And now for the first in what will be a series of questions I ask of myself. I've got a queue of questions, and once I'm done with the DVD I'll start rolling these out for discussion. For now, I'll resurrect my annual Baseball Postseason Predictions with this question:
Q: How will the Major League Baseball postseason play out?
A: Allow me to make the following predictions.
1. The individual series will proceed as follows:
National League: Phillies over Rockies in 4, Cubs over Diamondbacks in 5. Then the Cubs will beat the Phillies in 7 games to advance to the World Series
American League: Red Sox over Angels in 4, Indians over Yankees in 5. The Red Sox will beat the Indians in 5 games to advance to the World Series.
2. The Red Sox will win the World Series. It will take 7 games, and it will be ugly, but in the end the Sox will come out on top. Sorry, Cubs fans.
3. A-Rod will choke in the post-season. When the calendar flips to October, A-Rod flips off. It's happened throughout his career, and I don't see any evidence that it's going to change this year. Yes, he had a fantastic year. But now it's the post-season. That was then, this is now.
So that's my picture of the post-season. Now let's all sit back and enjoy what will undoubtedly be a great post-season!
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
26 - Answer(s)
Q: Bill Jeffers - How long before the Miami Dolphins sign Michael Vick?
A: At the time that this question was asked I would have said “a week.” But a lot of stuff has gone down between then and now. For a quick summary I find this page pretty good; it's the fantasy news summary, and it does a good job of collecting the stories related to the Saga of Vick. I have to say, this is a pretty epic self-destruct on his part. If I ever start to go off the rails, I hope that my failures aren't nearly this interesting.
So to answer your actual question, Bill, I think that he might one day get signed by the Miami Dolphins. But that won't be this year, next year, or probably the year afterwards either. My guess is that VIck won't be back in the NFL this decade. Ask again in 2010, assuming I'm still doing this then.
Q: Karyn Graves - Say I have some old (10+ years) homemade mix tapes (yes, cassette). I believe they were all made using properly purchased musical recordings. (A side question: if not - like if they were off the radio, would that be illegal?) If I am legal up to this point (keeping the tapes in my own possession), I assume it is illegal to sell those homemade tapes with all the new legislation? Is it also illegal to give them away for free?
A: To find the answers to this question I went right to the RIAA website. It's a good source of music copyright stuff from the consumer side of things. Regardless of your opinions about the RIAA, they are the law on these matters, so they warrent listening to. I am making the assumption for the duration of this question that you're talking about music that's copyrighted in some way. There are no restrictions on non-copyrighted music, such as the stuff my band has put out, or that I've recorded on my own.
Now, you are allowed by the RIAA to make a tape duplication of a CD, or to mix and match tracks from CDs onto tape for personal use only. So you’re legally in the clear with the mix tapes that you have. However, if you were to sell those tapes you would be breaking the law. As I read it, you would also be breaking the law if you were to give the tapes away. I think that the only way that would be legal is if you gave the person the CDs that you used to make the tape in the first place along with the tape itself. Which defeats the purpose of making the mix tape in the first place. As to recording music off of the radio, I think that's also illegal, even for non-commercial purposes.
Your question got me thinking about what I feel is the lost art of the mix tape. I too engaged in the activity of making mix tapes, sitting in my room for several hours carefully selecting songs and recording them on my JVC stereo. I made them for friends and now-ex-girlfriends, and I really enjoyed it. It allowed me to express myself musically, and it also got me interested in audio engineering and the art of mixing.
Unfortunately I think that the art of the mix tape is one that is sadly lost forever. With the advent of digital music, the mix tape has been relegated to the dustbin of history. That makes me sad, now that I think about it. I enjoyed the process of making a mix tape. You only had 60 or 90 minutes to work with, and that was it. It made song selection very important, and pacing was always an interesting challenge. Nowadays you can just make a playlist that goes on virtually forever. Sure, you can simulate the experience of a mix tape, but it's just not the same.
Do I feel old now? You bet I do!
Q: Adam Barnello - BluRay or HDDVD?
A: Next week. I don't have the energy for this question right now, so I'll take a rain check. Sorry, Barn. Check back soon.
