim, how dare you suggest such a thing!" while shaking its fist indignantly. But ultimately we live in a society where the people get to decide these things. If society decides that it once again wants to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol then I'm not going to stand in the way. There is a vocal portion of American society that rails against the evils of tobacco. If they had their way all tobacco would be banned. Should that be allowed? Personally I don't think so, but again, if society decides it then I'm not going to get in the way.
Random detour: Personally I think that a lot of the anger at tobacco companies is misdirected. I believe that, all things considered, alcohol is actually much worse than tobacco. Tobacco harms one person but doesn't change their behavior. Alcohol is a behavior-modifier, and that can be much worse. I've never heard a story of a person who smokes a cigarette and then goes and beats their spouse or child. But I'm sure we've all heard of or experienced first-hand the violence that alcohol causes when abused.
This concludes our random detour. Back to your regularly schedule answer.
Second, I have a problem with the tone of the second part of your comment, specifically the, "no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night." Really? You can speak for everyone who thinks marijuana should be illegal? Accusing ones ideological opponents of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency allows you to dismiss them without engaging their arguments, but it doesn't make your own arguments any better or worse. I can turn right around and say that people who think cigarettes should be illegal have no problem toking up every once in a while. Is it true? I'm sure that there are some people who fall into that category, albeit probably a minority. But putting that statement forward allows me to dismiss arguments against smoking without having to think. And that's not healthy for a debate.
On top of that I don't see the connection. Some people who think marijuana should be illegal drink alcohol. So? It's a non-sequitor. One is legal, the other is not. Yes, yes, I know that the argument is that marijuana is as harmless as alcohol. That doesn't change the fact that one is illegal and one isn't. That's the difference.
It bothers me that you've fallen back onto the party line of "Marijuana is a drug. Drugs are bad." Even as someone who has never used it, and has no interest in doing so, I'd hope you could differentiate between the myths and the truths about it.
I have "fallen back onto the party line" because it is a belief that I hold. Are all drugs bad? To me that's similar to asking if guns are bad. Drugs are drugs. One can cure disease, the other can get you high. I believe that the use of drugs to get a high is something that should not be encouraged by society. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's pot or alcohol or crystal meth. Are there degrees of "badness" to illegal drugs? Of course. And the laws reflect that. If we want that changed, then we need to change the laws, and by extension change society's point of view on these drugs. That's the right way to handle the situation.
Finally, as I said in my original answer, I'm not entirely rational on this subject. I'm allowing emotion to control me more than usual lately. It's something I'm aware of, and am trying to manage. This is because I see my beliefs on a wide range of issues being scorned and tossed aside by a vocal and increasingly powerful minority of society. And that bothers me much more than I let on since I know that nearly all of my friends and loved ones belong to that minority. It's wildly frustrating in a way that's going to continue causing me pain until I figure out what to do about it. And given my emotionally fragile state that's difficult to do.
A: Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...wait, what? Seriously? You just had your first kid. You know more about this than I do. And by the way, congratulations to you and Lisa on the arrival of Evelyn Shannon Jeffers. I hope she grows up to look like her mother. I mean, nothing personal here, but Lisa's a lot more attractive than you are. I'm just saying.