A: At the time that this question was asked I would have said “a week.” But a lot of stuff has gone down between then and now. For a quick summary I find this page pretty good; it's the fantasy news summary, and it does a good job of collecting the stories related to the Saga of Vick. I have to say, this is a pretty epic self-destruct on his part. If I ever start to go off the rails, I hope that my failures aren't nearly this interesting.
So to answer your actual question, Bill, I think that he might one day get signed by the Miami Dolphins. But that won't be this year, next year, or probably the year afterwards either. My guess is that VIck won't be back in the NFL this decade. Ask again in 2010, assuming I'm still doing this then.
Q: Karyn Graves - Say I have some old (10+ years) homemade mix tapes (yes, cassette). I believe they were all made using properly purchased musical recordings. (A side question: if not - like if they were off the radio, would that be illegal?) If I am legal up to this point (keeping the tapes in my own possession), I assume it is illegal to sell those homemade tapes with all the new legislation? Is it also illegal to give them away for free?
A: To find the answers to this question I went right to the RIAA website. It's a good source of music copyright stuff from the consumer side of things. Regardless of your opinions about the RIAA, they are the law on these matters, so they warrent listening to. I am making the assumption for the duration of this question that you're talking about music that's copyrighted in some way. There are no restrictions on non-copyrighted music, such as the stuff my band has put out, or that I've recorded on my own.
Now, you are allowed by the RIAA to make a tape duplication of a CD, or to mix and match tracks from CDs onto tape for personal use only. So you’re legally in the clear with the mix tapes that you have. However, if you were to sell those tapes you would be breaking the law. As I read it, you would also be breaking the law if you were to give the tapes away. I think that the only way that would be legal is if you gave the person the CDs that you used to make the tape in the first place along with the tape itself. Which defeats the purpose of making the mix tape in the first place. As to recording music off of the radio, I think that's also illegal, even for non-commercial purposes.
Your question got me thinking about what I feel is the lost art of the mix tape. I too engaged in the activity of making mix tapes, sitting in my room for several hours carefully selecting songs and recording them on my JVC stereo. I made them for friends and now-ex-girlfriends, and I really enjoyed it. It allowed me to express myself musically, and it also got me interested in audio engineering and the art of mixing.
Unfortunately I think that the art of the mix tape is one that is sadly lost forever. With the advent of digital music, the mix tape has been relegated to the dustbin of history. That makes me sad, now that I think about it. I enjoyed the process of making a mix tape. You only had 60 or 90 minutes to work with, and that was it. It made song selection very important, and pacing was always an interesting challenge. Nowadays you can just make a playlist that goes on virtually forever. Sure, you can simulate the experience of a mix tape, but it's just not the same.
Do I feel old now? You bet I do!
Q: Adam Barnello - BluRay or HDDVD?
A: Next week. I don't have the energy for this question right now, so I'll take a rain check. Sorry, Barn. Check back soon.
Monday, August 20, 2007
25 - Answer(s)
And now, a special All Babies edition! I feel pretty ridiculous answering these, given my current status as an unmarried childless male, but I'll give it a shot.
Q: Eric Democko - On what date, and at what time will our baby be born? (due date=2/11/08)
A: As far as I understand, children of first-time mothers are often born late. I was born about a week late, and pretty much every mother I can think of had a similar experience. With that information in mind, I think tacking a few days on to your date would be wise, so my guess is going to be 2/16/08.
While we're on this topic, I think it might be time for a Jolinko Baby Pool. Maybe when you two get closer to your delivery date you could set that up. It could certainly be a fun way to pass the time.
Q: Nicole Maloney - while we're on the topic of babies... Lucas will be 1 year old on 8/29, should I have another one now, or wait? :-) hehehehe
A: First, congratulations to you and Glenn for getting through your first year as parents, and also happy birthday to Lucas. I hope that he remains a happy and healthy baby, at least until it's time for him to become a toddler :).
The wording of your question tells me that you've already decided to have more children, which is something I wholeheartedly support. Children should have siblings; I have a younger sister, and she made growing up a lot more interesting. We've had our share of good times and bad, but on the whole I wouldn't trade her in for anything. I'm sure that everyone here who has siblings will tell similar stories. So I think that your desire for more children is a good thing, and I say go for it!
As to timing, there are many theories out there, and I won't pretend to be an expert on any of them. Some people think that you should space them out by three or four (or more) years, while others think that you should have them in quick succession. I also know of several couples that had one or two children early, then waited another ten years before having more. I'm not sure I like that; doing it that way almost creates two separate families due to the large differences in age between the children. With that said, the decision is obviously one best left to you and Glenn. Now that you've been through pregnancy you know what to expect, and thus you're better prepared for the experience. On the other hand, this time you'll have a one year-old to deal with at the same time, which I'm sure will complicate things greatly.
So what's my answer? I guess I think you should have another child sooner rather than later, but again, it's your call. Best of luck, you two!
Q: Eric Democko - On what date, and at what time will our baby be born? (due date=2/11/08)
A: As far as I understand, children of first-time mothers are often born late. I was born about a week late, and pretty much every mother I can think of had a similar experience. With that information in mind, I think tacking a few days on to your date would be wise, so my guess is going to be 2/16/08.
While we're on this topic, I think it might be time for a Jolinko Baby Pool. Maybe when you two get closer to your delivery date you could set that up. It could certainly be a fun way to pass the time.
Q: Nicole Maloney - while we're on the topic of babies... Lucas will be 1 year old on 8/29, should I have another one now, or wait? :-) hehehehe
A: First, congratulations to you and Glenn for getting through your first year as parents, and also happy birthday to Lucas. I hope that he remains a happy and healthy baby, at least until it's time for him to become a toddler :).
The wording of your question tells me that you've already decided to have more children, which is something I wholeheartedly support. Children should have siblings; I have a younger sister, and she made growing up a lot more interesting. We've had our share of good times and bad, but on the whole I wouldn't trade her in for anything. I'm sure that everyone here who has siblings will tell similar stories. So I think that your desire for more children is a good thing, and I say go for it!
As to timing, there are many theories out there, and I won't pretend to be an expert on any of them. Some people think that you should space them out by three or four (or more) years, while others think that you should have them in quick succession. I also know of several couples that had one or two children early, then waited another ten years before having more. I'm not sure I like that; doing it that way almost creates two separate families due to the large differences in age between the children. With that said, the decision is obviously one best left to you and Glenn. Now that you've been through pregnancy you know what to expect, and thus you're better prepared for the experience. On the other hand, this time you'll have a one year-old to deal with at the same time, which I'm sure will complicate things greatly.
So what's my answer? I guess I think you should have another child sooner rather than later, but again, it's your call. Best of luck, you two!
Monday, August 6, 2007
24 - Answer(s): Part 2
Q: Karyn Graves - Do other countries have as big of an issue with gay marriage as we do over here? Do they have laws about it?
A: I’m going to start my answer to this question with a bit of a lecture on etymology. I intend to dedicate an entire chapter in my book to the subject of words, their definitions, and their commonly understood meanings. I find the topic to be both fascinating and frustrating. Fascinating because the evolution of the meanings of words says a lot about our culture. Frustrating because that same evolution can make civilized discussion of important issues impossible.
Let’s start with some definitions, because unless we agree on language we can’t have a conversation. The first thing to understand with this issue is that there is no such thing as “gay marriage”. The word “gay” is commonly understood to mean a person who is homosexual. The definition of “homosexual” is a person who achieves sexual satisfaction with a person of the same gender. The definition of “marriage” is the union of one man with one woman. Note that this definition also covers a person having multiple spouses; each pairing is technically still the union of one man and one woman. I’m not going to get into a discussion of why that is the definition, nor will I waste time trying to rationalize. I simply state that the definition of the word “marriage” is “the union of one man with one woman.”
Because of these definitions the term “homosexual marriage” is rendered meaningless. How can you have a “marriage” (the union of a man and a woman) between two people of the same sex? It’s impossible.
Strawman Alert: “Oh, so you’re opposed to two happily committed gay people living together, huh? HOMOPHOBE!” Folks, read what I wrote. Did I say that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to live together? No. What business of mine is it who lives with whom? Furthermore, did I give any indication of my feelings towards homosexuals? No. What does it matter what I think about homosexuality? I'm just a man with a keyboard. It’s precisely this irrationality and ad-hominum thinking that makes discussing this issue hard. So let’s all just keep cool and rational about this.