As to your real question, diapers are absorbent because of the materials that are used. I found a very good article on the subject at Answers.com, which can be read here. Normally I don't like to plug the competition but in this case their knowledge far outweighs mine. I recommend the whole article to anyone who's even remotely curious about the subject, but the relevant portion of their article follows:
The single most important property of a diaper, cloth or disposable, is its ability to absorb and retain moisture. Cotton material used in cloth diapers is reasonably absorbent, but synthetic polymers far exceed the capacity of natural fibers. Today's state-of-the-art disposable diaper will absorb 15 times its weight in water. This phenomenal absorption capacity is due to the absorbent pad found in the core of the diaper. This pad is composed of two essential elements, a hydrophilic, or water-loving, polymer and a fibrous material such as wood pulp. The polymer is made of fine particles of an acrylic acid derivative, such as sodium acrylate, potassium acrylate, or an alkyl acrylate. These polymeric particles act as tiny sponges that retain many times their weight in water. Microscopically these polymer molecules resemble long chains or ropes. Portions of these chemical "ropes" are designed to interact with water molecules. Other parts of the polymer have the ability to chemically link with different polymer molecules in a process known as cross linking. When a large number of these polymeric chains are cross linked, they form a gel network that is not water soluble but that can absorb vast amounts of water. Polymers with this ability are referred to as hydrogels, superabsorbents, or hydrocolloids. Depending on the degree of cross linking, the strength of the gel network can be varied. This is an important property because gel strength is related to the tendency of the polymer to deform or flow under stress. If the strength is too high the polymer will not retain enough water. If it too low the polymer will deform too easily, and the outermost particles in the pad will absorb water too quickly, forming a gel that blocks water from reaching the inner pad particles. This problem, known as gel blocking, can be overcome by dispersing wood pulp fibers throughout the polymer matrix. These wood fibers act as thousands of tiny straws which suck up water faster and disperse it through the matrix more efficiently to avoid gel blocking. Manufacturers have optimized the combinations of polymer and fibrous material to yield the most efficient absorbency possible.
In addition to information about why diapers are absorbent I also found several sites dedicated to comparing absorbency of diapers. My personal favorite is this study done by a young woman named Vanessa W. back in the year 2000. It's not the most up-to-date study, but I was amused by the vintage Internet website layout. You can also try this site done by the folks at DiaperWare.
Since I don't know how what material "Oops I Crapped My Pants" is made of I can't say how they can hold that much. But thanks for giving me an excuse to link to a YouTube of this fabulous commercial.
Q: Jarsh Beckstein - How do YOU feel about GM?
A: General Motors is a car company. I don't know if I have any "feelings" about it. At least not the same way I have feelings about, say my friends and family. Or the Boston Red Sox. But I do have some admittedly uninformed opinions about how they run their business, and also some ideas about how they could recover and return to profitability.
One problem I see for GM is their reliance on Unionized labor. As I understand it the United Auto Workers (UAW) have an agreement with GM that covers medical costs for all retired GM employees, as well as generous pensions for those same employees. The way I look at it no company can possibly succeed when it pays for people who no longer work for them. Yes, many companies offer pensions and health benefits to their retirees. But employees are retiring earlier and living longer than the people who set up those systems ever planned. The bottom line is that GM is having to pay a substantial percentage of money per car manufactured just to support workers who no longer work for the company. Now, I hold GM responsible for this problem in the same way that I hold other corporations responsible for the way they overcompensate their managers and CEOs.
A second problem for GM is the fact that they are still structured as though they are the biggest fish in the pond of automobile manufacturers. Their business model is built on the assumption that they will have and maintain a certain percentage of the automobile market. What they must do is adapt to the fact that that percentage is now much smaller than it used to be. There's no reason that GM can't be profitable with a smaller piece of the pie, but they first must recognize and accept the fact that their piece is smaller. That means fewer divisions and fewer models, and a focus on profitable cars. It also means that they should be spending more on research and development of new technologies, something I know that you're involved in, Jarsh. Personally I'd like to see them focusing more on better batteries, and the new Chevy Volt is going to help direct their attention in that direction. And that's a very good thing for them.
In the end I guess the main feeling I have for GM is sympathy. They made a deal with the devil, as it were, by taking loans from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. Now they're living with the consequences of that deal. Their CEO has been forced out, and they're soon going to face pressure from the government to do things that will not help their return to profitability. I wish them luck, I really do. It would be a shame if Ford were the only US car company left standing after the dust settles.
Q: Brad Pettengill - Out of the 4 games at the ECAC championship, which one was the best?
A: Of the four games I think that the Friday night game between Cornell and Princeton was the best. A full recap of the game can be found here and the boxscore is here. The main reason for this choice is the crowd rather than the hockey. The tickets I had for the game placed my friends and me in the right-hand section of the Cornell fans.