I’ll turn the question back around: Why do homosexuals want the word “marriage” to be redefined? I don’t have an answer to that question, and won’t presume to speak for the homosexual community. If I were forced to guess I would say that the re-definition is being sought after to make homosexuality more “normal”. In the end, I believe that words have meanings. If we want to create a new institution to recognize the union of two people of the same sex, then that new institution should be given its own word.
With all of that out of the way I can finally get to your question. In order to fully answer it I must first outline how other nations deal with homosexual marriage. The information that follows was taken from ReligiousTolerance.org. There’s a lot more there, but this quick summary will serve my needs well.
Holland expanded their definition of marriage to include same-sex couples in April of 2001. Belgium did the same in January of 2003. Canada instituted homosexual marriage starting in the province of Ontario in June of 2003, and in July of 2005 it had become federal law. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marriage in June of 2005.
These are the only countries (along with South Africa) in which homosexual marriage is enshrined in law. There are other nations which allow civil unions, including England, France, and parts of Australia. For a complete picture of the world-wide state of homosexual marriage, see the Wikipedia article here. Among other information, I particularly liked the world map they provide.
On the other side of the tolerance coin, nations that follow sharia law (the law of the Islamic faith) have no tolerance for homosexuals. Nations that follow this include Saudi Arabia and Iran. Homosexuality is illegal, and punishable by death (typically by stoning). In a sense, that is how they deal with homosexual marriage.
The wording of your question also points to an underlying tension in American society. There is indeed a “problem” with homosexual marriage, but it’s a distinctly American problem. Let me explain, starting with a statement that some may disagree with: America is not a bigoted, racist country. Does this means that the country is free of bigots and racists? Of course not. But the society of America as a whole is a very tolerant one. Part of the problem with this discussion is that unrelated issues are being blurred together. Americans as a whole are tolerant of homosexuality. That is a private sexual issue. That tolerance of homosexuality, however, does not extend into the public realm of marriage.
How the issue is being handled is also very un-American. The decision whether or not to redefine marriage is not being handled by the American people, but rather by a group that I will call “the elite”. By and large, Americans do not like to be told what to do by anyone, especially people whom they see as not representative of their views. By attempting to force homosexual marriage on the populace through the courts, the activists have sewn the seeds of their undoing. Already there is a substantial backlash to this, and it will grow over time.
So how will this issue be ultimately resolved? I have no idea. That’s a subject for another question.
A: I’m going to start my answer to this question with a bit of a lecture on etymology. I intend to dedicate an entire chapter in my book to the subject of words, their definitions, and their commonly understood meanings. I find the topic to be both fascinating and frustrating. Fascinating because the evolution of the meanings of words says a lot about our culture. Frustrating because that same evolution can make civilized discussion of important issues impossible.
Let’s start with some definitions, because unless we agree on language we can’t have a conversation. The first thing to understand with this issue is that there is no such thing as “gay marriage”. The word “gay” is commonly understood to mean a person who is homosexual. The definition of “homosexual” is a person who achieves sexual satisfaction with a person of the same gender. The definition of “marriage” is the union of one man with one woman. Note that this definition also covers a person having multiple spouses; each pairing is technically still the union of one man and one woman. I’m not going to get into a discussion of why that is the definition, nor will I waste time trying to rationalize. I simply state that the definition of the word “marriage” is “the union of one man with one woman.”
Because of these definitions the term “homosexual marriage” is rendered meaningless. How can you have a “marriage” (the union of a man and a woman) between two people of the same sex? It’s impossible.
Strawman Alert: “Oh, so you’re opposed to two happily committed gay people living together, huh? HOMOPHOBE!” Folks, read what I wrote. Did I say that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to live together? No. What business of mine is it who lives with whom? Furthermore, did I give any indication of my feelings towards homosexuals? No. What does it matter what I think about homosexuality? I'm just a man with a keyboard. It’s precisely this irrationality and ad-hominum thinking that makes discussing this issue hard. So let’s all just keep cool and rational about this.