Before I go on let me just say for the record that Cornell fans are among the least original, most rude, and least subtle fans in the ECAC. Every single one of their chants either involved the word "sucks" or some variation of that theme, and were often incoherent. It was a joke when I was in the Clarkson Pep Band that all of Cornell's cheers were basically "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!" I always thought that it was just because we were across the arena from their fan section when we visited Lynah. Having just spent eight periods of hockey in the middle of their fan section I can report that even close up it's still just "Blah blah blah, SUCKS!"
One more thing: My biggest regret of the tournament is that neglected to wear my "Clarkson is Gorges" tee shirt that my sister had printed for me on my birthday a few years ago while she was attending Ithaca College. For those not in on the joke, there is a popular saying in Ithaca that "Ithaca is Gorges", playing on the fact that there are some nice gorges and waterfalls in the area. It's a dumb saying, but one that you can find on shirts, coffee mugs, and bumperstickers.
Anyway, even though the Cornell fans are obnoxious pricks they were numerous and enthusiastic, which made the atmosphere of the game better. They cheered loudly during the pre-game ceremonies, right down to the usual amplification of the word "Red" during the national anthem. Then the game started and Princeton scored almost right away, taking much of the wind out of the Cornell fan's sails. That wind was restored once Cornell finally scored, but then Princeton tacked on one more at the end of the first period and the wind died. The wind died even more at the start of the second period when Princeton scored again. Seeing the pain in the eyes of the Cornell fans was enjoyable.
Cornell decided to start playing during the second half of the third period. Actually it was one player named Evan Barlow who decided to start playing. He took the puck from coast-to-coast during a four on four and scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a long time. It was enough to wake the Cornell fans from their slumber. Then Cornell pulled their goalie with a minute left in the game and rather than give up an empty-net goal was actually able to score on Princeton. This happened twice in the tournament, which is remarkable since this move usually backfires in the ECAC (and all throughout hockey, now that I think about it).
When overtime began, even as one who really hates Cornell, I found myself getting swept up into the excitement of overtime hockey. It was hard not to. The Cornell fans were on edge and it was infectious. As overtime progressed I decided that I wanted Cornell to win if for no other reason than the fact that the championship game would be much better with that many Cornell fans there. Princeton/Yale would have been just depressing. Especially with the two sub-par bands that the teams brought with them.
When Cornell finally scored the winning goal in the second overtime the place erupted into a sea of joyous red cheering fans. And I felt happy for them, even as I wished for their utter and complete downfall in the championship game. Which came true, so everyone won, in a strange way.
Q: Todd Nielson - So who do you like in the Frozen Four?
A: I am not going to pretend to know much about the four teams playing, which are Boston University, Vermont, Bemidji State and Miami of Ohio. I don't follow college hockey closely enough to render an informed opinion on the subject. But you asked me who I like, not who I think will win, so I'll give that question some treatment.
Vermont: I can't possibly root for Vermont, both because of the 2001 ECAC playoff debacle and because, well, they're Vermont. [Ed: I thought you liked and admired hippies. You are sadly misinformed.]
Boston University: Boston University has been a rival of the University of Maine for many years, and since the University of Maine is the reason I exist in the first place (it's where my parents met) I can't root for them.
Miami of Ohio: There is only one true Miami. It is the land of Dave Barry, Miami Vice, and the Miami Sound Machine. And hockey is not a part of that true Miami.
Bemidji State: Since they're the smallest, least-likely school to win this tournament, and since everyone loves the underdog, I guess I'll jump on the long-shot bandwagon and support Bemidji State, if only to keep my spelling skills strong.
Q: Adam Barnello - Address my comment from the last Mitssob, please?
A: Sure thing. I've printed your comments below, and I'll intersperse my responses and further thoughts between paragraphs.
"Drugs are something that should not be encouraged, even "harmless" drugs like pot. By allowing one but not others we're opening ourselves up for some negative societal trends."
What wonderful prose this is! So deep! So meaningful! Well done, Barn! Oh, wait, I wrote that. Sorry.