I’ll turn the question back around: Why do homosexuals want the word “marriage” to be redefined? I don’t have an answer to that question, and won’t presume to speak for the homosexual community. If I were forced to guess I would say that the re-definition is being sought after to make homosexuality more “normal”. In the end, I believe that words have meanings. If we want to create a new institution to recognize the union of two people of the same sex, then that new institution should be given its own word.
With all of that out of the way I can finally get to your question. In order to fully answer it I must first outline how other nations deal with homosexual marriage. The information that follows was taken from ReligiousTolerance.org. There’s a lot more there, but this quick summary will serve my needs well.
Holland expanded their definition of marriage to include same-sex couples in April of 2001. Belgium did the same in January of 2003. Canada instituted homosexual marriage starting in the province of Ontario in June of 2003, and in July of 2005 it had become federal law. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marriage in June of 2005.
These are the only countries (along with South Africa) in which homosexual marriage is enshrined in law. There are other nations which allow civil unions, including England, France, and parts of Australia. For a complete picture of the world-wide state of homosexual marriage, see the Wikipedia article here. Among other information, I particularly liked the world map they provide.
On the other side of the tolerance coin, nations that follow sharia law (the law of the Islamic faith) have no tolerance for homosexuals. Nations that follow this include Saudi Arabia and Iran. Homosexuality is illegal, and punishable by death (typically by stoning). In a sense, that is how they deal with homosexual marriage.
The wording of your question also points to an underlying tension in American society. There is indeed a “problem” with homosexual marriage, but it’s a distinctly American problem. Let me explain, starting with a statement that some may disagree with: America is not a bigoted, racist country. Does this means that the country is free of bigots and racists? Of course not. But the society of America as a whole is a very tolerant one. Part of the problem with this discussion is that unrelated issues are being blurred together. Americans as a whole are tolerant of homosexuality. That is a private sexual issue. That tolerance of homosexuality, however, does not extend into the public realm of marriage.
How the issue is being handled is also very un-American. The decision whether or not to redefine marriage is not being handled by the American people, but rather by a group that I will call “the elite”. By and large, Americans do not like to be told what to do by anyone, especially people whom they see as not representative of their views. By attempting to force homosexual marriage on the populace through the courts, the activists have sewn the seeds of their undoing. Already there is a substantial backlash to this, and it will grow over time.
So how will this issue be ultimately resolved? I have no idea. That’s a subject for another question.
Monday, May 14, 2007
24 - Answer(s)
Q: Bill Jeffers - No pussy footing around this time-Who wins the Stanley Cup? And you're not allowed to wait until it's over to answer OR give a wise-ass answer about the team who scores more goals in the deciding game. I want to put your prognostacability to the test.
A: I deliberately waited to answer this question, but I didn't mean to wait for this long. Before Thursday I would have said the Sabres are going to win the Stanley Cup without a doubt. After going 0-2 at home this weekend, I'm not as sure as I was. However, I'm going to stick with that prediction. The Sabres are going to win the Stanley Cup. They will beat the Detroit Red Wings in 6 games. That is the official prediction. Any money lost by betting based on my predictions, however, is your own fault.
Q: Nicole Maloney - Why do slugs melt when you dump salt on them?
A: Slugs produce a large quantity of moisture in the form of slime. This allows them to climb, and to move in general. When salt is poured onto a slug, it has the effect of sucking the moisture from their bodies. Therefore, the slug will die from dehydration very rapidly, which creates the appearance of "melting".
Q: Karyn Graves - Do other countries have as big of an issue with gay marriage as we do over here? Do they have laws about it?
A: This is a great question. One that allows me to talk at length about all manner of subjects. Sadly, I'm not ready to post yet. But when I am, you'll get your answer. Short version: the majority of other countries have a bigger issue with gay marriage than we do, in that the majority of other countries are openly hostile to homosexuals in general. But I'll get more into this later.
A: I deliberately waited to answer this question, but I didn't mean to wait for this long. Before Thursday I would have said the Sabres are going to win the Stanley Cup without a doubt. After going 0-2 at home this weekend, I'm not as sure as I was. However, I'm going to stick with that prediction. The Sabres are going to win the Stanley Cup. They will beat the Detroit Red Wings in 6 games. That is the official prediction. Any money lost by betting based on my predictions, however, is your own fault.