By the same argument with which you justify your position for maintaining marijuana as illegal, you could easily rationalize the return of prohibition. Or the criminalization of tobacco. Both of these are, in a realistic view, as bad or worse than marijuana in terms of health effects as well as deaths associated with their use, and yet no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night. If we're being honest with ourselves here, one is really no different than the other, except the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.
On your first point I will respond with two of my favorite words: "So what?" What is the problem with the return of prohibition? Or banning tobacco? Yes, it clashes violently with my libertarian side, which is even now shouting, "Tim, how dare you suggest such a thing!" while shaking its fist indignantly. But ultimately we live in a society where the people get to decide these things. If society decides that it once again wants to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol then I'm not going to stand in the way. There is a vocal portion of American society that rails against the evils of tobacco. If they had their way all tobacco would be banned. Should that be allowed? Personally I don't think so, but again, if society decides it then I'm not going to get in the way.
Random detour: Personally I think that a lot of the anger at tobacco companies is misdirected. I believe that, all things considered, alcohol is actually much worse than tobacco. Tobacco harms one person but doesn't change their behavior. Alcohol is a behavior-modifier, and that can be much worse. I've never heard a story of a person who smokes a cigarette and then goes and beats their spouse or child. But I'm sure we've all heard of or experienced first-hand the violence that alcohol causes when abused.
This concludes our random detour. Back to your regularly schedule answer.
Second, I have a problem with the tone of the second part of your comment, specifically the, "no people on your side of the issue have a real problem going out for a beer on any given Wednesday night." Really? You can speak for everyone who thinks marijuana should be illegal? Accusing ones ideological opponents of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency allows you to dismiss them without engaging their arguments, but it doesn't make your own arguments any better or worse. I can turn right around and say that people who think cigarettes should be illegal have no problem toking up every once in a while. Is it true? I'm sure that there are some people who fall into that category, albeit probably a minority. But putting that statement forward allows me to dismiss arguments against smoking without having to think. And that's not healthy for a debate.
On top of that I don't see the connection. Some people who think marijuana should be illegal drink alcohol. So? It's a non-sequitor. One is legal, the other is not. Yes, yes, I know that the argument is that marijuana is as harmless as alcohol. That doesn't change the fact that one is illegal and one isn't. That's the difference.
It bothers me that you've fallen back onto the party line of "Marijuana is a drug. Drugs are bad." Even as someone who has never used it, and has no interest in doing so, I'd hope you could differentiate between the myths and the truths about it.
I have "fallen back onto the party line" because it is a belief that I hold. Are all drugs bad? To me that's similar to asking if guns are bad. Drugs are drugs. One can cure disease, the other can get you high. I believe that the use of drugs to get a high is something that should not be encouraged by society. Period. Doesn't matter whether it's pot or alcohol or crystal meth. Are there degrees of "badness" to illegal drugs? Of course. And the laws reflect that. If we want that changed, then we need to change the laws, and by extension change society's point of view on these drugs. That's the right way to handle the situation.
Finally, as I said in my original answer, I'm not entirely rational on this subject. I'm allowing emotion to control me more than usual lately. It's something I'm aware of, and am trying to manage. This is because I see my beliefs on a wide range of issues being scorned and tossed aside by a vocal and increasingly powerful minority of society. And that bothers me much more than I let on since I know that nearly all of my friends and loved ones belong to that minority. It's wildly frustrating in a way that's going to continue causing me pain until I figure out what to do about it. And given my emotionally fragile state that's difficult to do.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
23 - Answers
Q: Jennifer Walden - In a mascot brawl - Who would win, the UMASS Minuteman, or the UMaine Bear?
A: I think that there are two ways of looking at this question: What the mascots represent, and the actual mascots themselves. First, let's look at what the mascots represent, and how they would match up in a fight.
The U-Maine bear is an American Black Bear. It is a formidable opponent in a fight, with sharp claws and teeth, and weighing in between 400 and 500 pounds. Personally, I wouldn't want to fight on. On the other hand you have the Minuteman, which is either a colonial militiaman armed with a musket, or a thermonuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missile. Now, in the case of the missile, I think the missile would win (though it's debatable that the missile could in fact win without surviving). In the case of the militiaman, if he's well trained in the use of his musket he could probably hunt the black bear and kill it. In hand-to-hand combat, however, the black bear would almost certainly win.
The second way to look at this question is the actual mascots themselves. If I remember correctly, the Minuteman had a rather comically over-sized head but was otherwise fairly normally proportioned. He was armed with a (presumably fake) musket. The Black Bear also had a removable head, but on the whole it was much more normally proportioned. The suit looked quite furry, which was probably both warm and also well-protecting. Based on these things, I think that the Black Bear would certainly win the fight. All that he would have to do is knock the Minuteman down (probably easy given the comically over-sized head), and the fight would be over.
On a side note, this would be a hilarious event to watch. I think that it should be part of the intermission entertainment at college hockey games. Who do you have to call to set this kind of thing up?
Q: Bill Jeffers - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
A: I've been waiting for someone to ask me this question. It's an age-old question, and one that can be tackled in a variety of ways. What I decided to do was to get myself a Tootsie Pop, measure it, and then start licking away. Here are the results of that experiment:
The Tootsie Pop in question was 1 1/8" in diameter on the skinny edge, and 1 1/4" in diameter at the bulge. It was a grape flavored one, though I'm pretty sure that doesn't factor into this equation. I started out by just licking it and counting every 10, but that was quite tedious, so I started counting in 20's. By 180 I could clearly see (and taste) the tootsie center, but it looked like a little vein rather than the full center. I decided that this wasn't enough, so I kept going. By lick 1000 the diameters had shrunk to 3/4" and 1" respectively. Unfortunately I had to give up the experiment at lick 1200 (hard as this might be to believe, but I had better things to do), but based on that rate I would have reached the "center" by approximately the 2400th lick. So that's going to be my answer. If someone resubmits this question I'll tackle it again.
A: I think that there are two ways of looking at this question: What the mascots represent, and the actual mascots themselves. First, let's look at what the mascots represent, and how they would match up in a fight.
The U-Maine bear is an American Black Bear. It is a formidable opponent in a fight, with sharp claws and teeth, and weighing in between 400 and 500 pounds. Personally, I wouldn't want to fight on. On the other hand you have the Minuteman, which is either a colonial militiaman armed with a musket, or a thermonuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missile. Now, in the case of the missile, I think the missile would win (though it's debatable that the missile could in fact win without surviving). In the case of the militiaman, if he's well trained in the use of his musket he could probably hunt the black bear and kill it. In hand-to-hand combat, however, the black bear would almost certainly win.
The second way to look at this question is the actual mascots themselves. If I remember correctly, the Minuteman had a rather comically over-sized head but was otherwise fairly normally proportioned. He was armed with a (presumably fake) musket. The Black Bear also had a removable head, but on the whole it was much more normally proportioned. The suit looked quite furry, which was probably both warm and also well-protecting. Based on these things, I think that the Black Bear would certainly win the fight. All that he would have to do is knock the Minuteman down (probably easy given the comically over-sized head), and the fight would be over.
On a side note, this would be a hilarious event to watch. I think that it should be part of the intermission entertainment at college hockey games. Who do you have to call to set this kind of thing up?