Q: Nicole Maloney - Why do slugs melt when you dump salt on them?
A: Slugs produce a large quantity of moisture in the form of slime. This allows them to climb, and to move in general. When salt is poured onto a slug, it has the effect of sucking the moisture from their bodies. Therefore, the slug will die from dehydration very rapidly, which creates the appearance of "melting".
Q: Karyn Graves - Do other countries have as big of an issue with gay marriage as we do over here? Do they have laws about it?
A: This is a great question. One that allows me to talk at length about all manner of subjects. Sadly, I'm not ready to post yet. But when I am, you'll get your answer. Short version: the majority of other countries have a bigger issue with gay marriage than we do, in that the majority of other countries are openly hostile to homosexuals in general. But I'll get more into this later.
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, March 1, 2007
21 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Where can I get a cheap bubble hockey table?
A: There are many locations on the internets that offer bubble hockey tables. Your definition of the word "cheap" dictates which of them to choose. Below is a quick and dirty list:
http://www.americansupersports.com/stick-hockey-tables/bubble-hockey-tables.html
http://www.gametablesusa.com/
http://www.justairhockeytables.com/
In addition, I'd suggest looking at places like craigslist.com and ebay.
Q: Karyn Graves - Does the technology exist for the production of vehicles (that can hold more than 1 person) and can get at least 70mpg (electric/diesel/whatever)? How long will it be before they are mass produced and people actually buy them?
A: Let me be the first to say that I am by no means qualified to answer this question. Actually, I'm not really qualified to answer most of the questions I get, but I'll give this one some thought.
I suspect that the answer to your first question is yes. Automotive companies put millions of dollars into research every year. I expect that there are some fancy engines under development that can push fuel economies to new and uncharted heights. But if that's the case, then why haven't these technologies made their way onto our driveways? I suspect that the answer is that the cost of these technologies outweighs the benefits. Sure, you can have a car that gets 100mpg, but if it costs $200,000, who wants it?
As to the question of when these technologies (assuming they exist) will become available, I think the answer is "as soon as they're ready". I'm not someone who thinks that there is some grand conspiracy between oil companies and car manufacturers. It just doesn't make sense to me. If a car company had the technology to make a car that could get 100mpg and cost roughly the same as an existing car, they would release it, and it would sell like hotcakes.
Sorry this answer is fairly incomplete. I'll give it some more thought, and if I come up with anything else I'll post an addendum.
A: There are many locations on the internets that offer bubble hockey tables. Your definition of the word "cheap" dictates which of them to choose. Below is a quick and dirty list:
http://www.americansupersports.com/stick-hockey-tables/bubble-hockey-tables.html
http://www.gametablesusa.com/
http://www.justairhockeytables.com/
In addition, I'd suggest looking at places like craigslist.com and ebay.
Q: Karyn Graves - Does the technology exist for the production of vehicles (that can hold more than 1 person) and can get at least 70mpg (electric/diesel/whatever)? How long will it be before they are mass produced and people actually buy them?
A: Let me be the first to say that I am by no means qualified to answer this question. Actually, I'm not really qualified to answer most of the questions I get, but I'll give this one some thought.
I suspect that the answer to your first question is yes. Automotive companies put millions of dollars into research every year. I expect that there are some fancy engines under development that can push fuel economies to new and uncharted heights. But if that's the case, then why haven't these technologies made their way onto our driveways? I suspect that the answer is that the cost of these technologies outweighs the benefits. Sure, you can have a car that gets 100mpg, but if it costs $200,000, who wants it?
As to the question of when these technologies (assuming they exist) will become available, I think the answer is "as soon as they're ready". I'm not someone who thinks that there is some grand conspiracy between oil companies and car manufacturers. It just doesn't make sense to me. If a car company had the technology to make a car that could get 100mpg and cost roughly the same as an existing car, they would release it, and it would sell like hotcakes.
Sorry this answer is fairly incomplete. I'll give it some more thought, and if I come up with anything else I'll post an addendum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)