Q: Bill Jeffers - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
A: I've been waiting for someone to ask me this question. It's an age-old question, and one that can be tackled in a variety of ways. What I decided to do was to get myself a Tootsie Pop, measure it, and then start licking away. Here are the results of that experiment:
The Tootsie Pop in question was 1 1/8" in diameter on the skinny edge, and 1 1/4" in diameter at the bulge. It was a grape flavored one, though I'm pretty sure that doesn't factor into this equation. I started out by just licking it and counting every 10, but that was quite tedious, so I started counting in 20's. By 180 I could clearly see (and taste) the tootsie center, but it looked like a little vein rather than the full center. I decided that this wasn't enough, so I kept going. By lick 1000 the diameters had shrunk to 3/4" and 1" respectively. Unfortunately I had to give up the experiment at lick 1200 (hard as this might be to believe, but I had better things to do), but based on that rate I would have reached the "center" by approximately the 2400th lick. So that's going to be my answer. If someone resubmits this question I'll tackle it again.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
22 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Why are Pittsford residents such whiney pussies? I wrote a letter to the editor to try to straighten them out, but I don't think it will work. (Backstory: Nazareth wants to expand and the neighborhood thinks the world is ending).
A: I'll admit that I'm totally unfamiliar with this story, and can thus only answer it based on the letter that Bill submitted to the Democrat and Chronicle. It sounds to me like Nazareth College wants to expand, and the natives are restless, as it were. I'm not sure whether the land that is in question is publicly owned or privately owned. If it's public land, or land that the college will be rightfully purchasing, then I would think that the college has every right to do what they want with the land. If people are being forced out of their homes, then that's another story. I'm pretty sure that it's the former, though.
Again, I'm pleading total ignorance on this, and thus don't feel right rendering judgment on the residents of the town of Pittsford. Personally, I tend to think that the following rule applies: your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose. In this case, it means that the college should be allowed to expand, but only if the impact to their neighbors is "minimal". What's minimal? That's a good question. I certainly wouldn't want a parking lot to suddenly spring up in my backyard. Should the residents of Pittsford complain? It's their right to complain, and to vote on these things. I tend to think that allowing the college to expand would be a good thing, but ultimately it's not my decision. I'm not a taxpayer in the town of Pittsford.
Q: Karyn Graves - Can you buy an attachment for an ATV or riding lawn mower so that you could use it like a zamboni on a backyard pond?
A: As a matter of fact, you can! And directly from the Zamboni website too. It's called the Zamboni Model 100, and it looks to be something that you mount to the back of a normal lawn tractor. Very cool! To be honest, I was quite surprised to learn this, and once again reminds me of why I started this project in the first place. Thanks, Karyn!
A: I'll admit that I'm totally unfamiliar with this story, and can thus only answer it based on the letter that Bill submitted to the Democrat and Chronicle. It sounds to me like Nazareth College wants to expand, and the natives are restless, as it were. I'm not sure whether the land that is in question is publicly owned or privately owned. If it's public land, or land that the college will be rightfully purchasing, then I would think that the college has every right to do what they want with the land. If people are being forced out of their homes, then that's another story. I'm pretty sure that it's the former, though.
Again, I'm pleading total ignorance on this, and thus don't feel right rendering judgment on the residents of the town of Pittsford. Personally, I tend to think that the following rule applies: your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose. In this case, it means that the college should be allowed to expand, but only if the impact to their neighbors is "minimal". What's minimal? That's a good question. I certainly wouldn't want a parking lot to suddenly spring up in my backyard. Should the residents of Pittsford complain? It's their right to complain, and to vote on these things. I tend to think that allowing the college to expand would be a good thing, but ultimately it's not my decision. I'm not a taxpayer in the town of Pittsford.
Q: Karyn Graves - Can you buy an attachment for an ATV or riding lawn mower so that you could use it like a zamboni on a backyard pond?
A: As a matter of fact, you can! And directly from the Zamboni website too. It's called the Zamboni Model 100, and it looks to be something that you mount to the back of a normal lawn tractor. Very cool! To be honest, I was quite surprised to learn this, and once again reminds me of why I started this project in the first place. Thanks, Karyn!
Thursday, October 12, 2006
10 - Answer(s)
Q: Bill Jeffers - Will this be the year the Sabres bring home Lord Stanley's Cup?
A: Unfortunately, I don't know. More to the point, I won't even hazard a guess at this point in the season. The Sabres have definitely been improving over the past few years. They've got tgot some hot rookies (Jason Pommenville and Ryan Miller, both former Amerks), as well as a solid cast of verterans (Daniel Briere, Chris Drury, and Marty Biron). I think they can compete with the best of the NHL, but as we all know that's not necessarily enough. On a personal level, I certainly hope they win the cup. As a transplanted New Englander, my sports loyalties still lie in that region, but the one exception has been the Sabres (I was a Whalers fan before they moved, and don't really care for the Bruins). So go Sabres!
Q: Jennifer Walden - Why can I 'drop out' of school, but I have to 'quit' my job?
A: The first thing to do is get some definitions, courtesy of Dictionary.com. The definition of "quit" that fits best to your question is "To give up; relinquish." The definition of "drop out" that fits is "to stop attending school or college." So it seems that the initial answer to your question lies in the very difinitions of the words that are used.
But I find this an interesting question, so I'll dig a little deeper. I think that part of the difference in terminology comes from the difference between school and work. "School" is a voluntary activity in which an individual pays money to an organization, and in return the organization educates the individual. "Work" is a voluntary activity in which an organization pays money to an individual, and in return the individual gives worth to the organization.
I see the difference between the two in the expectations of the parties. In the case of work, you (the individual) have obligations to the organization. If you choose not to perform those obligations, then you have quit. The organization will stop paying you because you have stopped adding worth to the organization. In the case of school, you are obligated to pay and to learn. Should you choose to end, then you simply leave. The organization will not be paid, but they will also not be educating you.
I guess the real answer for me lies in another difference between school and work. School is not only an educational institution, but also a care-giving one. When you go to school as a child, then you are under their direct care. When you go to school in college, you often live on campus and are a part of the larger college community. When you choose to leave school prematurely, you are truly "dropping out" of the community. The same cannot be said of work. If you stop working, then you quit. There is a "dropping out", but it's not the same as school.
So those are my thoughts on that subject. I may come back to this question; it's more interesting than I expected. Thanks, Jen!
A: Unfortunately, I don't know. More to the point, I won't even hazard a guess at this point in the season. The Sabres have definitely been improving over the past few years. They've got tgot some hot rookies (Jason Pommenville and Ryan Miller, both former Amerks), as well as a solid cast of verterans (Daniel Briere, Chris Drury, and Marty Biron). I think they can compete with the best of the NHL, but as we all know that's not necessarily enough. On a personal level, I certainly hope they win the cup. As a transplanted New Englander, my sports loyalties still lie in that region, but the one exception has been the Sabres (I was a Whalers fan before they moved, and don't really care for the Bruins). So go Sabres!
Q: Jennifer Walden - Why can I 'drop out' of school, but I have to 'quit' my job?
A: The first thing to do is get some definitions, courtesy of Dictionary.com. The definition of "quit" that fits best to your question is "To give up; relinquish." The definition of "drop out" that fits is "to stop attending school or college." So it seems that the initial answer to your question lies in the very difinitions of the words that are used.
But I find this an interesting question, so I'll dig a little deeper. I think that part of the difference in terminology comes from the difference between school and work. "School" is a voluntary activity in which an individual pays money to an organization, and in return the organization educates the individual. "Work" is a voluntary activity in which an organization pays money to an individual, and in return the individual gives worth to the organization.
I see the difference between the two in the expectations of the parties. In the case of work, you (the individual) have obligations to the organization. If you choose not to perform those obligations, then you have quit. The organization will stop paying you because you have stopped adding worth to the organization. In the case of school, you are obligated to pay and to learn. Should you choose to end, then you simply leave. The organization will not be paid, but they will also not be educating you.
I guess the real answer for me lies in another difference between school and work. School is not only an educational institution, but also a care-giving one. When you go to school as a child, then you are under their direct care. When you go to school in college, you often live on campus and are a part of the larger college community. When you choose to leave school prematurely, you are truly "dropping out" of the community. The same cannot be said of work. If you stop working, then you quit. There is a "dropping out", but it's not the same as school.
So those are my thoughts on that subject. I may come back to this question; it's more interesting than I expected. Thanks, Jen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)